Politically Incorrect Truths
Steve
a.. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
b.. Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than
vice versa.
c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women.
e.. And much more.
http://www.amren.com/color.exe
Jürgen
Steve schrieb in Nachricht ...
<consequences of disenfranchisement snipped>
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
>dangerous than women.
How fit Afro-American women in? Are they as dangerous as white women or as
white males?
> e.. And much more....
...stuff indignifying any member of the human race.
John Rennie
"Steve" <St...@silentlurker.net> wrote in message
news:cNCz8.54718$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The sensational crime study that proves:
> a.. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
That's where the money is.
> b.. Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than
> vice versa.
That's where the money is
> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
Why should whites want to commit hate crimes?
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
> dangerous than women.
Thats where the money is.
> e.. And much more.
There always is.
A Planet Visitor
"Steve" <St...@silentlurker.net> wrote in message
news:cNCz8.54718$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The sensational crime study that proves:
> a.. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
Lie.
> b.. Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than
> vice versa.
Lie.
> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
Lie.
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
> dangerous than women.
Lie
> e.. And much more.
>
> http://www.amren.com/
>
The entire URL is just a lie.
mr.One
"Steve" <St...@silentlurker.net> wrote in message
news:cNCz8.54718$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> a.. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
Well, quit doing dumb shit.
> b.. Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than
> vice versa.
I'll personally slap the shit outta some dumbfuck who's fucking with me. NO
matter the color.
> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
LOL! Bullshit!
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
> dangerous than women.
LOL!
Hell, you fuckers just become serial killers and hack a few hundred of 'em.
Tom Shelly, White God
Your statement of 'That's where the money is" as an excuse for the fact
that 90% of all interracial attacks are by niggers against Whites is
false.
Here's some facts for you. I hope that you are open minded enough to
see the truth when it is presented to you with verifiable sources. Or
if you will simply come up with a new excuse for the nigger's behavior.
"In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),the
Justice
Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent
crimes against
whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. We
can safely infer that
most of the rest had race as at least a partial motive.
Eighty-five percent of the
attacks were assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing
these 1.6 million
crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345
violent offenses
against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the
nation, committed more
than 90 percent of the violent inter-racial crime. Fifty-seven
percent of the violent
crime committed by blacks had white victims. Less than 3
percent of violence
committed by whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64
times more likely to
attack a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate
in America. It is the
media's well-kept secret."
http://www.ety.com/HRP/hatecrime/blackwhite.htm
Liberals often try to blame Black violence on poverty. The Census data,
however, disproves that
hypothesis. How? In 1995, among the American poor, there were 16.3
million Whites (real ones), 10.0
million Blacks, 8.6 million "Hispanics," and 1.4 million Asians. Blacks
comprised about 27.6% of the
American poor. Those poverty numbers can be verified at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/pov95/povest1.html. During that year,
Blacks committed about
54% of all US murders. Remember that the FBI, from whom the murder
information comes, counts
"Hispanics" as "Whites," making the total number of poor persons
eligible to be committing murders as
"Whites" about 24.8 million. These "Whites" comprised 68.5% of the
American poor, but committed -
at most - only 46% of 1995 US murders, if we make the doubtful
assumption that Asians and
Amerindians committed none. The evidence argues against the liberal
hypothesis that poverty causes
crime.
Sometimes, after liberals see their "poverty causes crime" hypothesis go
down in flames, they shift over to
a kind of "class envy" argument. Suddenly, it isn't primal necessity
that drives all those poor Blacks to
crime - it's envy instead, for which of course the Black murderers
should not bE blamed. In the rural
areas, the liberals say, people are spread out and rich and poor don't
necessarily have to interact. But in
the cities, the economic differences are more visible, and so more
likely to incite violence, and hence the
liberals give us the "degree of urbanization" hypothesis to explain
Black violence. In the preceding graph,
the US states and the District of Columbia are positioned according to
their respective percentages of
Blacks and mestizos in the resident population. It is rather easy to see
that the Whitest states have the
lowest rates for violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery and
aggravated assault were considered in
making the graph). Somewhat higher rates of violence come with
increasing percentages of mestizos, but
the largest increase comes with increasing percentages of Blacks.
Anomalous points are probably the
result of anomalous situations, but the trend is clear.
Tom Shelly, White God
How fit Afro-American women in? Are they as dangerous as white women or as
white males?
I'm glad you asked Jurgen.
YES, as a matter of fact, nigger females are more dangerous than a White male. and 1,500 times more dangerous than a White female.
Here you go:
According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims,
more than 6.6 million
violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in
the US each year, of which about
20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
* Most victims of race crime - about 90 per cent - are white,
according to the survey "Highlights
from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.
* Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted
or raped by black Americans in
1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed,
assaulted or raped by whites,
according to the same survey.
* Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes
than whites even though the
black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population.
When these figures are
adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity:
blacks are committing more
than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.
* According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, most
inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with
blacks murdering whites at 18
times the rate that whites murder blacks.
http://www.stormfront.org/crusader/texts/bt/bt06.html
"Blacks are as much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as
men are
more likely to be arrested than women. To the extent that arrest rates
are a
good indication of actual criminal behavior - and there is very strong
evidence that they are - blacks are as much more dangerous than whites
as
men are more dangerous than women. If people feel more threatened by
unknown
men than by unknown women and ar justified in taking additional precautions
against them, from a statistical point of view, they are equally justified
in making the same distinctions between blacks and whites." (New Century
Foundation, "The Color of Crime," 1998, p.1)
Wanna check for yourself? http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
While the Census Bureau often categorizes real Whites separately from
mestizos, the FBI and the Justice
Department usually do not. The law-enforcement agencies of the federal
government lump together
crimes committed by Whites, mestizos, Arabs, Jews, various North Africans
and Middle Easterners, and
certain Filipinos into the same category, deceptively labeled "Whites,"
skewing the apparent White crime
total upwards. When the FBI reports a percentage of crimes as having
"White" perpetrators, we must
keep in mind that the report refers to the combination of Whites and
these others, who together formed
about 84% of the US population in 1995. To prevent confusion between
real Whites and all those whom
the FBI calls "Whites," we will put the category of FBI "Whites" in
quotation marks.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reports are available on the Internet at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm.
