The Truth About Rape in the U.S

[White Shogun]

Although this is not news to anyone who posts on this site, you may want to share the following article with your friends and family members who are persuaded of the benevolence of the friendly black male:

The Truth About Interracial Rape in the U.S.

 

[cutty]

i saw that too. beat me to it, shogun. but no, not surprised. the only thing i was even mildy surprised about was that there were no, none, zero white man rapes of black women.

 

[Triad]

Those stats made the Duke LAX case so ridiculous. If it were to have happened then over 30% of all white men in the whole country who would rape a black woman were at one Duke Party that night.

 

[Run Stuffing LB]

It's a pretty good article, at least until it started citing Wikipedia. Edited by: Run Stuffing LB

 

[sport historian]

Yesterday, David Howowitz reacted to criticism for running this article by banning Lawrence Auster from Frontpagemag. The thread below is from Auster's "View From The Right."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007752.html

 

[Kaptain]

It's a pretty good article, at least until it started citing Wikipedia.

One wikipedia reference doesn't invalidate Dept. of Justice Statitics that is also cited as the main peice of evidence. If you have counter evidence, please cite your sources.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Great article! I'm forwarding to a lot of people via email.

 

[Guest]

You guyts do know that while these statistics do prove that whites are less likely to rape interracially when compared to blacks, it doesn't prove that white women are more likely to be raped by black males...right?

90% of crimes committed by blacks and about 95% of crimes committed by whites are intraracial. If you really are trying to persuade your friends that we as blacks are, well, not friendly, but truly evil folks just waiting for the chance to pounce and ravage their daughters, then shouldn't you try and use different stats for the task?

I mean, it just seems like you're trying to prove to your friends that they should be more wary of blacks when it comes to rape potential than of whites. The stats you're using don't really show that. It shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race, but it doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be raped by them.

BTW, here a source I used, same as yours.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1177

 

[Triad]

I mean, it just seems like you're trying to prove to your friends that they should be more wary of blacks when it comes to rape potential than of whites. The stats you're using don't really show that. It shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race, but it doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be raped by them.

BTW, here a source I used, same as yours.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1177

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. 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. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The stats show exactly that black males have earned the right to be profiled and deserve extra caution from both black and white women. Based on the statistics from the article, which I assume are correct, in 2005 black males were responsible for the rape 99.999% of the black females and 33.6% of the white females in the US. Blacks raped 36620 black women and 37494 white women. So black men were more likely to pick a white victim than a black victim.

Go to Amren's free report and look at the facts: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

Major Findings:
- Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.

Interracial Crime
- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

 

[C Darwin]

90% of crimes committed by blacks and about 95% of crimes
committed by whites are intraracial. If you really are trying to
persuade your friends that we as blacks are, well, not friendly, but
truly evil folks just waiting for the chance to pounce and ravage their
daughters, then shouldn't you try and use different stats for the
task?

I mean, it just seems like you're trying to prove to your friends that
they should be more wary of blacks when it comes to rape potential
than of whites. The stats you're using don't really show that. It
shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race, but it
doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be
raped by them.

Even when population proportions are taken into consideration,
blacks are more likely to commit violet crimes against whites, than
whites are against blacks. It's just math, and if the MSM would ever
dare to point this out, we wouldn't have to.

I think your 90%/95% statistic is either wrong or misstated.

 

[Guest]

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. 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. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

While blacks are overrepresented in this category, this data doesn't refute my point-whites are more likely to be raped by whites than blacks(44.5% vs. 33.6%). It shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race when committing these crimes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be raped by them. The fact that more of the perps are white shows that much.

So, with that said, why should a white woman be more wary of a black over a white if the stats show that in the end it will most likely be a white perpetrator in the event that she ever does get raped?

The stats show exactly that black males have earned the right to be profiled and deserve extra caution from both black and white women. Based on the statistics from the article, which I assume are correct, in 2005 black males were responsible for the rape 99.999% of the black females and 33.6% of the white females in the US. Blacks raped 36620 black women and 37494 white women. So black men were more likely to pick a white victim than a black victim.

