Wednesday, March 23, 2011

When in Doubt, Just Mention Lynching: A Reliance on Lies Dooms BRA

The past converging with the present: an eternal parade that induces white guilt
We have finally reached a breaking at SBPDL. In a mad rush to edit A Black Nordic God in Thor? and have it ready in time for the May release of Thor, a number of stories of pressing importance have been neglected.

That cops in Miami are plagued with a plethora of Black criminals that warrant shooting (isn’t this problem in New Orleans too?) yet haven’t located a sufficient amount of white criminals to discharge their weapons is somehow a Civil Rights problem:
A few weeks later, a Miami police officer shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop at North Miami Avenue and 75th Street in the Little Haiti neighborhood. The man, Travis McNeil, 28, was unarmed and never left the driver’s seat of his rental car when he was shot once in the chest, members of his family said.

Mr. McNeil was the seventh African-American man to be shot and killed by Miami police officers in eight months. The shootings in this racially polarized city have led to marches on the Police Department’s headquarters and calls for a Justice Department investigation, and the city manager has initiated an investigation into the chief’s record.

After pushing for action for weeks, the families of the seven shooting victims will speak at a City Commission meeting on Thursday. Some families are demanding that Chief Exposito be dismissed.

“I don’t understand how the powers that be can allow these things to keep happening,” Sheila McNeil, the mother of Mr. McNeil, said of the Feb. 10 shooting death of her son. “Something is drastically wrong.”
Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime and they have a tendency to not cooperate with police. This is a recipe for disaster. That white people in Miami (are there any left?) fail to become casualties by the bullets of police is the real story here.

In Black Run America (BRA) the sins of the past are far greater than the sins of today. That police once brutalized Black people is grounds for the continued myth that permeates through the entire Black community that all police prey upon the Black community with impunity.

In reality, police try and protect law-abiding Black citizens from a large criminal presence in their midst that preys upon them, but Black people see an attack on one as an attack on all.

BRA must live in the past, constantly pulling up stories (of dubious merit) in an attempt to psychological defeat white people by instilling vast amounts of guilt upon their already overburdened souls. This story out of Alabama is a perfect example of this tactic:
Nearly 70 years after Recy Taylor was raped by a gang of white men, leaders of the rural southeast Alabama community where it happened apologized Monday, acknowledging that her attackers escaped prosecution because of racism and an investigation bungled by police.

"It is apparent that the system failed you in 1944," Henry County probate judge and commission chairwoman JoAnn Smith told several of Taylor's relatives at a news conference at the county courthouse.

Taylor, 91, lives in Florida and did not attend the news conference. Family members said she was in poor health and was not up to traveling to Abbeville or speaking with reporters. But her 74-year-old brother Robert Corbitt, who still lives in town, was front and center and said he would relay the apology to his sister.

"What happened to my sister way back then ... couldn't happen today," he said. "Boy, what a mess they made out of it. They tried to make her look like a whore and she was a Christian lady."

Taylor, who is black, told The Associated Press in an interview last year that she believes the men who attacked her are dead, but she would still like an apology from the state. The AP does not typically identify victims of sexual assault but is using her name because she has publicly identified herself.
Following Taylor’s logic, do the thousands of white victims of Black rape that occurred last year deserve an apology from the state? The statistics on interracial rape are mind-boggling and so one-sided that a story 70-years-old had to be dragged out of retirement in a bid to pile on the white guilt.
Worse is the continued reliance on the myth of lynching to browbeat white people into submission. Take this story from Diversityinc.com:
The migration of Blacks from the American South to the North is "the greatest untold story of the 20th century," Pulitzer Prize–winning author Isabel Wilkerson said to an audience of CEOs and senior executives at DiversityInc's event in Washington, D.C.

Her book, "The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration," is about Blacks' emigration from the South between 1915 and 1970 to escape a "mercurial" caste system of color that threatened violence daily. "An African American was lynched every four days," Wilkerson said. "That was the price of maintaining the caste system."

Wilkerson talked about how the migration of Blacks was much like the migration of Europeans, Asians and Latinos to the U.S. -- the journey was about freedom to express and to build on their talents.
Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Milwaukee and other Northern cities are poignant reminders and examples of that “great migration’s” legacy and, more importantly, Black people building on their talent. Just look at the state of Detroit before their arrival and after the exodus of whites from that city. 

Talent indeed! Black people are fleeing a city they ruined in search of white suburbs to bring their talents to that popped up around Detroit once white people fled. 



Their track record for making once-world class cities -- like Detroit -- and turning them into, well, the Detroit of today is widely known. That Black people now move to suburbs in the South is sad reminder that the fate of Clayton County will soon befall many other once prosperous counties in the South.

But Wilkerson’s claim of “a Black person lynched every four days” must not go unchallenged. Dwight Murphey explained the reality of lynching’s in a monograph he published that we must now cite to refute the pathetic scholarship of Pulitzer Prize-winning Wilkerson, who only won because her work buttresses the system of oppression known as BRA:
Robert L. Zangrando cites figures for the much longer period of 1882-1968 in his book The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950. Again, his statistics, which he reports were given to him by the Tuskegee Institute, differ somewhat from the other two lists where they overlap. His total figure for 1890, say, is 96, with 11 being white and 85 black. The NAACP's report of 91 was based on 3 whites and 88 blacks. So we again have reason to take the specifics with caution. Just the same, the order of magnitude is indicated by his 87-year total of 4,742, of which 1,297 were white and 3,445 black. Of equal significance is the declining numbers shown over the years: prior to 1902, there was only one year (1890) with less than 100; prior to 1923, only one year ((1917) with less than 50; prior to 1932, no years with less than 10.
But after a brief increase in 1933, 1934 and 1935, there were always less than ten, and the list dwindles slowly to zero. In effect, lynching ceased to be a major phenomenon by the turn of the century, and had pretty much come to an end by the mid-1930s. If, too, it were seen on a per capita basis in light of total population, the decline would be even more dramatic. (The population of the United States doubled from 30 million in 1860 to 60 million in 1890.) The decline came first in the West and Northeast, and soon thereafter in the South.
As we noted in an article on crime decreasing though unemployment was rising, Black crime has remained a pernicious problem in America for well over a century. Let’s continue further into our exploration of lynching:
In Lynching – History and Analysis (1995) Wichita State University professor Dwight Murphey refutes the case that lynchings were largely a result white of racism. People often resorted to lynching because the authorities were a long ride away, and President Andrew Jackson himself sanctioned the practice when he recommended to Iowa settlers that they lynch murderers. Likewise in Kansas, a New York Tribune correspondent reported in 1858 that "[t]here is a very general disposition to pass over the hopelessly useless forms of Territorial law and corrupt Federal courts, and try these parties (i.e. horse-thieves) by Lynch law."

Prof. Murphey notes that contrary to current assumptions, blacks also formed lynch gangs, mostly to lynch blacks, but sometimes to lynch whites. In Clarksdale, Tennessee, blacks lynched a white in 1914 for raping a black woman. The authorities later ruled that this was justifiable homicide. In 1872 in Chicot County, Arkansas, armed blacks broke three whites out of jail and shot them to death.

Nor was lynching by any means a sport in which any black was fair game. In Tennessee in 1911, four white men hanged a black man and his two daughters for no good reason. This outrage roused the ire of the community; the whites were tried and two were hanged.

It is true that blacks were lynched more often than whites, but, as is the case today, blacks were also more likely to commit violent crimes, so even if lynching had been entirely race-blind, the number of executions would still have been racially unbalanced. Prof. Murphey cites black homicide rates in 1921-22 for Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis and New Orleans per 100,000 that were 102.2, 97.2, 116.9 and 46.7 respectively. This corresponded to white rates of 15.0, 28.0, 29.6, and 8.4. According to Murphey, “These figures are eloquent testimony that serious crime was the primary provocation for lynching.” Even W.E.B. DuBois wrote disparagingly of "a class of black criminals, loafers, and ne'er-do-wells who are a menace to their fellows, both black and white."

Wilkerson throws out – and is uncontested in her assertion and awarded for her efforts– an arbitrary number of Blacks being lynched at a rate of one every four days. That equals 91 per year. As we learned, the 87-year total of 4,742 lynching’s broke down to 1,297 being white and 3,445 being black (hate to break it to you, but lynchings were primarily a reaction to lawlessness and criminality).

That equates to a Black person being lynched once every nine days (some years had higher rates of lynchings). That high rates of Black crime might have necessitated swift justice is never a plausible answer; only white racism can equate for lynching.

That whites were lynched at a rate of one every 26th day doesn’t matter to those peddling the lynching guilt card. Take a look at this syllabus from a University of Cincinnati (on class on the history of lynching) which places the blame for lynchings on only white racism. Trying to deter high rates of Black criminality could never be considered a reason for the lynching of any Black person; only white racism can be blamed.

Consequently, that whites aren’t being shot at the same rate as New Orleans and Miami’s Black criminals are is a monumental problem that can only be solved with the shooting of more white criminals.

Better find some quick!

America has become such a colossal joke, that sometimes you just have to laugh. But, hey, the American Dream came true.

It is our belief that white guilt is quickly eroding in Black Run America.  If positive images of Black people derived from sports and popular culture (Black Fictional Heroes) helped created BRA, then white guilt is the mortar that holds it all together, sustaining it.







View more videos at: http://www.nbcmiami.com.

95 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Great Negro Migration. Who cares?? Who effing cares????????????

Anonymous said...

To the poor persecuted and profiled African Americans of Miami..... So cops have been singling you guys out for shooting, eh? Well who commits most of the violent crimes there? I'll tell you...I am quite certain that it's the same segment of the population that is responsible for killing a policemen(a husband & father of two) yesterday in Athens, Georgia and critically wounding another.

D J said...

I am using Firefox on a Windows 7 machine. Everything below "disparagingly of "a class of black criminals, loafers, and ne'er-do-wells who are a menace to their fellows, both black and white." " has part of the left side of each paragraph obstructed by the place for popular posts, about-me, etc.

D J said...

Never mind; it reads okay when clicked for comments.

Hirsch said...

"Taylor, who is black, told The Associated Press in an interview last year that she believes the men who attacked her are dead, but she would still like an apology from the state."

I'm just relieved that she didn't ask for a shoebox filled with twenty dollar bills and pick-three lotto tickets.

I'm sure that since Holder has sanctioned the lowering of standards on police entrance exams, and as we see more blacks entering the force, we will get the kind of parity he wants in his desire to see more whites shot by the cops.

For anyone who hasn't seen "Cocaine Cowboys" it is mandatory viewing for understanding police corruption. The whole thing is available at documentarystorm.com and it really shows what happens when you lower the eligibility standards. Dade County was so desperate for patrolmen that they waved disqualifying criteria regarding drug testing and arrest records. As a result, an ENTIRE CLASS of graduating policemen was at one point put on suspension, arrested or fired. They wound up with the largest police corruption scandal the state had seen.

Thanks to Holder the nation should now brace for the appearance of hundreds of black Chief Wiggums.

Anonymous said...

About Travis McNeil:

McNeil boasted a criminal history that included 36 arrests since 1995, records show. In 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison for fleeing and eluding police and selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school.

He was released in February 2008, but by August of that year, his probation was revoked when he was arrested for driving with a suspended license as a habitual traffic offender. McNeil served another 364 days in county jail.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget outrageous thievery as the reliance of faith for BRA.