In one of
these reports, titled Crime in the United States, 1995, we can draw
several interesting conclusions
from Table 2.8. In 1995, there were 10032 US murders having a single
perpetrator and a single victim.
Of these murders, Blacks committed 5175 (51.6%) and "Whites" committed
4476 (44.6%). The Black
per capita murder perpetration rate was over seven times higher than
the "White" rate. There were at
least 1303 interracial murders (13.0% of total murders), of which 753
were committed by Blacks
(57.8% of interracial murders) and 352 were committed by "Whites" (27.0%).
The Black per capita
interracial murder perpetration rate was about fourteen times higher
than that for "Whites." There were
699 murders in which Blacks killed "Whites" (53.6% of interracial murders)
and 281 murders in which
"Whites" killed Blacks (21.6%). The average Black was 16.4 times more
likely to kill a "White" than the
reverse. How does that square with what you heard in television news
reports during the same period?
And what does that tell you about the media?
A well-known, but little examined, publication is Statistical Abstract
of the United States, 1996,
which is available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96statab/96statab.html
or can be
purchased at a bookstore under the title The American Almanac 1995-1996.
Several tables of data in
this publication contain racial information that is generally unknown
by the American public, though
usually data from two or more tables must be brought together in order
for the racial significance to
become clear. For example, when the racially resolved populations of
major US cities are taken from
Table 46 and correlated with the per capita murder rates of the same
cities taken from Table 311, it
becomes clear that cities that, in 1995, were nearly all-White had
relatively very few murders (e.g.,
Mesa, Anchorage, St. Paul, Colorado Springs) and that the per capita
murder rate rises with increasing
percentages of non-Whites (Miami, Los Angeles, Newark), especially
Blacks (Detroit, Atlanta,
Baltimore, St. Louis, Birmingham, New Orleans). It is interesting that
the government publication had no
special table to permit someone to more easily appreciate that fact.
Table 2.6 in Crime in the United States, 1995, contains murder rates
that are broken down by both
race and age. When this information is correlated with the racially
resolved US population data in Table
24 of Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, we can determine
that Blacks in any age group
are more likely to commit murder than "Whites" of the same age. In
fact, there is no age group for
which the Black per capita murder perpetration rate is low enough to
be "merely" triple the
"White" rate. If you feel up to doing interpolations and more UCR file
downloading, you can determine
that the fact expressed by the previous sentence holds true for 1996,
1997 and 1998 (latest available
figures), as well as for 1995.
Liberals often try to blame Black violence on poverty. The Census data,
however, disproves that
hypothesis. How? In 1995, among the American poor, there were 16.3
million Whites (real ones), 10.0
million Blacks, 8.6 million "Hispanics," and 1.4 million Asians. Blacks
comprised about 27.6% of the
American poor. Those poverty numbers can be verified at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/pov95/povest1.html. During that
year, Blacks committed about
54% of all US murders. Remember that the FBI, from whom the murder
information comes, counts
"Hispanics" as "Whites," making the total number of poor persons eligible
to be committing murders as
"Whites" about 24.8 million. These "Whites" comprised 68.5% of the
American poor, but committed -
at most - only 46% of 1995 US murders, if we make the doubtful assumption
that Asians and
Amerindians committed none. The evidence argues against the liberal
hypothesis that poverty causes
crime.
Indeed, the US Department of Justice states baldly, "Racial differences
exist…" at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. The BJS recently also
began to publicize the fact that
Blacks are 7 times more likely than Whites to "commit homicide," in
addition to their earlier statement that
Blacks are 6 times more likely to "be murdered" than Whites. Even allowing
for the slight language bias
with respect to the use of the words "homicide" and "murder,"* that
is a remarkable departure from
"political correctness" for a federal government agency to permit itself.
*Not every homicide is a murder, however the Bureau of Justice Statistics
would have no official interest in justifiable homicides, as
these are not crimes, and it would have limited interest in accidental
homicides, as these are often not crimes, though they may be the
occasion for action by civil courts.
Sometimes, after liberals see their "poverty causes crime" hypothesis
go down in flames, they shift over to
a kind of "class envy" argument. Suddenly, it isn't primal necessity
that drives all those poor Blacks to
crime - it's envy instead, for which of course the Black murderers
should not bE blamed. In the rural
areas, the liberals say, people are spread out and rich and poor don't
necessarily have to interact. But in
the cities, the economic differences are more visible, and so more
likely to incite violence, and hence the
liberals give us the "degree of urbanization" hypothesis to explain
Black violence. In the preceding graph,
the US states and the District of Columbia are positioned according
to their respective percentages of
Blacks and mestizos in the resident population. It is rather easy to
see that the Whitest states have the
lowest rates for violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery and aggravated
assault were considered in
making the graph). Somewhat higher rates of violence come with increasing
percentages of mestizos, but
the largest increase comes with increasing percentages of Blacks. Anomalous
points are probably the
result of anomalous situations, but the trend is clear.