Again: that does prove that blacks are, in the end, more likely to go out of their race when committing crime than are whites. It does not, however, show that whites were more likely to be raped by a black man over a white one.
The percentage for white probability is about 11% higher. Granted, the figure of 33.6% is far too high relative to the black population and to the rate of white on black crime.
However, if you are trying to use these stats to get whites to be more afraid of blacks than other whites, then I believed you'd be pushing a fallacy. The stats still show that in the end whites are more likely to be raped by other whites than by blacks. They should, therefore, not be any more wary of blacks than they should of whites.

Major Findings:
- Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.

While it is true that crime in general has its primary roots in cultural and social factors rather than economic ones, we should not totally discount any sort of profiling when it comes to incarceration.

While over time I have come to the conclusion that this is in fact a minor reason overall(it is often made out to be a far bigger cause thanit actually is), it still does have some effect, although admittedly blacks are certainly not helping their community out(I'll save that theory for another discussion).

It may be in the minority as far as this issue goes, but let us not completely discount it.

Interracial Crime
- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

I have already addressed the main issue with most of these points when it comes to who people should be afraid of.

But I should also point out murder stats.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

From 1976 to 2004 --

86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Perhaps I made an error here in taking these murder figures to correspond with violent crime. However, I should again note that none of those figures you have put forth above necessarily refutes the claim that the majority of white victims of violent crime are victimised by other whites.

Again: it does show that blacks are more likely to go outside of their race than are whites. However, it does not mean that the number of white perpetrators committing the crimes against whites is less than the number of blacks doing the same.

Given the trend when it comes to murder and the aforementioned rape stats(both of which show that white victims are more likely to be victimised by other whites than blacks), it could probably be stated correctly that more white victims of violent crime as a whole will suffer because of other whites than they will at the hands of blacks.

 

[C Darwin]

Again: it does show that blacks are more likely to go outside of their race than are whites. However, it does not mean that the number of white perpetrators committing the crimes against whites is less than the number of blacks doing the same.

Given the trend when it comes to murder and the aforementioned rape stats(both of which show that white victims are more likely to be victimised by other whites than blacks), it could probably be stated correctly that more white victims of violent crime as a whole will suffer because of other whites than they will at the hands of blacks.

The former is also correctly stated, and it's good information.

 

[PitBull]

From the American Rennaissance Site, The Color of Crime:

Interracial Crime

- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year
involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites
commit 15 percent.

- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks.
Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10
percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three
percent of their victims are black.

- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime
against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit
robbery.

- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate
crimes against whites than vice versa.

And now we know that blacks are 3,750 times more likely to rape a white
woman than a white man is likely to rape a black woman. I would try to
calculate how much more likely white women are to be gang raped by
black men than black women are to be gang raped by white men, but
since all the gang rape is committed by blacks against white women in
this comparison, the number goes to infinity.

Also, on the rapin' front, most women are raped by men they know. Of
those times when the rapist is unknown, he is far more likely to be black
than white. That's why white women should be very afraid of black men
they don't know. Or do know, for that matter.

Oh, and we all know how hard the government works to "disappear" black
hate crimes. Those figures should be FAR higher. The statistc that 45%
of black violent crime is against whites tells the tale. Blacks hunt for
whites to assault and rob. They leave their own neighborhoods to do so.

The Color of Crime is compilated from government statistics.

Theys the facts. Edited by: PitBull

 

[InfamousOne]

Future Gohan: Blacks, representing 12% of the population, commit more rapes then whites, who are the majority of the population at 74.7%. How can you twist that to say that a white woman should be more afraid of whites?


Did you know hispanics are considered "white" by the Justice Dept in thier crime statistics? How many rapes of white women would it be if we could really see the truth and seperate our "white cousins?" Why would they want to hide that information from whites? Perhaps the numbers are so disparate that it may make us reconsider how violent our neighbors are and how different we really are in our aims/goals then them?