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/12/the-%E2%80%9Cpigford%E2%80%9D-fraud-on-the-american-taxpayer/

Suspicious claims also permeated Track B claimants. One claim in particular stands out: that of a couple known as Charles and Shirley Sherrod. Between 1969 and 1985, the Sherrods ran a 6,000 acre cooperative farm in Georgia named New Communities, Inc. (“NCI”). NCI had a bad history of worker abuse (long hours, low pay and unsafe conditions) as detailed by a former SNCC organizer named Ron Wilkins who’d gone undercover in 1974 to investigate NCI. The Sherrods retaliated by having Wilkins arrested on bogus charges (which were later dropped).[8] Their mistreatment of him triggered an investigation by the Emergency Land Fund and the United Farm Workers who found that the Sherrods forced workers (many of whom were children under the age of 16) to “work behind machines spraying lethal pesticides…(paying them) from $.67 to $1.63 per hour, put in unnecessary overtime, on a half-hour’s notice, at ungodly hours…”[9] As a result of the UFW’s report, the Sherrods were forced to reimburse their workers for unpaid wages.

In 1985, NCI collapsed. But in 1997, NCI was revived on paper as the Sherrods put in a Track B claim. The Sherrods ultimately received the largest single payout in “Pigford” – $13 million. The award consisted of $8,247,560 for loss of land, $4,241,602 for loss of income, and $150,000 awarded to each of the Sherrods “for pain and suffering”. There was also an unspecified amount for forgiveness of debt.[10]

The $13 million awarded the Sherrods contrasts with second highest Track B award which was just $675,000. It is also interesting to note that three days after the Sherrod’s claim was announced on July 22, 2009, Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by the USDA. The mystery deepens when one discovers that only months after her appointment, her husband was suddenly granted (after years of waiting) an FCC license to operate a black-owned radio station in rural Georgia.

---

It is ironic that, like General Pettigrew in search of shoes for his men, Shirley Sherrod went in search of the media to support her threatened lawsuit against Breitbart. Instead, she collided with an angry public enraged by a class-action suit which had enriched her to the tune of $13 million. As the media uncovered the even bigger cost of “Pigford”, the anger grew so bad that Ms. Sherrod beat a hasty retreat.

It is safe to say that had Ms. Sherrod not gone in search of the media that day in July, President Obama would not have lost the secrecy necessary to approve the additional $1.25 billion for “Pigford II” without public uproar. But she did and now he has.

Anonymous said...

Did you see the clip of Whoopie Goldberg freaking out when Donald Trump was on "The View" yesterday? Trump said he would like to see 0bama's birth certificate and Whoopie could only come back with "no white politician would ever have to do that". You are correct, SBPDL. The jig is is just almost up.

South East Asian said...

WTF man!

Why are black people forever unhappy?

They don't like it they can go to some other countries like in europe where it's super welfare!

Do they know how many people around the world wants a green card?

Steve said...

"It is our belief that white guilt is quickly eroding in Black Run America. If positive images of Black people derived from sports and popular culture (Black Fictional Heroes) helped created BRA, then white guilt is the mortar that holds it all together, sustaining it"

Very well said. If and its a big IF one day white guilt disappears blacks will be begging for us to repatriate them back to Africa.

oh and thanks for getting rid of that idiot Desiree.

investorcs said...

In order to promote itself, liberalism has always glommed onto past excesses such as lynchings that were already being discarded. Liberalism was allowed to come into being for the purpose of self-correction to Western mistakes such as neglect of the commons, various brutal aspects of slavery, and some of the more extreme forms of colonialism. Since even the perpetrators of these negative aspects could also admit that they were extreme, they allowed liberalism to gain a toehold because it seemed to promise a reasonable correction, and because it was also assumed that liberalism would still permit the primary and often unstated traditions upon which society was based to continue. Such was the naive belief. However, liberalism either by design or through its own internal transformation, morphed into a more vicious attack on ALL of Western society, so that it now seeks to destroy all traditions and ideas believed to have in any way shape or form contributed to the prior excesses. A good example is affirmative action... it was sold as a way to set up equality of opportunity, but quickly developed into a forced equality of outcomes.

Since its inception, liberalism has steadily accrued power. It has employed an evolutionary strategy, i.e., progressivism; it has used tactics such as manipulation of language and semantics (e.g., overgeneralizations, false analogies) to gull a credulous, essentially good-hearted traditional populace into complacence, until they suddenly wake up to realize the rug has been pulled out from under them, at which point it is far to late to do anything about it. BRA is just one of the many vile fallouts from all this that we are living under today.

Anonymous said...

"What happened to my sister way back then ... couldn't happen today," he said. "Boy, what a mess they made out of it. They tried to make her look like a whore and she was a Christian lady."

Wait wait, it is not exactly what the New York Times did when more than 10 black raped an underage Hispanic girl?

And this happened today, not 100 yrs ago

Anonymous said...

"Did you see the clip of Whoopie Goldberg freaking out when Donald Trump was on "The View" yesterday?"

I saw it. She's a real piece of shit, predictably playing the race card.

North West European said...

Hello America, the old country that I have always loved, WTF happened?

SBPDL, thank you for this, and the many other informative posts. I find your blog especially informative as I live overseas. I realize that we are unfortunate enough not to share the joys of BRA, but we are growing stronger every year through all the diversity we get from muslim immigration. Soon this will be Muslim Run Europe, we could maybe have a competition over who are "most equal", or "least racist". Many laws in Europe treat Islam as a race, and the reason is obvious. Europe doesn't have a tradition for oppressing muslims in particular, though they do have a tradition for war, and past religious wars doesn't instill guilt as much as past racial grievances. I live in Scandinavia and this place never saw any slave trade, colonialism or lynchings, but what does it matter? Absolutely nothing, not even to whites, who are marxist DWLs.

In one conversation a young muslim man with a full beard (he was about 20) told me straight up that the reason whites have so much wealth is that they stole everything from the rest of the world. This left me speechless because I knew I would never get out of a discussion about facts, so I refrained from reminding him about the meek past, and lack of stealing/colonization/slavery/etc, in this country (Norway), and instead gave him a blank stare. It's useless to argue, I'm sure they see all of Europe as an imperial, warmongering, exclusive and privileged club of spoiled brats living it up on the spoils from their ancestors plunderings, and that they are owed a share of the wealth, simply by being muslim (or brown, because race matters more than religion, for now).

Drawing on the lessons from history, and gazing into the future, most can see that this will end in tears. When Europeans get angry they will rise up, but not like the tea party. It could very well be a fascist, truly racist (not the Alexandra Wallace "ching-chong-racism", but fully blown "get-your-stupid-muslim-ass-on-the-train-with-the-other-untermenchen-racism") and brutal uprising.

This would be a disaster, but it's one to prevent another. It's no solution though, Europe is fundamentally socialist and so will solve it's problems through violence. A nazi is just a really pissed of socialist, and white Europe's patience has been tried and stretched to the breaking point, witness the nationalist parties everywhere. My greatest hope for all the western world is that the US returns to IT'S roots, and that we may once again live free, right now only a few city states like Singapore and Hong-Kong can really call themselves free, and only economically. If we only had freedom the white marxists and multiculturalists would be powerless, that's why the tea party is our ONLY hope. A limited government restrained on all sides by a constitution that has the support of the people, THAT will solve everything without use of force (except in self defence). I also think the new US will be smaller, for obvious reasons, but so will Europe. Unless a full repatriation of all muslims happen (probably not), the muslim areas will be sealed off no-go zones that are outside the nazi/fascist welfare state.

Hirsch,
love your posts, keep'em coming, especially those with the excellent anecdotes

SBPDL,
again, thank you for writing all of this and creating this most useful and humorous site. Our generation's trials are before us, we need this blog.

N.W.E

PS.
Thank you also for getting rid of Desiree, I finally felt I could post without the points being butchered beyond recognition by child logic. Thank you so much!

Laz said...

Even though I disagree with everything spewed from the monster's mouth, I miss Desiree. There was fire in the comments section. She is a reminder of exactly what is wrong with this nation and western civilization in general.

@ Desiree: Hit me up and I'll take ya out for lunch At BK.

DGB said...

@ NWE

Here's a woman who disagrees with you completely.
Yes, they've been working both sides of the Atlantic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJuaTIZdUKc

Sheila said...

"A nazi is just a pissed-off socialist" (North West European). You obviously think European socialists truly will rise up, at some point, and unleash violence. I'm far more convinced it will be the other way around, both here and in Europe. There are far too many who are far too accustomed to groveling and apologizing and who fear guns and White self-esteem more than they fear feral blacks and Muslims. Yes, it will end in tears, but whose? Lenin's old question, who/whom? I really wish I was not living through the twilight of West European civilization.

Professor Snape said...

do the thousands of white victims of Black rape that occurred last year deserve an apology from the state? The statistics on interracial rape are mind-boggling and so one-sided

SBPDL, I have to take issue with this reactionary reliance on the black-on-white rape statistics. The article you linked - from a right-wing website - was patently disingenuous, and it stokes the flames of racial hatred.

The DOJ's rape stats (2005) clearly state that there were more white women "raped" by offenders appearing to be black - as is remarked in the index - than the inverse. No one is debating this. However, I put rape in quotation marks because the definitions, as used by DOJ statisticians, are a little muddled.

"Rape" includes the forcible violent act, but it also includes attempted rape, which encompasses "verbal threats" of rape. "Sexual assault" is generally defined as unwanted sexual contact, but also includes "verbal threats" and actions that were not perceivably forceful. Oddly enough, a lot of this is victim perception.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

So what you have here is a bunch of very hazy definitions of "rape" - including actual rape and actual groping - that are lumped together and used by those lacking the scruples to just delineate, who in turn call it all "rape".

The article you linked suggested that over 100 white women are targeted by black men each day in the US. That is, when understanding the definition for the stat, just unscrupulous! Sure, black women, as per the DOJ, are not being raped by white men in droves, and no one should suggest that, but the former is nothing more than a "gotcha" headline.

Some man saying, "Bitch, I'm gonna rape you," and the woman feeling threatened enough to report it, does not equal an actual rape or even an assault. So suggesting by virtue of that stat that black men are raping white women in droves, all things considered, is fear-mongering.

(1 of 2)....

Professor Snape said...

(2 of 2)....

Another note of importance is general rape/sexual assault facts. According to the DOJ (2009), 85% of female rapes/assualts occur without weapons, which indicates a level of familiarity between victim and offender. 79% of women knew the offenders. Of that, 41% of the offenders were intimate partners, such as spouses or boyfriends, and 39% were friends or acquaintances.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

SBPDL, all of this explanation is because I think you have continued this almost anachronistic "Birth of A Nation" mythology that lascivious black men are waiting in the shadows with erections to rape delicate white women. But the evidence complied by the DOJ just does not support this idea!

White women are more likely to be with black men than black women are to be white men (recall the comment onslaught against Kendra the Playmate in your "freak dancing" post). As the data suggests, women are raped/assaulted/verbally attacked by men they know, and mostly intimate partners. I reckon that if black women were involved more with white men - and they just are not, or are seemingly reluctant to do so - the resultant data in the DOJ index would not look like only 0-10 in a year are victims of white men. The index is highly reflective of the dating patterns of black women: ~100% of them reported same-raced offenders. White women, on the other hand, reported being victimized by men of all races.