Prior to 1986, Hispanics were classified as a distinct and separate
racial
group. Not anymore. The FBI and U.S. Census Bureau no longer distinguish
between Hispanics (who are actually Spanish speaking Indians for the
most
part) and Whites; their crimes are lumped together in one ethnic pot.
The 22,354,059 Hispanics living in the U.S. do not exist, at least not
in
the ethnic sense when it comes to the FBI compiling criminal statistics
for
mainstream and news organizations. Included by the FBI as "WHITES"
are not
only Hispanics, but also West Asians, Jews, Middle Easterners, North
Africans, Iranians, Iraquis, Libyans, Palestinians, and Jewish refugees
from
the former Soviet Union.
The question that immediately comes to mind is: "Why would the FBI and
the U
.S. Census Bureau classify persons of Hispanic origin as being white?"
The
answer might surprise you. The FBI and the U.S. Census Bureau, along
with
mainstream media purposely distort criminal statistics and conveniently
classify Mexican-Americans as white because they do not want the American
public to know the truth--that Blacks are responsible for committing
the
vast majority of crimes here in the United States.
For example, in 1993, there were 20,343 Americans murdered: Blacks,
who
compromise 12 percent of the U.S. population, committed 11,686 or a
whopping
58 percent of those murders. The black murder rate was 38.8 per 100,000.
Based on their murder rate in 1986, Hispanics committed an estimated
2,242
murders in 1993. This is 10.7 per 100,000. 76 percent of the U.S. is
White
(European-American) and they committed only 29.5 percent of the murders.
On
the other hand, Black and Hispanic minorities combined constitute 21
percent
of the population, yet they committed a staggering 68.7 percent of
the
murders in the U.S. during 1993.
This means, on a per capita basis, a Black person is 12.3 times as likely
to
commit murder as a White person. Since this information is not deemed
"politically correct" and would perhaps offend the black segment of
society,
it is offset by falsely inflating the per capita basis for whites by
backhandedly including Hispanics and other ethnic groups.
Here are some more shocking statistics:
More than 1,600 Whites are murdered by Blacks each year.
Blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate Whites murder Blacks.
About 1 million Whites were murdered, robbed, assaulted, or raped by
Blacks
in 1992.
In the last 30 years, 170 million violent and nonviolent crimes were
committed by Blacks against Whites in the U.S.
Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for
murder
than Whites the same age.
Some 90% of the victims of race crimes are Whites.
Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than Whites,
although they comprise only one-seventh of the White population.
On a per-capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crimes than
Whites.
Some 27 million nonviolent crimes were committed in the U.S. in 1992
alone.
31% of the robberies involved Black offenders and White victims; only
2%
involved White offenders and Black victims.
1.3 million of the 6.6 million violent crimes committed in the U.S.
each
year are interracial.
Between 1964 and 1994, more than 45,000 people were killed in interracial
murders in the U.S., compared to 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam
and
38,000 killed in Korea.
The above stats were collected by an Australian reporter, Neil Sheehan,
who
dug out half-concealed U.S. crime figures for an article in the Sydney
Morning Herald (May 2, 1995). The contents of his article, he commented,
could not possibly be published or discussed in the U.S. mainstream
media.
One wonders how many Whites have to be killed by Blacks before the
N.Y.
Times and Dan Rather break the conspiratorial silence about the number
of
White casualties in the guerrilla war being waged against them by Blacks.
Paved With Good Intentions, a book by Jared Taylor, also studies crime
statistics by race. It must be stressed that Blacks make up only 12%
of the
population according to the 1990 U.S. census (and Black males about
6%), but
they commit a vastly disproportionate number of violent crime.
Mr. Taylor reveals: 1) 58% of all arrests for weapons violations are
Blacks.
2) 46% of all arrests for violent crimes are Blacks. 3) 73% of all
"justified self-defense" killings are committed by Blacks. 4) 60.5%
of all
Blacks are armed with some type of weapon at all times. 5) 98% of all
youths
arrested for gun fights in Atlanta are Blacks.
In 1989, the FBI reported the following:
A) Blacks commit 8 times more assaults than Whites.
B) Blacks commit 9 times more rapes than Whites.
C) Blacks commit 14 times more murders than Whites.
D) Blacks commit 19 times more armed robberies.
E) Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than White neighborhoods.
F) There were 629,000 interracial attacks committed in 1985 (the last
year
the FBI "chose" to report this information). Some nine out of every
ten were
committed by Blacks against Whites.
G. Black males (6% of the population) make up 46% of the nation's prison
population.
Arrests by Race, 1993
The following statistics are contained within the Information Please
Almanac
1996, p. 853. The original source of this information is the Department
of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for
the
United States, 1993, released Dec. 4, 1994.
These statistics once again indicate that Blacks are committing a grossly
disproportionate amount of the crimes. However, once again it should
be
noted that the classification, "White," is very misleading because
even
though Hispanics are not White and do not even consider themselves
White,
the FBI has chosen to include their crimes among those committed by
Whites.
As a consequence, crimes by White people are substantially less than
the
numbers would otherwise indicate. In fact, the statistics below indicate
that White European people actually commit far fewer crimes percentage-wise
than their percentage of the population.
I am the president of New Century Foundation, which Mr. Hutchinson says
is
behind "a full-blown national campaign to alert whites to the danger of
hate
crimes committed by blacks." In fact, we are interested in inter-racial
crime
of all kinds, of which officially-classified "hate crimes" are an
insignificant percentage.
Among the findings we have reported but that the media are deeply reluctant
to publicize:
* Blacks commit 90 percent Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes
of violence that occur in the United States every year, and are more than
50
times more likely to commit violence against whites than vice versa. In
the
case of robbery, or "mugging," blacks are more than 200 times more likely
to
attack whites than vice versa.