Either way, does it matter which race of woman blacks are raping to tell white women to stay away from them? How about based on thier armed robbery or domestic violence statistics, in which they clearly beat whites while being 1/7th of thier population in size?


No, somebody needs to tell white women they are in danger, because our "news" distributors seem to have a hard time telling the whole truth of the matter. Again, why would the news do this if there was no need to hide your violent nature? Allowing murder and rape to keep the peace? What good men alow this type of action?


These statistics should move black men to action, as they are shameful, but what will your leaders say about them? Nothing. They are busyextorting non-threats like Don Imus by using our good grace against us . Absolutely shameful.

 

[Triad]

From 1976 to 2004 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

See if you can give the actual numbers and not just percentages. How easy it is to manipulate statistics.

So for those keeping score and I will be generous and give white men 10 offenses since their actual number is between 1 and 10:

In 2005
Black men --> black women: 36,610 rapes
White men --> black women:10 rapes
Others--> black women:0 rapes
Black men --> white women: 37,494 rapes
White men --> white women: 49,657 rapes
Others--> white women: 24,439 rapes

Using your logic, white women should be more wary of nonwhite men because they accounted for 56% of rapes, more than white men's 44%.

In contrast, black women were raped < 1% of the time by nonblack men so they can afford the luxury of being more cautious only around black men.

I'm sure we'll just continue to disagree on the interpretation of the numbers.
Edited by: Triad

 

[PitBull]

Now you know why rape isn't classified as a "hate" crime, even though its
exclusively men against women, and considering the huge power of the
feminst man-haters. That's because the perpetrators are so predominantly
black and minority.

 

[Guest]

From the American Rennaissance Site, The Color of Crime:

Interracial Crime

- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year
involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites
commit 15 percent.

- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks.
Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10
percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three
percent of their victims are black.

- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime
against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit
robbery.

- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate
crimes against whites than vice versa.

And now we know that blacks are 3,750 times more likely to rape a white
woman than a white man is likely to rape a black woman. I would try to
calculate how much more likely white women are to be gang raped by
black men than black women are to be gang raped by white men, but
since all the gang rape is committed by blacks against white women in
this comparison, the number goes to infinity.

Yeah, dude, I got that already. Read the previous post. I understand that blacks are more likely to go outside their race when it comes to rape. However, it seemed that originally in this thread people were trying to show with these stats that white people should be more wary of blacks than they should of whites. To show that you'd have to prove that whites are more likely to be raped by a black perp than a white one, and none of the stats seem to show that.

Of
those times when the rapist is unknown, he is far more likely to be black
than white.

Do you have sourcing for that?

Theys the facts.

Yes, i know, but you're misconstruing my point. Thats all.

Edited by: Futuregohan30

 

[Guest]

Future Gohan: Blacks, representing 12% of the population, commit more rapes then whites, who are the majority of the population at 74.7%. How can you twist that to say that a white woman should be more afraid of whites?

Because the stats show that when there was a white rape victim, the percentage for white perpetrators was higher. In other words, when whites were raped, their rapist was white more often than black.

Why should they be more afriad of blacks if blacks aren't more likely to rape them? I'm not twisting anything, it all seems quite obvious to me.

Did you know hispanics are considered "white" by the Justice Dept in thier crime statistics? How many rapes of white women would it be if we could really see the truth and seperate our "white cousins?"

That would actually help to hurt your argument. You see, hispanics live in closer proximity to blacks than do non hispanic caucasians generally. Therefore it would be feasible to conclude that hispanics are more likely to incur the effects of black crime than are whites. That would, in other words, take away a significant percentage of your percentages when it comes to black on white crime.

For example: your stats show that blacks raped whites 45% of the time, lets say. Were we to divide this up and put hispanics out as a separate group, then chances are that number would decrease signifcantly for non white caucasians, and the rate of black on white crime vs. white on black crime would not look quite as bad.