The white women raped/assaulted by black men, as the stats suggest, were overwhelmingly attacked by their black intimate partners/acquaintances. Everything taken together just does not support this "scary black rapist" mythology. It is just the interracial reflection of standard rape facts; rape, like all crimes, is still very much intra-racial. We could easily debate whether blond men are more likely to rape than, say, red haired men and come up with the same outcome.

Focusing primarily on that DOJ statistic and the scare tactics that go along with it is just so misleading and, frankly, racist.

Professor Snape said...

What is the difference between a lynching "every 4 days" and a lynching "every 9 days"? It is still an exorbitant amount of lynching that is heavily weighted towards one side - black - and still suggests that Wilkerson was not wrong in her assertion, that racism, and not "criminality and lawlessness", was the major impetus in the follow-through of the lynchings.

Lynching is the process of ferreting out "justice" before the Justice system has the opportunity to do so. With this understanding, a black man could only be an alleged suspect in a crime - without having gone through even a systematic investigation by officials or courts - and end up a lynching victim.

Your justification for even the "lynching every 9 days" postulate is predicated upon the "blacks disproportionately commit crimes at higher rates" figure. That's fine, but it still does not make the "lynching caused by white racism" argument any less valid. The main motivation for burning, mutilating, stomping to death, and/or hanging black "criminals" was racial hatred.

I find it odd that you link to conservative websites, as if they offer an unbiased view of racial history. It's pretty much common knowledge that conservatives whitewash - no pun intended - America's racist past; they want no part of a racial discussion that would make whites look "bad".

Race-based lynching is not a "lie".

Silent Running said...

...without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

I think it was Buchanan who said that inevitability is the language of the tyrant.

She doesn't explain exactly how it was that Europe not only survived but thrived for centuries without brown people, or what makes our current scenario so different that Europe requires brownskins in order to stave off death.

In short, she has no argument. Not really. Every talking point was pure triumphalism. May she live to see her dream crushed.

North West European said...

"May she live to see her dream crushed."

If she stays in Sweden, insisting on seeing this mad experiment through, she will be like the Coptic Egyptians, surrounded by hostile muslims. Her smugness, the gloating grin when she talks about how Europe needs to learn from the clever multiculturalists makes me sick. Sweden is so far gone, Jews who can see are leaving in droves, "youths" set fire to everything (cars, schools etc) and attack emergency services, dropping massive rocks from overpasses onto the traffic below. This woman and her organization are just here for the death throws.

NWE

North West European said...

DGB,

What a disgusting clip, what a fucking bitch. "Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural" - YES WE HAVE, WE HATE IT!!

NWE

Anonymous said...

This Snape guy is the perfect deflector for black criminality. He runs interference for blacks and tries to divert attention from the obvious. I retired from the LAPD and in all the years I was there, I never took a rape or sexual assault case where the victim was black and the suspect white. Never. Never heard of it either. And this was not just the LAPD but other agencies as well. I cannot put into words the brutality that I encountered on a daily basis, you simply had to see it to believe it. Snape, and many others, rely on the media and authors for their stats. If you were to ride in a radio car and walk a foot beat for 20+ years your perspective would go from being an armchair sociologist to an enlightened, aware, cautious individual.

Anonymous said...

"The article you linked - from a right-wing website"
The information in the article is independent of where it is posted. If it was posted on the Disney website, it would not change the information in the article. It is a fact that mainstream media sites willfully avoid the black crime problem, and will not honestly address disproportionate black crime stats...presumably for fear of being called RACIST...so OF COURSE you're only going to read such articles on "right-wing" websites.

"was patently disingenuous"
It was patently HONEST, and was thoroughly sourced.

"and it stokes the flames of racial hatred."
Take your race-card, and shove it up your ass.
Racial hatred already exists, and it is effectuated by blacks against whites on a daily basis.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Snape wrote,

"I find it odd that you link to conservative websites, as if they offer an unbiased view of racial history. It's pretty much common knowledge that conservatives whitewash - no pun intended - America's racist past; they want no part of a racial discussion that would make whites look "bad".

Race-based lynching is not a "lie"."

I try and find articles that cite statistics from any source. If it is from The Nation, HuffPo, NPR, WND, FoxNews, CNN, etc., I'll link to it.

Not many people want to address the obvious disparities in interracial rape. Certainly no liberal Web site.

And yes, a "lynching" every nine days instead of every four days is a significant lie.

One number translates to 40 a year; the other 91.

Crime studies indicate that Black crime was just as bad 100 years ago in America, when the threat of lynching would ostensibly serve as a deterrent.

Yet crime studies show that the threat of lynching wasn't enough to stave off Black crime.

Sure, there were Black people lynched for "racist" reasons. But the facts of interracial crime and murder NOW would seem to indicate that white people are being targeted by Black people for precisely the same reason.

No one calls that racist.

Anonymous said...

"It's pretty much common knowledge that conservatives whitewash - no pun intended - America's racist past"

LOL @ "it's pretty much common knowledge".

Translation:
"I'm making this shit up."

Porter said...

Snape,

Your litany of boilerplate leftist canards were debunked long before you stumbled--Mr. Magoo like--into this forum. I'm tempted to address your latest excretion in total, but for sake of time the core fallacy will suffice.

Some man saying, "Bitch, I'm gonna rape you," and the woman feeling threatened enough to report it, does not equal an actual rape or even an assault.

Your straw man example is a case of neither rape nor assault--and so would not be included in the statistics and thus is irrelevant.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a specific intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.


An african saying "Bitch I'm gonna rape you" as he is driving by in a car is not an assault. It is a case of him singing along to a rap song. In contrast, an african saying "Bitch I'm gonna rape you" as he strokes himself with one hand and lunges for your neck with the other actually is an assault. It becomes battery at the moment of contact and rape when your tender snapey nether region is penetrated.

That you don't care for these legal delineations is irrelevant. That you don’t like successful African rape attempts “muddled” by their unsuccessful rape attempts is also irrelevant. Muddled though you may be, the statistics are not. And they illuminate the intolerable weight of black on white predation.

Professor Snape said...

SBPDL said:
Crime studies indicate that Black crime was just as bad 100 years ago in America, when the threat of lynching would ostensibly serve as a deterrent.

Yet crime studies show that the threat of lynching wasn't enough to stave off Black crime.


Because lynching was not popularly known as a deterrent to crime. The actual Justice system was. Lynching was done by people who wanted "swift justice", regardless of the race of person, without dealing with courts and an actual investigation. A black lynching victim, again, could have easily been someone merely accused of a crime. The brutality of black lynchings suggest that the main motivation was racial hatred.

If it had not been, the people would have dealt with the court system. Back in post-Civil War Southern states, many times if a black person committed a violent crime against another black, the courts did not care, white people did not care. Sometimes knowing a white person could get a black criminal off following a crime done to another black. If a lynching was done to a black by a black lynch mob, I'd agree that it was about vigilante justice.

But whites lynching blacks was raced-based, nothing else.

SBPDL said:
Not many people want to address the obvious disparities in interracial rape. Certainly no liberal Web site.

You know, you are missing the forest for the trees. You are just wrong on this because you just refuse to take everything in to context. And that, in this regard, is outrageously disingenuous!

Some points to recognize:

(1) The interracial "rape" disparity is perfectly explained by dating trends. White women are overwhelmingly the victims of white men because the majority of white women date white men. The same is true with black women; the stat suggests they are almost always victims of black men. However, white women, in comparison to black women, date more outside of their race, which is why more of them have been "raped" (we have to recall the definitions used by the DOJ and how they put everything together) by black men - and other minority men - than the inverse for black women.

(1 of 2)....

Professor Snape said...

(2 of 2)....

I wonder about the stat for Asian women's rapes. According to statistics, 51% of Asian women date Asian men, and about 40+% of them date white men. I would not be surprised that a rape stat for Asian women where the race of the attacker was reported would reflect this - that a large proportion of them are raped by white men -because the others reflect dating patterns.

By your logic, we should tell Asian women to look out for lascivious white men ready to rape them!

(2) Again, rape/sexual assault is overwhelmingly committed by intimate partners and then friends/acquaintances. This obliterates the notion of white women being targeted by horny black men, which is what you are inexplicably trying to get across. According to RAINN, 60% of rapes are unreported, which ostensibly suggests victim/victimizer familiarity (and thus shame).

This is not rocket science. Rape/sexual assault is overwhelmingly a crime of familiarity. You are knowingly misleading your readers, or are just too lazy to actually look at the numbers and the holistic correlates. This is simply lying with statistics; that you point out Wilkerson's lie, and cannot see your own, is hypocritical.

Sure, there were Black people lynched for "racist" reasons. But the facts of interracial crime and murder NOW would seem to indicate that white people are being targeted by Black people for precisely the same reason.

No one calls that racist.


See, now you've suggested that white victims of black criminals are targeted because of their race. This is just a false assumption, and, again, misleading. Most crime is intra-racial and crime victims tend to be black, younger, and male; also, most people incarcerated are for non-violent crime. If anything, a black criminal assumes that a white potential victim is "weaker", but that is not "racist". I would not be surprised if white muggers, for example, were more likely to attack white people over blacks, not so much for the fact crime is intra-racial, but because media representations of blacks are such that, due to their "black strength" or lack of timidity, it would be disadvantageous to the mugger to attack them.

Please at least be honest in your reportage.

Professor Snape said...

Porter:

You miss the point completely, and due to my own lack of time, I will keep my rebuttal to your rebuttal to my correct assertions a short as possible: SBPDL and the innumerable conservatives with anti-black sentiments trot out a statistic that they refuse to contextualize.

This is how half-truths turn into convenient "truths", which only further racial animosity.

Rational and intelligent people do not look at numbers and make suppositions. They contextualize and they employ logic. They do not resort to fear-mongering and emotion.

If you are fine with this pathetic misuse of a fairly straight-forward statistic - that clearly dismantles this "Birth of A Nation" black rapist mythology - that is your right.

This is not about legal delineations. This is not about what the stat says because I am not disputing the numbers. This about a rational and contextual look at numbers that do not show racist predation of black men on white women, which is what you and others are trying to posit.

And this is simply untrue.

Sheila said...

We lose Desiree, we get Professor Snape. One deals in irrationality, fallacy, and hostility. The other deals in irrationality, fallacy, and hostility, but dresses it up with pseudo-science and statistics.

Most of us don't come here to be lectured to about out "half truths" and "anti-black sentiments," SBPDL - we get enough of that in our daily lives. Please, spare us more of the "p"rofessor.

Porter said...

Snape,

You plainly haven’t engaged in many (successful) debates in your life. Merely re- asserting that your assertions are correct does not make them so. And it convinces no one of any fact other than the obvious deficit in your skill to present them. You may contextualize the facts until your brain melts. Though I see I’m a bit late to warn you of this. No matter, we will press on.

The proprietor can rebut other points at his leisure, though the cornerstone of your sophistry is that white women are being assaulted by blacks simply because that is who are their "intimate partners." As we will see a bit later, the answer to that is...No.

Though your primary assertion, and the Hatefact which contradicts it, is as follows:

White women are overwhelmingly the victims of white men

No. “In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black.” A 10.9% difference does not overwhelming make. In fact it is shocking how close these numbers are—particularly so using your own logic.

Would you like to see something that actually is overwhelming? “In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white.”