* There is actually more black-on-white than black-on-black violence. When
blacks commit violent crime they target whites just over half the time.
When
whites commit violent crime, only two to three percent of their victims
are
black.
* High rates of anti-white violence cannot be explained by arguing that
blacks are victimizing the people they think more likely to have money.
Only
15 percent of black-on-white violent crimes are robberies, which have an
obvious monetary motive. The rest are simple and aggravated assaults, rapes,
and murders--few of which are likely to have a monetary motive.
* Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit what are officially
classified as hate crimes. The "white" rate is actually inflated by a
misleading classification system in which Hispanics are a victim category
but
not a perpetrator category. The same Mexican who is a "Hispanic" victim
of a
hate crime becomes "white" if he is a perpetrator.
* Blacks are as much more likely than whites to commit violent crime as
men
are more likely than women--which, of course, is why there is racial
profiling by the police (and by everyone else, for that matter).
These findings and many more are explained in meticulously documented detail
in our recent report, The Color of Crime. Ordering information is on our
web
page, www.AmRen.com.
We think it is important to understand the extent and nature of inter-racial
crime, not for the reasons Mr. Hutchinson attributes to us but because
policy
should be based on knowledge rather than ignorance.
Jared Taylor, President
New Century Foundation
Oakton, VA
703 716-0900
JarT...@aol.com
America's Victims - 12,000 Daily
American newspapers and TV endlessly run clips of the regrettable incident
where four White policemen beat a Black.
To do this the media has to step over hundreds and thousands of bodies
of White
men, women and children to find a flyspeck on an iceberg. Whites are virtually
ignored to concentrate on an incident in which a Black is a victim.
It is media policy to conceal the criminal's race. But, in spite of their
"paper
curtain" - certain information still manages to slip through.
Truth At Last, #353, P.O. Box 1211, Marietta, Georgia 30061 $15/yr, carried
Pat
Buchanan's answer to the media's charge of White "Hate crimes". They reported
Buchanan on May 7th as saying:
Blacks commit 8 times more assaults than do Whites
Blacks commit 9 times more rapes than Whites
Blacks commit 14 times more murders
Blacks commit 19 times more armed robberies
Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than White communities.
There were 629,000 interracial attacks committed in 1985. Some 9 out of
every 10 attacks were committed by Blacks against Whites.
[ED: The actual figure is many, many times this "official" figure. Most
crime is
underreported and un-reported - unless it is violent or involves a great
deal of
money. Rape is seldom reported because the media tries to print the victims
name - to discourage reporting. Vandalism and petty theft is so commonplace
as
to not be newsworthy, and reporting seldom produce those guilty. The daily
beatings and robbery practiced against White children in the public schools
cannot be reported because there is no way to protect against retaliation.]
Blacks make up 12% of the population. Still, Blacks make up 46% of the
nation's
prison population. Nearly 1/4 of all Negroes ages 20 to 29 are either in
prison, on
probation or on parole, which compares to 10% for Hispanics and 6% for
Whites.
Most interracial crime is overwhelmingly committed by Blacks against Whites.
These figures in themselves present a different picture from that the media
would
have us believe, and, Buchanan merely touched on Hispanic crime while leaving
out Oriental and Indian crime entirely. If total "stranger-crime" were
honestly
reported, we might be dumbfounded to discover that as much as 85%-90% of
all
crime in the United States is committed by strangers, and much of it (if
not most)
is committed against Whites.
About 250,000,000 people live in the U.S. Some 180 million are Westerners.
A
one in ten victim rate produces 18 million crimes against them yearly.
If strangers
commit only half, this is 9,000,000. If half of them are committed against
Whites
it results in about 12,000 crimes committed against Whites by strangers
each
and every day.
Once again, the California incident where the Black was beaten by White
policemen is regrettable, but, what about the more than 5 million Whites
who
have fallen victim to strangers since that incident occurred? Don't any
of the
rapes and cold blooded butcheries suffered by Whites merit the same careful
tear-jerk treatment?
"One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent
publication (1997), "Criminal
Victimization in the
U.S.," reports on data collected
in 1994. In that year,
there were about 1,700,000
interracial crimes, of
which 1,276,030 involved
whites and blacks. In 90
percent of the cases, a
white was the victim and a
black was the perpetrator,
while in 10 percent of the
cases it was the reverse."
"Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the
2,025,464 violent crimes
committed by blacks in
1994, 1,140,670 were against
whites -- that's slightly
over 56 percent. Whites
committed 5,114,692 violent
crimes; 135,360, or 2.6
percent were against blacks."
BLACKS AND CRIME: Blacks are 12.1% of the US population, while American
Indians and Asians together are 3.5%. Thus,
the FBI's "Whites" [Includes Mexicans, Arabs, Jews, etc.] are the remaining
84.4% of the population.. Blacks are 5.6 times as
likely to commit violent crimes as are "Whites." In other words, the
average Black is 460% more likely to attack someone than the
average "White" is. As compared to "Whites," Blacks are 4.5 times as
likely to rape, 5.2 times as likely to commit aggravated
assault, and 10.3 times as likely to commit armed robbery. If you had
read that Blacks were 30% more likely to be armed robbers
than "Whites," you might not have been surprised. In fact, Blacks are
930% more likely to be armed robbers. The 12% of the US
population that is Black commits 58% of the armed robberies.
In 1996 law enforcement agencies reported to the FBI that they arrested
14,439 murderers. Of these murderers, 7,928 or 55%
were Black. The murderer rate for Blacks is more than 26 per 100,000,
while the "White" rate is less than 3 per 100,000. A Black
is 9 times as likely to murder as a "White" is.