In other words, such an event would most likely hurt you, not help you.

Either way, does it matter which race of woman blacks are raping to tell white women to stay away from them?

Hey, I dunno dude. I didn't start the topic, just commenting on it is all.

How about based on thier armed robbery or domestic violence statistics, in which they clearly beat whites while being 1/7th of thier population in size?

Most of those crimes, however, are committed against other blacks. Why should whites be scared of blacks they may know when most of this crime within the black community stays right inside of the black community?

Again, why would the news do this if there was no need to hide your violent nature?

Pardon me, but I do not have a "violent nature".

Allowing murder and rape to keep the peace? What good men alow this type of action?

People know about the crime rate within the black community. They do not believe that they should simply stereotype all black people due to the crime, and they do not have to.

These statistics should move black men to action, as they are shameful, but what will your leaders say about them? Nothing. They are busy extorting non-threats like Don Imus by using our good grace against us . Absolutely shameful.

Well, perhaps you're correct about that. Edited by: Futuregohan30

 

[Guest]

See if you can give the actual numbers and not just percentages. How easy it is to manipulate statistics.

I don't see what that effect that has on the nature of this debate. I presented the facts as I saw them courtesy of the US Government. You can't try now to discredit them for being percentages just because you do not like them.

Using your logic, white women should be more wary of nonwhite men because they accounted for 56% of rapes, more than white men's 44%.

No, my logic is using a strict group-by-group modus operendi. We're judging group by group. That means no lumping all non whites into one big group and judging from that perspective. Asians, Blacks, Whites, and Native Americans, etc, etc, are separate.

Thus, going by my logic, it would be correct to say that they should be less wary of asian men than they should blacks or whites. It would be unfair to label asians and lump them into one big group "non whites", because their rate of rape is so low.

The only proper and objective way to analyze such an issue is group by group. Group by group, asians do less than blacks when it comes to rape against whites, but at the same time blacks to less than other whites do against whites regarding the issue of rape.

In contrast, black women were raped < 1% of the time by nonblack men so they can afford the luxury of being more cautious only around black men.

That would be correct.

I'm sure we'll just continue to disagree on the interpretation of the numbers.

Seems that way.

 

[Don Wassall]

While blacks are overrepresented in this category, this data doesn't refute my point-whites are more likely to be raped by whites than blacks(44.5% vs. 33.6%). It shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race when committing these crimes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be raped by them. The fact that more of the perps are white shows that much.

Stop right here. There are roughly six white males for every black male in this country, yet white women are raped almost as often by black men as by white men. If white men were raping black women at the same ratio, almost all rapes of black women would be by white men. But black women are not raped by white men at all.


End of story. The moral for white women is to be afraid, very afraid, of black males.Toattempt to twist it as your are doingis quite pathetic. Gohan, if you want to be a defender of your race, you need to have the wisdom to acknowledge its negatives and be honest about them, not try to pretend the elephant in the tent isn't there. From assault to rape to murder,blacks areslaughtering whites, every single year, in staggering numbers. More whites are killed by blacks, every single year, than the total of all blacks that were lynched in this country. It's a one-sided undeclared race war of black against white, with the approval and encouragement of the "white" power structure,that's been going on for 40 years, and which is now intensifying with the Third World insurgent illegal alieninvaders added asanti-white combatants.

 

[Triad]

See if you can give the actual numbers and not just percentages. How easy it is to manipulate statistics.

I don't see what that effect that has on the nature of this debate. I presented the facts as I saw them courtesy of the US Government. You can't try now to discredit them for being percentages just because you do not like them.

I simply asked for actual numbers, if they were available, to look at them for comparison.

Back to 2005, black men raped 74,104 women (51% white, 49% black). White men get credit for 49,657 (all white women) and other races get credit for 24,439 (all white women). Due to the fact that "other" women rapes were not given I excluded them although it is probable they received their fair share of crime from black men.