So if one were to follow the Snapeworld thesis…that being women are raped almost exclusively by the men they are in relationships with, we would make the following assumptions: a) Approximately 1/3 of white women are involved with black men, and b) There are literally zero black women involved with white men. So is this the case? No.

I don’t know of any reliable study that quantifies interracial dating—if you do, bring it to bear; but there are statistics on interracial marriage…

As of 2006, .56% of married white women had black husbands: Half of one percent. In the same year, 2.85% of married black women had white husbands. So given the Snape correlation, plainly there would be significantly more white on black rape than the reverse, right? No.

So white women are in a miniscule number of marriages with black males; even less frequently so than white men are in marriages with black females. And yet a third of all rapists of white women are black and no rapists of black females are white.

In summary, practically none of your assertions hold an ounce of water. Goodnight and thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

@ Shelia

While I disagree with most everything Professor Snape and Desiree say, I think you need to grow a thicker skin. Why should people get "banned" just because they say something you find disagreeable? It's a comment section on a blog where a conversation is taking place; their not making policy! Lighten up, woman!

Professor Snape said...

Sheila said:
We lose Desiree, we get Professor Snape. One deals in irrationality, fallacy, and hostility. The other deals in irrationality, fallacy, and hostility, but dresses it up with pseudo-science and statistics.

Most of us don't come here to be lectured to about out "half truths" and "anti-black sentiments," SBPDL - we get enough of that in our daily lives. Please, spare us more of the "p"rofessor.


Perhaps you'd be better served at Stormfront.org - assuming you do not already have a member account - than on this blog. This blog deals with "Stuff Black People Don't Like", not to mention white liberals. The result of this will undoubtedly be (a) the occasional black - SBPDL dropped the ball in eliminating "Desiree", as I found her posts entertaining and fairly innocuous; and (b) the occasional white liberal.

If you dislike my posts, I suggest using the down arrow key to scroll past them.

What is your idea of "pseudoscience", anyway? Some would say you are also an adherent by virtue of your presence on and agreement with SBPDL's website.

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Desiree will be back, I'm sure. I just grew tired over every comment reverting to some form of talk over pedophilia.

It was strange.

Some of her comments were engaging, but the vast majority derailed conversations into idiotic attacks.

Professor Snape said...

Porter:

You are still missing the point-in-sum, which is, given the general rape/sexual assault statistics - which happen to state that 79% of rape/sexual assaults are carried out by men the women knew - this notion of black men with ready hard-ons waiting to rape vulnerable white women is fallacious. It is fallacious because the belief is predictated upon a statistic that the believers fail to view holistically.

If I stated this any more simply than I already have, this argument would be reduced to the intellectual equivalent of a "Dick and Jane" primer, not to mention I'd be holding your hand.

Again, what you are suggesting - and what this blogger and every other right-wing lunatic are suggesting - is that black-on-white rape happens to break away from this larger, more general "acquaintance attacker" statistic: that when a black man victimizes a white woman he is always a violent Mandingo who jumped out of some alleyway.

And that, sir, is preposterous and not supported by the statistics.

You said:
So if one were to follow the Snapeworld thesis…that being women are raped almost exclusively by the men they are in relationships with, we would make the following assumptions: a) Approximately 1/3 of white women are involved with black men, and b) There are literally zero black women involved with white men. So is this the case? No.

This is a clever distraction technique but I never stated this whatsoever. 79% is not exactly an indictment on the potential violence in every coupling; you are being disingenuous. I should not be especially surprised given your adherence to the patently false supposition in question. Again, the point in emphasizing the reality of rape/sexual assault as having been done mainly by acquaintances of the victims is that it obliterates the anachronistic fantasy I've already described. My point is only compounded by the fact 60% rapes/sexual assaults go unreported, a suggestion that the vast majority of these rapes, too, are done by close acquaintances. That may be an extrapolation but it is a reasonable one.

(1 of 2)....

Professor Snape said...

(2 of 2)....

You said:
As of 2006, .56% of married white women had black husbands: Half of one percent. In the same year, 2.85% of married black women had white husbands. So given the Snape correlation, plainly there would be significantly more white on black rape than the reverse, right? No.

This is almost silly. Trotting out this marriage statistic - assuming it is adjusted for proportion - proves absolutely nothing and shows an ignorance in delineating. It just doesn't mean a damned thing. Yes, I, too, do not know of completely reliable "dating trends" stats but I do have eyes and a TV, and a functioning brain. I honestly cannot believe you are missing this huge amount of data. That a white woman is statistically less likely to be married to a black man than a black woman to a white man does not change that white women date black men more than black women date white men, although I am certain this is something you'd like to forget. You can date or sleep with a variety of hues and still end up with your own color.

You are suggesting that I am wrong by virtue of my original assertion but that is just not the case: I did not mention marriage, nor did I say the stat is wholly proportional.

The point is - if I am afforded another recitation - is that your "black rapist" suppostion is nothing more than myth. The statistics prove this.

Anonymous said...

"See, now you've suggested that white victims of black criminals are targeted because of their race."

Snape, in case you're unaware, most white people instinctively recognize the criminal nature of black people, and deliberately minimize their daily interaction with blacks. Whites live in white neighborhoods, shop in white shopping centers, eat in white restaurants, etc.

But in spite of white efforts to avoid blacks, the fact that blacks STILL manage to victimize whites in such astoundingly high numbers is a testament to the fact that black criminals aggressively and selectively target white victims.

Anonymous said...

"Desiree will be back, I'm sure."

Please no.

Porter said...

Snape,

Ok, here we go…
You say…Again, what you are suggesting - and what this blogger and every other right-wing lunatic are suggesting - is that black-on-white rape happens to break away from this larger, more general "acquaintance attacker" statistic: that when a black man victimizes a white woman he is always a violent Mandingo who jumped out of some alleyway.

Great point. Except that you withdrew it directly from your lower intestine. This “lunatic” never said that blacks A) Never knew their victim, or B) always attacked from an alleyway. We say that blacks are wildly more predisposed toward every single kind of violence including rape--whether or not they are an acquaintance of the victim. You could at least have the goddamned common courtesy to rebut points that were actually made. One item I note that you apparently no longer wish to debate is your prior claim that “white women are overwhelmingly the victims of white men.” I suppose when white men don’t even account for a majority of their rapes, it’s difficult to support “overwhelming.” I’ll assume that you withdraw the assertion…Next!

Regarding the Snapeworld thesis…that being women are raped almost exclusively by the men they are in relationships with. You respond: This is a clever distraction technique but I never stated this whatsoever.

Well, you certainly did state this. From your 11:34 comment: " (2) Again, rape/sexual assault is overwhelmingly committed by intimate partners and then friends/acquaintances." Snape, do you proceed through life under the blissful presumption that no one remembers a word you say from one moment to the next? Speaking of next…

Again, the point in emphasizing the reality of rape/sexual assault as having been done mainly by acquaintances of the victims is that it obliterates the anachronistic fantasy I've already described.

It obliterates nothing, because it addresses nothing. Blacks are prolific rapists—knowing their victim doesn’t make it less so. In contrast, 99% of the white men in America know a black woman. Many thousands of them know black women well enough to marry them. The number of them they rape? Zero. Next!

Yes, I, too, do not know of completely reliable "dating trends" stats but I do have eyes and a TV, and a functioning brain. I honestly cannot believe you are missing this huge amount of data.

Data? What data? You think your so-called “functioning brain” is a source of data? You made the assertion, you back it up—with something more reliable than your teevee. What are you going to do, quote from an episode of the Cosby show?

I provided the marriage statistics because they were the only actual data that I could find—not having a feed into your skull. I take it as a given that intimate relationships often result in marriage, thus I used it as an imperfect proxy. Do you have a better one? I mean one that’s not your “functioning brain?”

And I’ll reiterate the point derived from that data. A greater percentage of married black women have white husbands than the percentage of white women who have black husbands. So I’ll ask again, knowing I’ll receive no answer: where are the white rapes? Next!

The point is - if I am afforded another recitation - is that your "black rapist" suppostion is nothing more than myth. The statistics prove this.

Snape, you ignorant slut. Putting black rapist in quotes—as if it’s all a figment of someone’s imagination—and calling it suppostion (sic) requires no small amount of delusion. The statistics prove that blacks commit rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and every other type of violence, other than hockey high-sticking, at a wildly disproportionate rate. That you have glommed onto the notion that knowing their victim before they rape them makes them non-rapists…or less rapists…or whatever exactly it is you believe is an idea so ridiculous that I’m afraid it suits you perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Porter,

Your writing reminds me of Buddy Glass, in the best possible way.

Snape,

Your writing reminds me of the time I vomited blood. And In the worst possible way.

Anonymous said...

"SBPDL dropped the ball in eliminating "Desiree", as I found her posts entertaining and fairly innocuous;"

That certainly says something about your mentality right there, "Professor."

It sure gets tiresome having to use the scroll keys all over again! Thank the gods for SBPDL...and Porter.

Professor Snape said...

You know what, Porter, I give up. I'm clearly arguing with someone incapable of moving beyond their own irrational ideology. I've tried to get you to understand why the statistic is misleading in the way it is used by the right but, obviously, you are not interested in engaging in reasonable thought. You've muddled my words repeatedly and, at this point, I have no desire to continue.

See it as a jab if you'd like but I find it strange that there seems to be this odd preoccupation with what black men (allegedly) do with their penises if it pertains to white women. This is what it comes down to, because the outrage is disproportionately weighted towards the white female victims of black offenders than white female victims of white offenders, which are more numerous than the former. This is something I will never understand.

You wrongly assume that I am de-emphasizing the victimizations of these women; I am simply saying it has nothing to do with a violent Zulu falling out of a tree and onto defenseless white women. This is not a strawman, but what white males with anti-black animus actually believe. The comments on this blog have proved this.

As SBPDL has suggested, there is a belief that white women are being racially targeted by black men. This is just simply not the case.

I would love to get into a discussion where I can contextualize the meaning of these statistics on the bases of class and socioeconomics but it would be tiring. I'd ask you what you think is the reason behind black men "raping" white women but I am afraid I'd be subjected to more ideology and even less rationality.

With outrageously inflammatory and kneejerk statements like this - "Blacks are prolific rapists" - I know I am not dealing with someone possessing the willingness to move beyond their own prejudices for the sake of edification.

By your logic, does Sowell or Thomas or Elder or any other conservative black have a predisposition for raping that is unknown to white men? Who falls into the category? Who is excluded?

And, for the record, I have not rejected or conspicuously avoided any of my previous points. If you actually re-read your comments and employ a bit of honesty, you will see that you were putting words and assumptions into my mouth at every stage of this debate.

In sum, enjoy, Porter. Take my withdrawal as intellectual cowardice or whatever you'd like. At this point, I can both admit I am not getting anywhere and that I no longer give a damn about educating you. Belief will always trump reason; I'd be more successful in getting Mother Theresa to drop-kick a leper than at convincing you blacks are human.

Dissident said...

Snape is a textbook example of why blackdom will never move ahead. Basically, in order to move ahead, you have to be willing to admit there's a something that's holding you back. Until, blackdom admits that it's blackdom's nature to blame others for their own inadequacies then they will continue to resent others, and make excuses for their own bad behavior. Snape is straining at gnats and swallowing camels, which is typical of liberal, noer'-do-wells and blacks at large.

The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, until then, you're just pissing into the wind bro!

When are blacks ever going to take some responsibility?

Anonymous said...