HISPANIC CRIME IS HIGH: Recall that we said that what the FBI calls
"Whites" is really a conglomeration of Whites,
Hispanics, and others. For data on Hispanic crime, we can look at the
FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, which lists the
actual data submitted by 10,000 law enforcement agencies before it
is sanitized by the FBI. Five of the states-Arizona, California,
Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas-still keep track of Hispanic crime as a
separate category. In one year in these five states, we find
under murderers: 1,156 Whites, 2,015 Hispanics, 1,526 Blacks, 134 Asians,
and 54 Indians. Adjusted for population, Hispanics are
4.8 times as likely to murder as real Whites are, Blacks are 10 times
as likely to murder, and Indians twice as likely as to murder.
Before we leave the subject of Hispanics, let us briefly mention what
the California Department of Justice reports about murder
and robbery. Of the 2,644 California murderers in 1995, 18% or 467
were White. California had 1,250 Hispanic murderers and 794
Black murderers. This data shows that in California, as compared to
a White, a Hispanic is 6.1 times as likely to murder, and a
Black is 13.2 times as likely to murder.
A California Hispanic is more than 5 times as likely to commit armed
robbery as a White, and a Black is nearly 20 times as likely
to be an armed robber as a White.
BLACK WOMEN AND MURDER: Removing Hispanics from the FBI's "White" category
exposes another interesting fact. In
the five states keeping track of Hispanic crime, we found that Black
women are actually 5% more likely to murder than White
men are. This is also true in almost all parts of the US where separate
data is kept on Hispanics or where there are too few
Hispanics to obscure the data. For example in seven Southern states,
Black women are 15% more likely to murder than White
men are.
Since we said that in the South, Black women are 15% more likely to
murder than White men are, to be fair we must compare
White women to Black men. In these same seven Southern states, a Black
man is 52 times more likely to murder than a White
woman is. Stated as a percentage, a Black man is 5200% more likely
to murder than a White woman is.
OUTSIDE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FBI DATA: Professor Levin [in his 1997
book, "Why Race Matters: Race
Differences and What They Mean"] reviews some of the statistics on
Black criminals that you may have heard. For example, a
Black is 7.8 times as likely to be in prison as a "White." Over 30%
of the Black men between 23 and 29 are imprisoned for a
felony. In major cities, it is worse. At any one time 42% of the Black
males in Washington DC are in jail, on parole, on probation,
or being sought by police. In Detroit, the number is somewhere between
45% and 50%. In Baltimore, it is 56%. Another study
found that in one year, 25% of the Black men in Little Rock, Arkansas
were arrested for a felony. Yet, another study shows that
in the District of Columbia, 85% of the Black males will be arrested
at some point in their life.
INTERRACIAL CRIME: Perhaps the best place to look at interracial crime
is in the South, because the media depicts the South's
Whites as a bunch of violent gun-toting, Black-hating rednecks. In
one year in seven Southern states, Blacks killed 226 Whites
while Whites killed only 66 Blacks. After adjusting the data for population
size, it shows that a southern Black is 11.2 times as
likely to murder as a southern White is. Table 2.8 of the FBI's 1996
Uniform Crime Report, lists interracial crime figures for the
US as a whole. It shows that adjusted for population size, a Black
is nearly 16 times as likely to murder a "White," than visa versa.
Here are some of the results cited in the university studies reviewed
by Dr. Levin. Note that we don't know how each researcher
defined White. One study shows that in the South, a Black is 10 times
more likely to murder a White than visa-versa. A second
study demonstrates that proportionally, Blacks kill 22 times as many
Whites as Whites kill Blacks. A third study shows that Blacks
are about 11 times more likely to rape a White than a White is to rape
a Black. He concludes that evidence exists to support the
stereotype that Black men lust after White women.
Professor Levin cites additional research showing that less than 3%
of White crime is directed against Blacks, while one-half to
two-thirds of the Black wave crime is directed against Whites. In yet
another study, he found that the average Black is 25 times
more likely to assault a White than the average White is likely to
assault a Black.
CRIME
FACT #31: The rate at which Blacks commit murder
is thirteen times that of Whites; Rape and assault, ten
times. These figures, as given by the F.B.I. reports,
vary somewhat from year to year but fairly represent
the trend for the past decade. (27) (6) (13)
FACT #32: According to the justice Dept, 1 in every
4 Black males between the ages of 20 and 29 is
currently in prison or on probation or parole. (32) (6)
(3)
FACT #33: Though only 12% of the U.S. population,
Blacks commit more than half of all rapes and
robberies and 60% of all murders in the U.S. (32)
(27) (6)
FACT #34: Approximately 50% of all Black males
will be arrested and charged with a serious felony
during their lifetime. (27)
FACT #35: A Black person is 56 TIMES more likely
to attack a White person than Vice Versa. (3) (32)
FACT #36: Black rapists choose White victims over
half (54.9%) of the time, 30X as often as Whites
choose Blacks. (2) (32) (28)
FACT #37: The annual report from the Department
of justice shows that when Whites commit violence
they do it to Blacks 2.4% of the time. Blacks, on the
other hand, choose White victims MORE THAN
HALF the time. (3)
FACT #38: In New York City, any White is over 300
TIMES MORE LIKELY to be assaulted by a gang of
Blacks than is a Black by a gang of Whites. (32)
FACT #39: Many people argue that high Black
incarceration rates show that police center
enforcement at Black crimes and ignore white-collar
crimes. However, Blacks commit a disproportionate
number of white-collar offenses as well. In 1990,
Blacks were nearly 3 times as likely to be arrested for
forgery, counterfeiting, and embezzlement as Whites.