Assuming blacks make up 12% of the US male population they account for 50% of the US rapes (with whites being their most common target, barely). Again this discounts Hispanic, Asian, and other race victims but there is no evidence that their information would improve the statistics.

So the moral of this long and tedious thread is ALL WOMEN should be very cautious when dealing with black men. Edited by: Triad

 

[PitBull]

The guy has no argument, just an annoying familiarity with the copy and
paste clipboard feature of Windows. He acts like he's responding to a post,
when in fact, he's just reiterating his argument and not acknowledging your
point at all. Tiresome, isn't it?

 

[White Shogun]

If I'm not mistaken, DOJ stats list Hispanic violators as white, but lists them as Hispanic when victims. So, it doesn't refute the argument being made by Triad, Pitbull, and others that black men rape more white women. Whites and Hispanics are in separate categories as victims of crimes.

 

[chris371]

While blacks are overrepresented in this category, this data doesn't refute my point-whites are more likely to be raped by whites than blacks(44.5% vs. 33.6%). It shows that blacks are more likely to go out of their race when committing these crimes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that white women are more likely to be raped by them. The fact that more of the perps are white shows that much.

Stop right here.  There are roughly six white males for every black male in this country, yet white women are raped almost as often by black men as by white men.  If white men were raping black women at the same ratio, almost all rapes of black women would be by white men.  But black women are not raped by white men at all. 


 

Well put, i was about to say the same thing.

 

[Guest]

Stop right here.  There are roughly six white males for every black male in this country, yet white women are raped almost as often by black men as by white men.  If white men were raping black women at the same ratio, almost all rapes of black women would be by white men.  But black women are not raped by white men at all. 


End of story.

Sir, with all due respect, I have to disagree. The ratio of black on white crime vs. white on black crime is very much disparate, this has already been established.
But you and your comrades were using that stat to show that somehow whites should be more afraid of whites than they should of blacks, and to justify that you'd have to show that whites were more likely to be raped by whites than by blacks.

Your stats show that blacks are a lot more prevalent when it comes to interracial crime, but that does not mean that they should be more wary of blacks than they should of whites. Whites are 11% more likely to be the perpetrators.

Gohan, if you want to be a defender of your race, you need to have the wisdom to acknowledge its negatives and be honest about them, not try to pretend the elephant in the tent isn't there.

Oh, no, I beg to differ. I already acknowledged the presence of said elephant: I've already admitted, rather copiously I might add, that the rate of black on white crime vs. white on black crime is astonishingly disparate. That I have not tried to challenge; after all, as you have said, it is an elephant in the tent, is it not?

What I have challeneged, however, is your very interpretation of these stats. That is where the fundamental disagreement is. You believe that this fact should mean that whites should be more afraid of black men than they should of whites. I disagree, because I don't see why that should be the case when the stats show they are more likely to be raped by another white person.
Why be more wary of one group when that group is not as likely to be your perpetrator as compared to antoehr group? If anything, this warrants equal vigilence-I do not see the point of putting one group over another, especially considering the fact that the group you are trying to put up there has a probability rate that is 11% lower.

From assault to rape to murder, blacks are slaughtering whites, every single year, in staggering numbers.

You have rape-the rate of black on white rape was higher than the rate of white on black rape. However, it still should be noted that when it comes to things like murder and assault, blacks do target other blacks around 86% of the time.

I noted this earlier in the thread.

More whites are killed by blacks, every single year, than the total of all blacks that were lynched in this country.  It's a one-sided undeclared race war of black against white, with the approval and encouragement of the "white" power structure, that's been going on for 40 years, and which is now intensifying with the Third World insurgent illegal alien invaders added as anti-white combatants.

Well, that is in fact another story. As has been noted in this thread, hispanics are supposedly counted as whites, correct? If that is in fact the case, then were they to be separated from white crime statistics, it would be highly probably that the rate of black on non hispanic white crime would not look quite as bad(still bad, but significantly less so).

Have you taken this into account?