"As SBPDL has suggested, there is a belief that white women are being racially targeted by black men. This is just simply not the case."

How many times are you going to repeat this before you conclude that no one here believes you? Do you have a clue how foolish you sound?

The people who read this blog have spent their entire lives observing disproportionate black violence and criminality, along with the perpetual efforts of whites to escape it.

When you say things like "this is just simply not the case", you are literally guaranteeing that nothing you say will ever be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

"I'd be more successful in getting Mother Theresa to drop-kick a leper than at convincing you blacks are human"

Fuck you, no one asked for your opinion.

Believe it or not Snape, folks can make up their own mind without any "convincing" from you.

Professor Snape said...

Dissident:

I am not black; I am white (a Polish Jew). It seems safe to say that, on this site, believing people with more liberal views (I consider myself fairly apolitical) are black is a comfort zone. Basically, if you believe them to be black, you can cut them down by virtue of their blackness.

That does not work in this direction, "Dissident". I am as white as you are. The difference is that I can acknowledge how my white privilege has unconsciously benefitted me, whereas you are unable to recognize this fairly straight-forward concept.

To quote "South Park" - which has moments of brilliance - I don't want to be a "Nigger Guy". You, however, have found that to be a nice lot. More power to you if you can live with the shame.

Anonymous said...

"Basically, if you believe them to be black, you can cut them down by virtue of their blackness."

No, but DWL's and blacks are largely interchangeable.

Anonymous said...

"I'd be more successful in getting Mother Theresa to drop-kick a leper than at convincing you blacks are human."

The blacks have NO LOVE FOR YOU professor. You are truly a stupid man if you think they need your guidance and promotion. Your white guilt is blinding you. You fail to see your own stupidity and you will suffer in the end.

"I can acknowledge how my white privilege has unconsciously benefitted me.."

"White Privilege" only means that whites have worked harder than any race to create the world that YOU enjoy every day. Yet you apologize to the negro race for our greatness. You are a sorry assed excuse for a white man. You have completely given up on your greatness, you don't recognize your place on this earth and huge RESPONSIBILITY of the white man to lead the world.

You should consider attending the "White Privilege Summit", you will encounter other emasculated sell-out "white males" with whom you can build the ultimate plan to save the black race:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/03/let_your_voice.php

Here is a gem that is a MUST read for all SBPDL followers who have to deal with emasculated white male libtards:

Arguments for Our Side, by Jared Taylor

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/03/the_revolution_2.php

Cry me a river said...

"The difference is that I can acknowledge how my white privilege"

Does white privilege increase with the number of non-whites? Demographic projections show whites will be a minority by 2042. Will the amount of white privilege just keep increasing? If whites become just 10 percent of the population, will they enjoy more or less white privilege than they enjoy now?

If the United States, Europe, and Oceania are nations of white privilege why do millions of non-whites want to go there?

Cry me a river said...

Forget to include the link to those questions.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/03/let_your_voice.php

Porter said...

Snape,

How to put this...

I know that blacks are your game,
But we Whites just aren’t feeling the shame
We want to survive,
Our people to thrive
And don’t give a fuck if you feel the same

You see I’ve had this debate before,
And your contortions are really a bore
A rape isn’t a rape,
If a woman once knew the ape
Pardon while I pick my jaw off the floor

And now the poor boy doth retreat,
Upon his breast he doth beat
His self-righteous sword,
He’s out of his gourd
Me thinks he can’t handle the heat.

Anonymous said...

"You've muddled my words repeatedly and, at this point, I have no desire to continue. "

Acutally.....I think Porter wins. He has made more sense, and yes, like a liberal, you do talk yourself into a full circle, "Professor". You know nothing about authentic blacks, black crime, or black pathology. You have not lived near the underclass. The blacks you associate with are most likely more white than black - the ones who have decided to let your white ass off the hook. There is a huge difference between these groups, just ask any black person and they will tell you the truth. Underclass blacks disproportionately commit more violent crime than the rest of us combined.

"Snape is straining at gnats and swallowing camels, which is typical of liberal, ner'-do-wells and blacks at large. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, until then, you're just pissing into the wind bro!

When are blacks ever going to take some responsibility?"

Well said, Dissident. Well said.

Silent Running said...

Snape said...

I wonder about the stat for Asian women's rapes. According to statistics, 51% of Asian women date Asian men, and about 40+% of them date white men. I would not be surprised that a rape stat for Asian women where the race of the attacker was reported would reflect this - that a large proportion of them are raped by white men -because the others reflect dating patterns.

Find that data and post it, if you are able. Your argument depends upon it. If it turns out that white-on-Asian rape does not coincide with dating patterns, your entire argument fails.

I consider myself fairly apolitical

Most liberals do. I've known fanatical leftists who insist that they are centrists.

You speak of an overarching "white privilege" that affects every Caucasian person whether they are conscious of it or not. This is fanciful, of course, since what you call "white privilege" is actually the sum of superior Caucasian traits: stoicism in the face of adversity, intellectual curiosity that drives men to explore the unknown, reliance on logic rather than emotion, etc., all shored up by a mean IQ of 100.

"White privilege" is a myth. There is, however, a phenomenon that affects all Caucasians to some degree. It's called liberalism. You spout liberal talking points yet still consider yourself apolitical because you are not conscious of the overarching liberalism that influences every thought in your head. You are saturated by it. Everything you do, every assumption you make is unconsciously influenced by this phenomenon. You are a fish that is not aware of the ocean through which you swim. For this reason, you see Caucasians rising to prominence in every conceivable endeavor, and since it is holy writ that all races are absolutely equal and there are no substantive differences between the races, you concoct "white privilege" to explain both Caucasian superiority and brown malfeasance. This allows you to sleep at night, but it is little more than a temporary holding action.

Since every aspect of liberalism is based on lies, it must eventually crumble under its own weight. In the meantime, those of us Who Can See are relatively few, but our numbers grow daily. When the economy finally collapses and the objects of your veneration riot in every major city, our numbers will increase exponentially, just as yours will decrease through attrition. White liberals are the victims of choice for black thugs. You believe yourself immune from black violence because you've struck so many brave, brave blows on their behalf. What you don't understand is that you're just another cracker to them.

DGB said...

The afro-bolshevik may have been banned but one of her pseudonyms is still quite active here.

I'll be waiting for Human Toy to surface and lecture us on the joys and benefits of eating black puzzay.

North West European said...

Whites are being harassed into submission by an aggressive conglomerate of groups we may call "coalition of the restless". These groups would have nothing on us if not for a small group of very intelligent, highly influential people in our culture, the marxist elites. This group of enablers are not only leading the charge, but actively escalating our dispossession through even more immigration, and looting us through taxes. These people are restless and have a mission to change the world, and so they form the coalition, and third-worlders are only happy to join, being restless themselves, and unable to settle down and live peacefully alongside everybody else.

It does not matter, therefore, what happened in the past, just look at countries like Sweden or Norway, with not a hair of discrimination or oppression against brown or black people (gypsies perhaps). Yet they are asked to open up their borders, write blank welfare checks, and take in the huddled masses of the world none the less. When Stockholm and Oslo rise to the top of international rape statistics, we are told that it is caused by abnormal summer heat, which in turn is caused by global warming, or some other inane excuse. I guess if some negro had actually got lynched like in the US we would never hear the end of it. There were never any negroes in Scandinavia, but like I said, it doesn't matter. Whites are sought out, raped, robbed and killed by third worlders in our own countries all over the world. If it wasn't for the white led "coalition of the restless", it wouldn't matter how many people were lynched in the old south, who cares! Whites are raped, robbed and murdered TODAY, right now, no matter where they live. The Oslo police released a report that showed that 100%, that would be ALL, of the 41 rapes that year was committed by a "non-western immigrant".

By bringing up old lynchings they think they can somehow blank out the facts. Every lynching is brutal and abhorrent. Here is an example of a lynching from 1916: http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-can-we-make-of-this.html

Now, how about we talk about African lynchings, also happening today, right now. Witch burning, necklacing, amputation with machete and mass rapes, still going on today. When will American blacks realize that they are the most privileged blacks on the planet? White Americans have absolutely NOTHING to feel guilty over, and black people should thank them for all they have done for them. Too bad they ruined it, and now the party must soon end.

NWE

Silent Running said...

Furthermore, Snape, this website is not about "opening a dialogue" between blacks and whites, or understanding and "celebrating our differences" that we may come to live together in harmony. It is about Caucasian (and to a much lesser extent, Asian and Hispanic) people discussing the absolutely verboten topic of the corruption, mindless violence and savage stupidity of blacks and their influence (thanks entirely to people like you, since they would never have been able to advance on their own) over our daily lives. It's a place to share personal stories about negative interactions with blacks in a safe environment, since to discuss these things openly would result in vicious public shaming, loss of livelihood, and possibly death.

Perhaps you should explain why you are here and what it is that you expect to achieve by engaging this group.

Sheila said...

Guys, Snape has told us he's aware of his "white privilege" because he's Jewish. He's here for the same reason folks like Sabril or Ricardo haunt Mangans, or Yan Shen or other yellow supremacists hang around at Steve Sailer's site. They believe their purportedly high "IQ" equates to high personal character and high value to society, and expect a warm welcome from White nationalist or HBD sites - or this one, which is a forum for Whites to speak frankly about blacks. Snape is so utterly convinced of his intrinsically superior intellect that attempting to engage him in logical discussion is pointless.

To the commenter who suggested I "lighten up" - I am not personally aggrieved by posters like Desiree or Snape, but I had believed this website was something of a haven from their type of thinking and behaving. I just returned from a brief (and unfortunately necessary) trip to Walmart. I first encountered a gypsy (tsigane as they're known in Eastern Europe) with a baby begging at the door - I called the police to report her. Then I had to wend my way among all the Indians, Chinese, and blacks with their numerous offspring in tow to get the few items I needed. In short, I'm worn out coping with diversity in my community; I should be able to avoid it on the web.

SBPDL - I know you seem to hold Laurence Auster in high regard, but please don't follow his habit of labeling any criticism of anyone or anything Jewish as raging anti-semitism and ban me or this comment.

Laz said...

There's a reason that they persecuted the Gypsies- It's because they're Human trash. I don't know who's worse, them or blacks. I know this from experience as 3 of the mobile home parks down the street are taken over by them. When the black population is non-existent these people fill the gap perfect.

In conclusion- F the gypsies for ruining my neighborhood and F the hippies for ruining the country I love.

Professor Snape said...

Porter said:
You see I’ve had this debate before,
And your contortions are really a bore
A rape isn’t a rape,
If a woman once knew the ape
Pardon while I pick my jaw off the floor


There's your strawman, Porter. If you can point to any one of my posts where I stated that a rape is less of a rape because the woman "knew" her attacker, by all means, have at.

If the only way you can "win" an argument is to resort to distorting my comments, you need to return to Debate 101. My point was always plain and simple:

(a) The rape stat that is is referred to ad Nauseam by the right encompasses things that are not rape, thus, it is faulty and disingenuous to say that number of women were actually raped; that is not me denying actual victimizations.

(b) The claim or belief - and please correct me if I am getting this muddled - by men with your social/political leanings is that these white women "raped" - only using quotation marks because everything included in that stat is not actual rape - are being racially targeted by blacks; I have said that, given the statistics regarding rape/sexual assault that most of it is done by someone the woman knows, that claim or belief is not reality.