(32) (6)
FACT #40: Many people believe that crime is a
product of poverty and lack of "advantages."
However, the District of Columbia, which enjoys the
highest average annual salaries and is second only to
Alaska in personal income per capita, leads the nation
in just about every category of crime including
murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and vehicle theft.
D.C. also has the country's strictest gun control,
highest police costs per capita, highest ration of police
and correctional officers per citizen, and highest rate
of incarceration. Its permanent population is over 80%
Black. West Virginia, which has the nation's lowest
crime rate, suffers from chronic poverty and has the
highest unemployment in the U.S. It also has the
fewest police per capita. West Virginia is over 96%
White. (33)
SOURCES
1.African Business Magazine, Dec. '91
2.American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92, pg
822+
3.American Renaissance, Dec. '90, Box 2504,
Menlo Park, CA 94026
4.American Sociological Review, Vol 45, pg. 859
5.Basham, A.L., The Wonder That Was India,
Grove Press, New York, NY 1954
6.Buckley, William F. syndicated column, Jan. 5.
1993
7."But What about Africa?" Harper's, May '90
8."The Christian Heritage of South Africa Under
Attack!", Peter Hammond, Herald the Coming,
Dec. '92.
9.Coon, Carleton S. The Origin of Races, 1962,
Alfred A. Knopf
10.Fagan, Myron C. How the Greatest White
Nations Were Mongrelized - Then Negroized,
Sons of Liberty Books.
11.Fields, Dr. Ed, The Dangers of Interracial
Marriage, PO Box 1211, Marietta, GA 30061
12.Howells, William. Mankind So Far, Doubleday,
Garden City, NY 1945.
13.Harris, Marvin, 1981. Why Nothing Works.
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY
14.Jacob, A. White Man, Think Again! 1965, publ.
by author.
15.Jensen, Arthur R. Bias in Mental Testing, The
Free Press, New York 1980
16.Jensen, Arthur R. Straight Talk About Mental
Tests, the Free Press. (Macmillan) New York,
1981
17.McCall's, May '92, pg 76
18.McGurk, Frank, "A Scientist's Report on Race
Differences." U.S. News and World Report,
Sept. 21, 1956. Washington, D.C.
19.Pearson, Roger, Eugenics and Race, 1966,
Noontide Press
20.Pearson, Roger. Race, Intelligence, and Bias in
Academe, Scott-Townsend Publishers, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
21.Pendell, Elmer, Sex Versus Civilization,
Noontide Press.
22.Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reason, 1961,
Howard Allen Press, Cape Canaveral, FL
23.Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reality, a Search
for Solutions, 1967, Howard Allen, Box 76,
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
24.Putnam, Carleton. A Study in Racial Realities,
an address at the University of California at
Davis, Dec. 17, 1964
25.Scott, Ralph. Education and Ethnicity: The U.S.
Experiment in School Integration,
Scott-Townsend. Washington, D.C. 1989
26.Shuey, Audrey H., The Testing of Negro
Intelligence, Social Science Press, New York,
1966
27.Simpson, William Gayley. Which Way Western
Man? 1978, National Alliance Press, Box 3535,
Washington, D. C. 20007
28.Social Forces, Vol. 69, pg.1+, Sept. '90
29."South Africa: Time to Choose Sides" Soldier of
Fortune, Dec. '89.
30.Snyderman, Mark, and Rothman, Stanely. The
IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy.
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ
1990.
31.Stell v Savannah-Chattham County Board of
Education, U.S. District Court, Southern
Georgia, May 13, 1963.
32.Taylor, Jared, Paved with Good Intentions: The
Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary
America. 1992, Carrol & Graf. New York, NY
33.World Almanacs, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92
34.United Nations World Census, 1990
35.Van Loon, Henrick, 1940, Van Loon's
Geography, Garden City Publ.
36.The Voice, Feb. 27, 1990.
37.Waddell, L. A. The Makers of Civilization,
1929, Angriff Press, Hollywood, CA
38.Weisman, Charles A. America: Free, White and
Christian, 1989, SFA, Box 766-c, LaPorte, CO
80535
39.Weisman, Charles A. The Origins of Race and
Civilization, 1990, SFA
40.Weyl, Nathaniel. The Geography of American
Achievement, Scott-Townsend, Washington,
D.C. 1989.
41.Martin Luther King (Man Behind the Myth) by
Des Griffin.
Inter-Racial Crime: The Dirty Little Secret
By John Perazzo
FrontpageMagazine.com | March 20, 2001
IN RESPONSE TO a white-on-black killing in Brooklyn a few years ago, an
infuriated Al Sharpton instantly took to the airwaves and proclaimed that
such attacks
constituted "a national epidemic."
At the 1996 Million Man March, an impassioned Jesse Jackson thundered to
his huge
black audience, "We're despised. . . . We're attacked for sport."
The Reverend
Herbert Daughtry of New York asserts that white violence against blacks
has rendered
the latter "a
hunted and endangered species."
Mary Frances
Berry, who chairs the U.S. Civil Rights Commission,
attributes white-on-black
violence to white people's persistent "belief in the
inferiority
of blacks."
Ivy League professor
and activist Cornel West calls African Americans our
country's "exemplary
targets of racial hatred."
Given their outspokenness
on the subject of interracial crime, it is indeed noteworthy that none
of the
aforementioned
individuals -- nor any other prominent civil rights spokesman in the country,
for that
matter -- has
had even a word to say about the recent Fat Tuesday riot that erupted in
Seattle. In the
mayhem that
occurred there, three-fourths of the rioters were black, and many of them
deliberately
targeted white
victims for purely racial reasons. One witness, for instance, said she
observed several
incidents where
groups of black men singled out and assaulted whites, in one case punctuating
their
attack with
shouts of "That's what you stupid white people get."