That was my point! Shall I repeat it again or fingerpaint it out in feces to make it more understandable?

Not only are you bizarrely obsessed with black male sexuality - please, again, refute this if I am incorrect here because I know I don't give a fuck about with whom white women or black men have sex, even if it is with each other - you have decided to paint them all as savage beasts who actively seek to usurp (read: are on the hunt for) the figurative virginity of white women like serial killers.

It is bloody insane. And all of this is based upon a statistic none of you are willing to contemplate any more deeply than you would about what you plan to eat for dinner.

Again, Porter, are all black males on the verge of raping? Does this alleged sexual savagery increase with blackness of the skin? If they have a "ghetto" name over a Christian one? If their political leanings are more left than right? What are the delineations, or is every black man Satan Incarnate?

And what shall we conclude about the white men raping? Are they "black" or "quasi-black" on the inside?

You know, this originally was about the ridiculousness of clinging to a statistic you fail to even understand in order to vilify black men in comparison to white men, not to mention bringing up the fact you are all misreading it. That you have even attempted to turn it into accusing me of being "pro-rape" (?) - or whatever the hell you are claiming here - is just astounding to me.

What you are doing, Porter, is settling into the "unspoken" position of many people like you going back to pre- and post-Civil War days: that the rapes/sexual assaults/etc. of white women by black men are several orders of magnitude more important and more severe than those done by white men.

The continued articulation of this statistic - again, one you fail to even understand - has nothing to do with the women themselves, but what they represent to this backward political movement. It is more about the black men than the women. The women are metaphors, symbols of whiteness being defiled by blackness, of the "encroachment" of black, etc., etc. This is anachronistic drivel and it simultaneously denies the humanity of the women and the humanity of blacks en masse.

And that is your point, is it not? If it was not your point, you would be willing to extend a little consideration to my arguments.

Your level of self-aggrandizement, Porter, is unbecoming of a man who seems as intelligent as you do. And that is my last word on this increasingly ridiculous subject.

Professor Snape said...

Silent Running said:
Perhaps you should explain why you are here and what it is that you expect to achieve by engaging this group.

This is an excellent question, "Silent Running". After this exercise, I am starting to reevaluate why I believed this site was a good one to discuss race relations - yes, I was of the belief a thoughtful dialogue between blacks and whites actually occurred here. I am now frightened that your types exist in society and I cannot point you out.

It is about Caucasian (and to a much lesser extent, Asian and Hispanic) people discussing the absolutely verboten topic of the corruption, mindless violence and savage stupidity of blacks and their influence (thanks entirely to people like you, since they would never have been able to advance on their own) over our daily lives.

You know, it is this type of thinking that makes me cringe and tells me I should stop before I ruin my hand punching the unyielding cinderblock that is all of your heads. However, I feel compelled only because some of the stuff - not all - on this site is patently false propaganda.

*

Sheila said:
They believe their purportedly high "IQ" equates to high personal character and high value to society

She continues:
Snape is so utterly convinced of his intrinsically superior intellect that attempting to engage him in logical discussion is pointless.

Sheila, this is painfully ironic. Please think about this comment you've wrote when a black, or Hispanic, or the multitude of colored people you undoubtedly view as less worthy and less intelligent than you, attempts to engage you in "logical yet pointless" discussion.

Yes, Sheila, especially remember the "purportedly high IQ" part.

Anonymous said...

"I am starting to reevaluate why I believed this site was a good one to discuss race relations"

Snape, pay attention. This site is NOT for discussing "race relations". This site is a SANCTUARY where we can speak openly and honestly about atrocious, irresponsible, self-destructive, immoral, anti-social black behavior...things that are forbidden to actually say out loud in American culture.

"I am now frightened that your types exist in society and I cannot point you out."

LOL Really? How amusing.
What exactly do you find "frightening" about people who have observed the behavior of American blacks and concluded that it is extremely consistent with that of blacks throughout the globe, characterized by low IQ, high illegitimacy, and high criminality?

Porter said...

Sheila, what on Earth would lead you to conclude that Snape has a high IQ? I’m practically embarrassed for him.

• He makes a series of bald assertions most unsubstantiated, others demonstrably false;
• He merely reiterates these assertions upon criticism with only a whine as supporting evidence;
• He conspicuously avoids addressing key counterpoints and says “I never stated this.”
• When directly quoted stating that he says “You’re putting words in my mouth.”
• And when finally every brick of his position has been dismantled, he throws his arms up in exasperation and—to paraphrase—says “I just can’t educate you people!”

This is not what Charlie Sheen would call Winning!

Though I will grant you one related point, Sheila: he quite risibly thinks he’s intelligent. This makes his preening sententiousness all the more amusing. What he doesn’t realize—and what we will be careful not to divulge—is that he sounds precisely like a jewish version of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6868F53rgKw

East Asian said...

after a few days on this site, I had thought that this was as site where we could all discuss how we have been victimized by black violence and the blind media's reaction thereto. As Asians are often the targets of this type of racial violence, I thought that our own stories could help illuminate the discussion. But as a poster here has made quite clear, Asians are not welcome since they are part of the problem of lawlessness (?). I guess posting here was a mistake. Apologies. For those of you who stand with all people who are seeking a voice to stand up for our families and communities, godspeed and good luck

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

East Asian,

This is a place to discuss such matters, as long as it pertains to the subject matter in the post.

Yes, a lot of people who post here find it strange that people come and "preach" in a vain attempt to proselytize, when such conversions to DWL-thinking have been forever, forcibly removed by real world experiences.

Stick around: no poster speaks for the views of SBPDL. This is a pretty open forum (unless you abuse that privilege like Desiree did), but just stick to the point of the post.

Asians are welcome here, as are DWLs, Black people, white people, Hispanics (though most haven't bothered to learn English as they colonize America), and, well, anyone.

It's when you abuse that right to post that you will get banned. Only Desiree has had that dishonorable accolade.

And, doesn't Professor Snape turn out good in the end?

Stick around, your insights and experience bring something else to the table.

Anonymous said...

"I provided the marriage statistics because they were the only actual data that I could find—not having a feed into your skull. I take it as a given that intimate relationships often result in marriage, thus I used it as an imperfect proxy."

Stressing *imperfect*! But what Porter does is rely on this statistic when all of us know damn well that you can screw a hundred white girls and still marry a black woman. Or a white girl can screw what amounts to an entire basketball or football team at an HBCU (many of them do) and *still* marry a white man.

This is what many Americans, black or white, do because this country is so segregated. It does not take a huge extension of logic to see this. That more black girls may marry white guys in comparison to white girls marrying black guys does not really mean anything *at all.*

Porter was not thinking when he brought in that statistic! Many white folks screw lots of minorities but they will *never* marry them. The ones who do are few and far in between; many white folks I've known have parents that are just against marrying outside their race, even if these guys (and girls) are very attracted to blacks and will *date* them. Besides, I doubt that the *intimate partners* cited in that statistic are hubbies, anyway, which makes relying on that interracial marriage statistic just all around stupid.

I don't know if I really believe there are *no* white men raping black women. That seems impossible. It's fairly common knowledge that women don't report sex crimes so how do we really know? What if the white men are bosses or superiors of some kind and the black girl would lose her job if she told? It's like the workplace is the only time black girls and white guys interact. It very well could be bosses doing the raping. There are many cases of sexual abuse and rape against mexican immigrant women in maquiladoras and factories *by superiors*. If there is a power inequality, a white superior could abuse it. It's just hard for me to believe that there are none. Sorry. I just don't believe it. After raping black girls for generations these white guys just *stop* doing it? Or is it just more hidden now?

I find it amusing that Porter has refused to go into Snape's point about what makes a black man more predisposed toward raping. I'm a black man and I've never as much as moved a hair out of place on a woman, white or black or brown. I love all women and I will kiss the ground they walk on. I'd like to hear his explanation! He said blacks are prolific rapists and doesn't bother to use a qualifier. So he's saying all blacks, pretty much?

I think Porter is afraid to answer that question because he knows his answer will comprise of nothing more than racist bullshit that can't be supplanted for actual fact unless you're talking to David Duke. I'm guessing he'll continue to resort to personal attacks in lieu of real responses. What a loser and a pretentious asshole. I don't rape *anyone*, I can be 100% certain I will never rape anyone, and I don't know any rapists. WTF??

~~~Denzel W.

Porter said...

Well Snape, since you now have a proven track record of lying on this issue (“You know what Porter, I give up…I have no desire to continue…Take my withdrawal as intellectual cowardice”) then I’ll presume that lying is your default setting (“I never stated that”) and that I will actually hear many more words on the subject.

As for self-aggrandizing, that’s a difficult claim given that I’m rolling in the mud with the likes of you. Hell if selection of my opponents were any indication, one would assume I’m self-deprecating. But no matter, it’s not about me or you—no matter how many personal pronouns you deploy.

(a) The rape stat that is is(sic) referred to ad Nauseam by the right encompasses things that are not rape, thus, it is faulty and disingenuous to say that number of women were actually raped

That’s fine, I’ll stipulate to that. Just as I’m sure you will now stipulate to the fact that blacks are wildly disproportionate sexual assaulters. That they sexually assault both white and black women in disproportionate numbers and that they commit sexual assault 50% more often than white men while only being 1/5th of their numbers. We’re making progress here!

(b) The claim or belief - and please correct me if I am getting this muddled - by men with your social/political leanings is that these white women "raped" - only using quotation marks because everything included in that stat is not actual rape - are being racially targeted by blacks; I have said that, given the statistics regarding rape/sexual assault that most of it is done by someone the woman knows, that claim or belief is not reality.

I personally agree with you on this Snape. I don’t think white women are being racially targeted by blacks any more than I think a single given stalk is being targeted by a locust.

I think—because the statistics prove—that blacks (as a group) are disproportionately voracious rapists who would forcibly insert their penis into the mouth of a wolverine if they could do it more than once. Did you know that "One in four South African men questioned in a survey said they had raped someone, and nearly half of them admitted more than one attack"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8107039.stm

Not only are you bizarrely obsessed with black male sexuality…

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cont.

Porter said...

Again, Porter, are all black males on the verge of raping?

Hell if I know. As chaotic as they are, I have no idea what they "are on the verge" of doing. I only know what they have done. That's what we're discussing.

And what shall we conclude about the white men raping? Are they "black" or "quasi-black" on the inside?

We shall conclude that they are despicable white men who never, ever rape black women. This despite the fact that they have just as ample the opportunities to do so as the black men who prey on white women with such alacrity. It’s become enjoyable now to watch you studiously ignore this question time after time. So I’ll ask you again: If exposure is the key to rape, then Where are the white male rapists of black females?

you have even attempted to turn it into accusing me of being "pro-rape"

Where? And I’m uninterested in the dreary psycho analysis which follows.

Snape, if I were to pretend that you are an honest debater here is what I would say:

The 79% acquaintance figure for rape is probably right, though it does nothing to buttress your claim. Merely knowing someone before you rape them is still pretty tantamount to “jumping out of an alley.” The figure is interesting on its own, but useless for this debate.

The more important figure is the 41% prior intimates. This is where you are trying to hang your hat. And it’s a valid point, because having prior sexual congress certainly speaks to a level of intimacy between the parties that makes rape a bit more of an amorphous concept than the stereotypical assault originating from left-field.

But when you say—as you did on 3:43-- “The white women raped/assaulted by black men, as the stats suggest, were overwhelmingly attacked by their black intimate partners/acquaintances”, you are overwhelmingly wrong. First 41% is a figure that’s only overwhelming if it equals the number of blacks in your neighborhood. Second, that figure is not evenly stratified across racial boundaries. The number of white women raped by prior intimates is not 41% for whites and 41% for blacks; it’s 41% overall.

In the vast majority of cases, the woman (black or white) being raped by a previous partner is being raped by a man of her own race (100% for blacks). I know this is true, since I know that men of their own race comprise the vast majority of women’s sexual partners. So since white women are raped by white men only 32% more often than they are raped by black men, we can know that any increase in the intimate figures for white rapists represent a fairly concomitant decrease in the number of intimate black rapists—in order to maintain the 41% average.

The logical conclusion being that the intimate white male rapist is likely far north of 41% while the intimate black male rapist is far south. If this is true, then it A) destroys your position, and B) means that the vast majority of white women sexually assaultedby blacks are not women they have been previously intimate with.

Anonymous said...

"Asians are not welcome since they are part of the problem of lawlessness (?)."

That opinion is not representative of the majority.

Personally, I welcome Asians here.

Stick around!

Anonymous said...

"Many white folks screw lots of minorities but they will *never* marry them."

Wow. Shocking.

Here's a little secret for you.

Irrespective of race, most people will have sex with partners that they would never marry.

Black men in particular alomst never marry the women that they impregnate.

You probably didn't know this.

Anonymous said...

"It's fairly common knowledge that women don't report sex crimes so how do we really know?"

So then, the statistics for black rape are probably much lower than the actual numbers.

Good point.

Porter said...

Denzel,

Quick, what’s 2+2?

I’m just kidding. I didn’t “rely” on the marriage statistics. I used them to point out that there are manifestly white male/black female unions. And if there are—and we know there are—why are there no white on black rapes if proximity is the key component. I’ve asked Snape this many times without receiving an answer. Since you guys are more simpatico, maybe he’ll whisper it into your ear.

I find it amusing that Porter has refused to go into Snape's point about what makes a black man more predisposed toward raping.

Then you’ll find this even more amusing…I have no idea what makes blacks rape. But if I were to offer a guess it would involve the effects of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

I can be 100% certain I will never rape anyone, and I don't know any rapists

You know, come to think of it, neither do I. And if we don't know any rapists between the two of us, then the whole damn notion is probably just contrived.

By the way, I loved you in Crimson Tide—except for the part at the end about the black/white stallions. That was ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Porter-

"Then you’ll find this even more amusing…I have no idea what makes blacks rape. But if I were to offer a guess it would involve the effects of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution."

So I can sum that up with something I'm sure you've already read in my other comment:

"I think Porter is afraid to answer that question because he knows his answer will comprise of nothing more than racist bullshit that can't be supplanted for actual fact unless you're talking to David Duke."

You're right (there's a first): I definitely find that more amusing!

"You know, come to think of it, neither do I."

Porter, I guess *you* are not 100% certain that you will never rape anyone, just that you 100% certain that you don't know any rapists? You must be of Serbian descent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War