In the most notorious
attack, a twenty-year-old white man named Kristopher Kime was clubbed in
the
back of the
head as he tried to help an injured female victim who was lying on the
road. The force of the
blow to Kime's
head sent him tumbling onto the pavement, where he was kicked and stomped
to death
by several black
men. Notwithstanding the brutal nature of this attack and others, we have
heard not
even a whisper
of protest from our purported guardians of "civil rights."
We have heard
them utter not even a syllable lamenting the tragic fact that innocent
people were set
upon for no
reason other than their skin color. Presumably, these watchdogs of racism
are all busy
attending to
matters more pressing. Sharpton, for one, is in Florida fighting to protect
the civil rights of a
black youngster
who was recently sentenced to life-in-prison for the unspeakably barbaric
murder and
mutilation of
a six-year-old girl. If the awful fate that befell Kristopher Kime were
rare, perhaps the
subsequent silence
of our self-anointed civil rights defenders could be excused. After all,
rational people
understand that
busy social critics are under no obligation to publicly denounce every
misguided, bigoted
lunatic who
happens to do something wicked. Yet such attacks are by no means rare,
but in fact are
alarmingly commonplace.
Each year, some
1.2 million violent crimes involving blacks and whites occur nationwide.
In fully 90
percent of those
cases, according to U.S. Justice Department figures, the perpetrators are
black and the
victims are
white. Violent white felons choose black victims for fewer than 3 percent
of their attacks,
whereas violent
black felons choose white victims about 56 percent of the time. Statistically,
the
"average" African
American is an astonishing 56 times more likely to attack a white than
vice versa. In
one recent year,
approximately 100 black women were raped by white men; the corresponding
number
of white women
raped by black men was over 20,000, according to Dinesh D’Souza in The
End of
Racism.
These numbers
are staggering. If America were teeming with white racism, surely the perpetrators
of
interracial
crime would be disproportionately white. Clearly, however, that is not
at all the case. Though
contemporary
civil rights leaders strive to portray white-on-black crime as commonplace,
their rhetoric
rings pathetically
hollow. With tortured faces and ostensibly anguished hearts, they will
seek out any
microphone or
news reporter willing to publicize their lamentations about even the rarest
instances of
white racism
in action. Meanwhile, they turn a deaf ear to the desperate screams of
the thousands of
white -- and
black -- victims who fall prey to black assailants each year.
Consequently
unfortunate individuals like Kristopher Kime die in anonymity, their names
fading from
public memory
as quickly as their graves are refilled with earth. Is it not time that
the truth of interracial
crime was finally,
fearlessly told? Do not all Americans -- black and white alike -- have
a right to be
freed from the
intellectual shackles of our country's quintessential frauds, commonly
known as "civil
rights crusaders"?
There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime
Of the approxiamtely 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence
to whites than the reverse.
Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.
Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes
Hispanics are a hate crime victim catefory but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classigied as whites, which inflates the white offense
rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.
Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous
than women.
From "The Color of Crime' available at:
New Century Foundation
2717 Clarkes Landing
Oakton, VA 22124
(703) 716-0900
or go to: http://www.amren.com/colrcrim.html
THE RACE WAR OF BLACK
AGAINST WHITE
Paul Sheehan
From the Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995
The longest war America has ever fought is
the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far
and claimed more than 25 million victims.
It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It
determined the result of last year's congressional
election.
Yet the American news media do not want to
talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines
and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that
the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting,
immediately.
No matter how crime figures are massaged by
those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of
a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about
what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a
large segment of black America has waged a
war of violent retribution against white America.
And the problem is getting worse, not better.
In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than
four times faster then the population. Young
blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations
and are 12 times more likely to be arrested
for murder than young whites.
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:
According to
the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than
6.6 million
violent crimes
(murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year,
of which
about 20 per
cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
Most victims
of race crime - about 90 per cent - are white, according to the survey
"Highlights from
20 Years of
Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993.
Almost 1 million
white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans
in
1992, compared
with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped
by
whites, according
to the same survey.
Blacks thus committed
7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the
black
population is
only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are
adjusted on
a per capita
basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more
than 50 times
the number of
violent crimes of whites.
According to
the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
most
inter-racial
murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering
whites at 18
times the rate
that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge
in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in
black crime against whites, an upsurge which,
not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning
the modern civil rights movement.
Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering.
Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that
between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million
violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly
involving black offenders and white victims,
and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial
murders. By comparison 58,000 Americans died
in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.
When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny,
car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative
totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were
committed in the US in 1992, and the survey
found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black
offenders and white victims (while only 2
per cent in the reverse).
When all the crime figures are calculated,
it appears that black Americans have commited at least 170
million crimes against white Americans in
the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American
life and American ideals since World War II.
All these are facts, yet by simply writing
this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed
a racist by the American news media. It prefers
to maintain a paternalistic* double-standard in its coverage
of black America, a lower standard.
Racial Realities
Race And Crime In America
Have you ever noticed that the media rarely tells us about Black crime,
and if they do mention a crime
that has occurred and the perpetrator was a Negro, they would not tell
you or show you? But if a White
commits a crime, especially against a Black, it is the top story for
weeks.
Did you hear about the Negro car-jacker who, just a few months ago,
assaulted and pushed to the ground
a White mother to steal her car? As he was driving away, the young
mother tried to grab her child out of
the back seat, but he got tangled in the seat belts half way out the
door. The Negro took off, dragging the
poor child bouncing on the pavement while the mother was screaming
for the car-jacker to stop. He
didn't. Five miles later, White motorists forced the Negro off the
road-the child was shredded and dead.