~~~Denzel W.

Anonymous said...

"After raping black girls for generations these white guys just *stop* doing it? Or is it just more hidden now?"

This is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Seriously.

Even when slavery existed, only a small minority of whites ever own slaves. The vast majority of white people NEVER owned slaves.

Even if every last white slave-owner raped his black female slaves...that would still mean that most white males never raped a black female.

And slavery ended about 150 years ago.

So who exactly are these generational white rapists you are referring to???

Professor Snape said...

Porter said:
As for self-aggrandizing, that’s a difficult claim given that I’m rolling in the mud with the likes of you. Hell if selection of my opponents were any indication, one would assume I’m self-deprecating.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone who could be as efficiently hypocritical as you, Porter. You (attempted to) deny being "self-aggrandizing" and yet you insult me, which, in turn, proves my point. Thank you. I can at least say I have won one outright. :)

you continue:
I think—because the statistics prove—that blacks (as a group) are disproportionately voracious rapists who would forcibly insert their penis into the mouth of a wolverine if they could do it more than once.

And this tells me I am not dealing with someone capable of rational thought.

more:
Did you know that "One in four South African men questioned in a survey said they had raped someone, and nearly half of them admitted more than one attack"?

This is similar to the war rapes of Nan King and other war-time atrocities. Again, use some context, Porter. What you are saying - again - is that the average black man rapes as a past-time, a hobby, and that is tantamount to hyperbole and fiction. It seems as if you are incapable of avoiding this caveat in your reasoning, Porter. I believe it may be a habit.

Your onomatopoeia:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm guessing you do not want to go there? Not a surprise, Porter, not a surprise at all. I will say, however, all men are phallic to a degree and the historical concern over where black men put their penises is an off-shoot of this conceivably genetic predilection of ours. In this forum, though, I will begrudgingly not "push it" on this one to allow you to save face, because I know your "phallic" preoccupation is strange and unhealthy. No doubt you'll give me another string of "Zs" to show your discontent?

Hell if I know. As chaotic as they are, I have no idea what they "are on the verge" of doing.

What a convenient non-answer. I'll take it as you do believe, regardless of age, political opinion, education, marital status, etc., that ALL BLACK MEN are on the verge of rape. How very prudent and sound and not ludicrous of you, Porter. Another helpful confirmation that I am debating someone incapable of viewing any person with dark skin as human. Belief will always trump reason.

We shall conclude that they are despicable white men who never, ever rape black women. This despite the fact that they have just as ample the opportunities to do so as the black men who prey on white women with such alacrity.

"Prey" on white women? But I thought you asserted that there was no "racial targeting" being done? Are you now back-peddling because you cannot stomach the lie you've excreted in order to make your screeds look less like the rantings of a bloated and self-righteous Grand Dragon? Yes, I'm assuming?

(1 of 2)....

Professor Snape said...

(2 of 2)....

Do they really have the same opportunity? Chew on that one, Porter, because I have been rebuffed by black women who state that they just are not interested in dating white men. Many white women, even as reflected in the media, will not rebuff black men. You dredged up a marriage statistic that is damned meaningless because whites have sex with many people - including blacks - that they will never marry, so it's moot. But to indulge you, according to Pew Research (2008) about new marriages, black women and white women marry same-raced partners about 91% of the time, whereas white men marry white women 91% of the time and black men marry black women 78% of the time and white women 13% of the time. This "opportunity" is not equal for black men and white men to "marry out", if you want to rely on this, that is.

It’s become enjoyable now to watch you studiously ignore this question time after time. So I’ll ask you again: If exposure is the key to rape, then Where are the white male rapists of black females?

I have not ignored your question, Porter; you just do not like my answer. Refer to the aforementioned point.

Merely knowing someone before you rape them is still pretty tantamount to “jumping out of an alley.”

No, it is not.

The figure is interesting on its own, but useless for this debate.

Or useless to your argument.

Listen, I am not "hanging my hat" on the 41% figure, because about 75% of rapes/sexual assaults done by the intimate partner (former/current husbands or boyfriends) go unreported. My whole point, which may have gotten muddled - by my own doing - in the attempts to deflect the barrage of self-satisfied shit coming my way by the way of you, was that the scare tactics in reporting this interracial rape figure are based on nothing but disingenuousness.

So, I'm tagging out, Porter. If anyone else wants to debate you on this, they are free to take my place. When you say things like - I have no idea what makes blacks rape. But if I were to offer a guess it would involve the effects of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. - I have no chance of getting through to you. Yours is a viewpoint based on emotion, not logic.

I'd ask you what you'd make of those black men who have not raped - and those white men you have not raped, as well - but I fear a response akin to this one: "Hell, they haven't got the chance."

I am sure this is the same thing a feminist would say, and we'd both agree it was ridiculous. Take care, Porter. And good luck.

Professor Snape said...

Anonymous wrote:
Even when slavery existed, only a small minority of whites ever own slaves. The vast majority of white people NEVER owned slaves.

Even if every last white slave-owner raped his black female slaves...that would still mean that most white males never raped a black female.

And slavery ended about 150 years ago.


Not every black woman raped by a white man was raped during slavery or by slave masters, you bonehead. You obviously lack even a 3rd grade knowledge of history, which seems frighteningly common on this site.

It's a ridiculous notion to even pretend that white men don't rape. Rape is manifestly male, regardless of color. Always has been, always will be.

Porter said...

Snape, did you just soil your trousers? Tell me honestly. I don’t know that I’ve seen such a lachrymose, hysterical rending of feminine undergarments in the entire long history of my commenting here. That was…rather fascinating.

You are actually in tears this very moment. Unreal. Look, you’ll be fine. I won’t hold you to your now comical third-time bluff about leaving. Let’s talk about what you are feeling right now. I’m maybe not the best person to offer you a consoling shoulder at this moment, but know that deep down I’m just like you. Every one of us are completely undifferentiated cell masses. Once you stop sobbing you’ll realize I’m right. All the best…

Anonymous said...

"Not every black woman raped by a white man was raped during slavery or by slave masters, you bonehead."

Either provide a source, or be honest enough to admit that you can't.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"It's a ridiculous notion to even pretend that white men don't rape."

Did someone state that "white men don't rape"??

I must have missed that.

Or maybe you just made it up.

Anonymous said...

"Rape is manifestly male, regardless of color."

Thank you Captain Obvious, for confirming that males are significantly more likely to commit rape than females.

Your ability to state well-known facts that are not in dispute is awe-inspiring.

Anonymous said...

"So who exactly are these generational white rapists you are referring to???"

Still waiting for the answer to this question.

Anonymous said...

"Not every black woman raped by a white man was raped during slavery or by slave masters, you bonehead."

Did someone state that "every black woman raped by a white man was raped during slavery or by slave masters"??

I must have missed that.

Or maybe you just made it up.

Anonymous said...

"because I have been rebuffed by black women who state that they just are not interested in dating white men. Many white women, even as reflected in the media, will not rebuff black men."

Wow. This is probably the lamest, most unconvincing attempt to make a point that I've ever seen in my life.

Silent Running said...

I am now frightened that your types exist in society and I cannot point you out.

At the risk of sounding like Tyler Durden, we are everywhere. We bag your groceries, dispense your medication, and deliver your mail. Some of us are your fellow professors. Sleep well.

However, I feel compelled only because some of the stuff - not all - on this site is patently false propaganda.

Identify it and you can be on your way. Unless, of course, that was a fib and you actually have some need (like Desiree) that is driving you to post here. Your continued participation in this debate would indicate the latter.

This is similar to the war rapes of Nan King and other war-time atrocities.

Unless we count the ongoing low-level genocide perpetrated by blacks upon the Boers, there is no war happening in South Africa right now. Or are you one of these fanatics who thinks that apartheid was so cruel and destructive that living in its aftermath is tantamount to war?

It's a ridiculous notion to even pretend that white men don't rape.

It's more ridiculous to assert that anyone who talks about black-on-white rape is denying all other forms. This is a common, reflexive straw man among DWLs.

I don't believe you're going anywhere, "Professor." Prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Did someone state that "every black woman raped by a white man was raped during slavery or by slave masters"??

I must have missed that.

Or maybe you just made it up."

It was in the March 27th 12:00PM comment. And it was a stupid remark by that poster. The "Recy Taylor" story listed in this article disproves that person's comment.

"Either provide a source, or be honest enough to admit that you can't.

Thank you."

The "Recy Taylor" story disproves this; he doesn't need a source to disprove the bullshit of white slave masters being the only ones raping black women. God, do you people *read*?

"Wow. This is probably the lamest, most unconvincing attempt to make a point that I've ever seen in my life."

Actually it's not a *lame* statement on Snape's part. I am a black man. Most black women prefer black men and will date us exclusively about 95% of the time; this is why they get mad when some of us date white girls. The only time a black girl is with a white guy is because she--for some reason--can't *get* a black man, or the type she wants. She might be too dark-skinned or too nappy-headed or some other bullshit. Black girls want black guys and for various reasons, when they cannot get a black man, they go to white men. Many times white guys are more open to darker-skinned black chicks. It's usually not about "looking white" but "acting white," for lack of a better term. It's interesting to me that most of the black girls with white guys (real world, not hollywood) are dark-skinned chicks.

Snape's statement is on-point, and I bet he was asking out sisters who had black men kissing their feet and weren't desperate enough to be interested in a white man. I've been in clubs with white friends and the black girls they approach rather go with me than them. Although I believe black women are raped by white men, if you argue it from Snape's angle, it makes sense why there are fewer white-on-black rapes.

Many times, too, the "class factor" comes into play with these rape stats. Black girls around white guys tend to be very educated, which is attractive to white men, sometimes moreso than it is to *some* black men. They are typically in much higher socioeconomic brackets. So, what I'm saying is, while higher status people do rape, it's significantly less than poorer people doing it.

I mean, you will not find a white guy in the "hood"--Snape pointed out that 91% (!) of white guys marry white girls and less than 1% marry black girls--but you will find a white girl, maybe 2 or 3 or 10, there. 13% of black men marry white girls. And it's damn well more likely to get raped at Pookie's house party (I have to mention a drunken frat house or trailer park) than at some function held by Michael Eric Dyson or Clarence Thomas or my namesake.

This is just true.

~~~Denzel W.

Anonymous said...

"It was in the March 27th 12:00PM comment."

Please copy and paste it, thank you.

"The "Recy Taylor" story disproves this"

The 'Recy Taylor' story does not provide white-on-black rape stats, and it does not identify the "generational rapists" that some idiot claimed.

"Actually it's not a *lame* statement on Snape's part."

Actually, it was EXTREMELY lame.

"I am a black man."

The name "Denzel" was a dead giveaway.

"Most black women prefer black men and will date us exclusively about 95% of the time"

Repeating an unproven statement is not very convincing. If you are unable to provide a source, please be honest enough to say so, thank you.

Anonymous said...

"This is just true."

Denzel, by adding this cliche to the end, you give the impression that you are making things up.

Allow me to give you an example:

"Black people invented rocket science, and built the first space craft.
This is just true."

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds??

It suggests that the statement is total bullshit.

I hope I've been helpful.

Anonymous said...

"I am sure this is the same thing a feminist would say, and we'd both agree it was ridiculous. Take care, Porter. And good luck."

Hmm. This Snape character sounds more and more like Diarrhea. Guys just don't write like this.

Anonymous said...

Well, Denzel, I too think you're just making things up. First, because your racial dating statements are in direct contradiction to what I have observed. And second because my anecdotal observations match closely all the surveys I've bothered to look at over the years.

Here's a summary of one:

http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/10/21/online-dating-statistics-religion-and-race/

The online dat­ing web­site OkCu­pid has a rather fas­ci­nat­ing blog, OkTrends, writ­ten by two of the four math­e­mat­ics majors who founded the site. [An] issue tack­led through the magic of online dat­ing sta­tis­tics is that of race and the reply rates between them. Some observations:

o Black women are the most likely to reply to your first mes­sage. In many cases, their response rate is one and a half times the aver­age, and over­all black women reply about a quar­ter more often.

o White men get more responses.

o White women pre­fer white men to the exclu­sion of every­one else.

o Asian and His­panic women pre­fer [white men] even more exclu­sively [than white women].

o Men don’t write black women back [as] often than they should (sta­tis­ti­cally speak­ing, obviously).

o Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies.

o Essen­tially every race—including other blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder.

o Even though white males get the most replies, they respond about 20% less often than non-white males.

o Between 2 and 7% of males and females of all races believe inter­ra­cial mar­riage is a bad idea.

o Around 20% of males and females of all races, except whites, have a racial background/skin colour preference.

o 40% of white males and 54% of white females have this preference.

---------------------------------

You refer to the behavior of white women at HBCU's as if you know something about it. I'm guessing you've been to one.

Your propensity to invent "facts" and your abject inability to form a coherent logical argument would certainly indicate you're HBCU material.

I would suggest that you consider that whites (male or female) who attend HCBUs are hardly typical and certainly not the cream of the crop. In fact they're pretty well off the bottom of the barrel.

Let us remember that by any accepted measure (e.g. SAT scores) most HCBU students are, on average, borderline retarded on a white scale. The percentage of whites who would choose to goThere's just not a lot of overlap (of whites anyway) between your HCBU crowd and the Ivy Leagues (or U of Michigan or even Michigan State, to pick a few schools at random).

Extrapolating from such a tiny and highly abnormal subset (white HCBU students) to the general white population is flat-out absurd.

Anonymous said...

I am a black man.

She might be too dark-skinned.


?

Anonymous said...

Denzel, allow me one last comment. You refer to "Professor" Snape's statistics,

But to indulge you, according to Pew Research (2008) about new marriages, black women and white women marry same-raced partners about 91% of the time, whereas white men marry white women 91% of the time and black men marry black women 78% of the time and white women 13% of the time.
(which can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States)

But you totally misunderstand them.
So does the "Professor" but we'll leave that alone for a minute.

See, what the statement actually says is that in a certain period of time (say, roughly, the year 2008) 91% of white BRIDES married white men, it says absolutely nothing about the percentage of white WOMEN who married (or are married to white men). And similarly for the other numbers. The fact that 91% of black BRIDES married black GROOMS but only 78% of black GROOMS married black BRIDES tells you absolutely nothing about any "black women's preference for black men."

What it DOES tell you is RELATIVELY FEW BLACK WOMEN GOT MARRIED AT ALL. And the male/female ratio for adult blacks is quite low compared to other races, so even fewer black women get married than it might seem at first glance.

This has a whole lot to do with the incredible 70% illegitimacy rate for black women and the fact that their (black) baby-daddies are nowhere to be found. It has nothing to do with the relative percentages of black/white women in interracial marriages or their relative preferences for such.

But, if you look in the above-cited Wikipedia article, you will find some numbers that DO ADDRESS exactly that:

The 2010 US Census results for black/white interracial marriages shows they are in the ratio 5:2 white wives to black wives. But lets think real hard about that for a minute. In case you don't know, the ratio of whites to blacks in the country is about 5:1. Using some really advanced grade-school math, we can determine that:

A married black woman is *TWICE* as likely to have a white husband as a married white woman is to have a black husband.

Which pretty well puts all your blather in the toilet, along with the "Professor"s truely bizarre logic.

Let us refine Porter's argument a bit. For our purposes, marriage statistics ARE a reasonable estimate of relative numbers of "intimate partners" which is the all we will consider here -- because the argument easily tolerates an order of magnitude error in that estimate. See, Denzel, "intimate partner" doesn't mean you nailed a girl once or even twice, it means you are or recently were in a steady (usually co-habitating) relationship of some duration. And more than 10% of women are married so "married" has to estimate "intimately partnered" to within a factor of 10. See how that works? Think about it.

So, accepting Mr. Snape's numbers of 40/40/20 for the percentages of Partner/Acquaintance/Stranger rape (sexual assault) we have that black on white Partner attacks are about 14,000/year (based on PK's reference, which are, in fact, official FBI-compiled crime statistics). So, if white men attacked their black partners at anthing like the same rate, there would be about 6000/year (2:5).

But there aren't 6000; there are more like 6.

That's aTHREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE discrepancy between the data and our "Professors"s "theory". Even if Porter's use of marriage statistics to estimate "intimate partners" is totally worthless (and its not), our idiot "Professor" still has to account for a two-orders-of-mangitude discrepancy.

Anonymous said...

(continued)

And his babble-talk doesn't begin to do that, even if it was right -- and it’s not even close to right, it doesn't even make sense. His explanations are every bit as stupid as his statistics.

The good "Professor"s position actually boils down to this: "PK overstates the risk for the vast majority (>95%) of white women because its the small minority (<5%) involved with black men who sustain more that half the attacks."

Our "Professor" has brought up the derivative (from the data) fact that white women "intimately involved" with black men are TWENTY TIMES more likely to be sexually assaulted than those who aren't.
(oh, and btw, as any reasonable person might guess, the statistics for severe physical battery are similar).
Sorry Denzel, Mr. Snape's confused drivel just does not support your position (that black men aren't violent). It does rather the opposite. That you think otherwise is evidence that HBCU students really are as cranially deficient as their SAT scores indicate. That's the data. What can I say?

Well, this: The actuarial facts are that statistically a white women would need to be mentally disturbed, deficient or both to get "intimately partnered" with a black man. And that correlates with my personal observations that most of them in fact are. And their stories sound much like those we keep hearing from women in Haiti.

ENUFF ALREADY.

Anonymous said...

Porter said (tho not to me)...
...what on Earth would lead you to conclude that Snape has a high IQ? I’m practically embarrassed for him.


(1) he doesn't and (2)I actually am embarrassed for him.

As for all those black women that keep turning him down, maybe we need an sbpdl numbered article on Kosher Kielbasa.... or maybe we could introduce him to Diarrhea and end his priapic frustrations.

-----------------
"Professor":

Your first post doesn't make any sense, but at least the logical flaws are all second order. And PK *is* sometimes rather fast and loose with his numbers -- being a bit more careful on that is one way he could improve (an already excellent product).

So, "Professor," while your posting was flawed to the point of incoherence, one rarely gets valid logic from a black guy. Which, based on the garble level, I presumed you to be. And you did touch on a PK weak point. So I was willing to give you a break on the IQ issue.

But then you declare yourself a Polish Jew!!! Are you serious? Were you trying to do a really clever gotcha or something? It didn't work too good:-)

Sorry, but for a Polish Jew (and I really am 1/4), your first posting is just embarrassingly stupid. And the follow-ons get worse... and worse ... and worse. If you are in fact what you say, you're down at the bottom of that pickle barrel; too stupid to figure out you're an idiot. Are you sure you're not black?

As for your love life: What are you, totally clueless? Why oh why did you have to bring that up?

I understand you asking out black women. Other things being adequate, Jewish women tend to think brighter is better and generally prefer intelligence, probably because they usually have some. You're sure not gonna catch many fish in that pond, my friend.

But, ohh, your statement that black women tell you "sorry, I don't date outside my race" ... ohhh. Are you actually so cluelessly self-involved that you think that's typical or even true for your particular cases?

News flash: Even black girls tell white lies.

A word of advice, if I may, on the social graces: Sometimes you gotta read between the lines and hear what isn't said.

Do I actually need to spell it out for you? Evidently, yes. So, which would you most likely accept as "nothing personal, but no thanks":

I don't date ...
a. white
b. losers
c. white losers

I'm sorry dude, I'm real sorry ... but your claim that you (would that be like "even you":-) 'can't get dates with a black chicks' says far more about you than it does about them.