Perhaps you heard about that incident just once-maybe not at all.
Of course, if that had been a White man who was the carjacker and killed
a Negro child in the same way
it would have been the major headlines day after day for months. It's
a highly controlled media game to
manipulate your thinking to believe there is no real difference between
races or any racial connection with
crime. They do this by ignoring real Black crime and focusing on the
Whites to make it look like
the Whites are the bad guys.
A study was done in 1983 that showed that on prime time T.V. only about
10% portrayed as criminals
were Black (Rocher, L. and Lickster, R. Prime Time Crime. Washington
D.C.: The Media Initiative.)
The truth is, the media is portraying a lie to you. Here are the facts
they do not want you to know. The
F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports in the 1990s demonstrate that Negroes
commit 1,200% or 12 times
the per capita robbery rate of White and 900% or 9 times the per capita
murder rate. Interestingly,
the "White" group analyzed included non-White Mexicans, Puerto Ricans
and other Hispanic people. So,
if only Caucasian folks and their crime was compared with Blacks, the
difference would be even greater.
Put another way, Blacks who make up only 12.1% of the population in
America commit 55% of
the murder, whereas Whites (including Mexicans, et. al.) commit 43%.
The murder rate for Blacks is
44.9 per 100,000. For Whites (including non-White elements), the rate
is 4.78 per 100,000.
Blacks commit 9 times more rapes than Whites, 8 times more assaults
and 19 times more armed
robberies, according to Pat Buchanan.
Jared Taylor in his book Paved With Good Intentions reveals that 60%
of people killed by police are
Blacks, 58% of all arrests for weapons violations are Blacks and 64%
of all arrests for violent crimes are
Blacks.
What about Black on White crime? The lying media would have us believe
that Whites hate Blacks and
commit more crimes against Blacks. Again, the F.B.I. Uniform Crime
Reports for 1993:
* Blacks are 2,200% (22 times) more likely to kill Whites
than Whites kill Blacks.
* Blacks victimized Whites in armed robbery 167,924 times
versus 7,031 times for Whites against Blacks.
As far as rapes go, in 1991 there were only 100 rapes of Black females
by White men but 20,204 White
women were raped by Black males (U.S. Department of Justice, Sourcebook
of Criminal Justice
Statistics 1991 (1992), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).
Why is there grossly disproportionate crime statistics between Blacks
and Whites? Is it poverty that
causes crime? If that is true, then one would expect Black crime to
go down as their standard of living
raises. However, since the civil rights push in the 1960s with affirmative
action, etc., Black crime has
gone up.
Distorted Statistics
Prior to 1986, Hispanics were classified as a distinct and separate
racial
group. Not anymore. The FBI and U.S. Census Bureau no longer distinguish
between Hispanics (who are actually Spanish speaking Indians for the
most
part) and Whites; their crimes are lumped together in one ethnic pot.
The 22,354,059 Hispanics living in the U.S. do not exist, at least not
in
the ethnic sense when it comes to the FBI compiling criminal statistics
for
mainstream and news organizations. Included by the FBI as "WHITES"
are not
only Hispanics, but also West Asians, Jews, Middle Easterners, North
Africans, Iranians, Iraquis, Libyans, Palestinians, and Jewish refugees
from
the former Soviet Union.
The question that immediately comes to mind is: "Why would the FBI and
the U
.S. Census Bureau classify persons of Hispanic origin as being white?"
The
answer might surprise you. The FBI and the U.S. Census Bureau, along
with
mainstream media purposely distort criminal statistics and conveniently
classify Mexican-Americans as white because they do not want the American
public to know the truth--that Blacks are responsible for committing
the
vast majority of crimes here in the United States.
For example, in 1993, there were 20,343 Americans murdered: Blacks,
who
compromise 12 percent of the U.S. population, committed 11,686 or a
whopping
58 percent of those murders. The black murder rate was 38.8 per 100,000.
Based on their murder rate in 1986, Hispanics committed an estimated
2,242
murders in 1993. This is 10.7 per 100,000. 76 percent of the U.S. is
White
(European-American) and they committed only 29.5 percent of the murders.
On
the other hand, Black and Hispanic minorities combined constitute 21
percent
of the population, yet they committed a staggering 68.7 percent of
the
murders in the U.S. during 1993.
This means, on a per capita basis, a Black person is 12.3 times as likely
to
commit murder as a White person. Since this information is not deemed
"politically correct" and would perhaps offend the black segment of
society,
it is offset by falsely inflating the per capita basis for whites by
backhandedly including Hispanics and other ethnic groups.
Here's the facts on interracial rape:
Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race
Relations in Contemporary America (New York: Carrol & Graf,
1992), 92-93:
"When whites do violence - rape, murder, assault - how often do
they choose black victims? Shouldn't a nation of bigots target
blacks most of the time? At least half of the time? Of course, it
does not. When whites commit violence, they to it to blacks 2.4
percent of the time. Blacks, on the other hand, choose white
victims more than half the time. (n.317)
In those cases in which the race of the killer is known, blacks
kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white
robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than
white on black. In the case of gang robbery, blacks victimize
whites fifty-two times more often than whites do blacks. (n318)
The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial
rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority
of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia
carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes,
only
3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were
white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white
rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all
rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of
white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s,
black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that
white-on-black rape. (n.319)
Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it
has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant
statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on
crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial
element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a
criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift
carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406
cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of
white-on-black rape. (n.320) Another researcher concludes that in
1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape
than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as
often as white men raped black women.(n.321)
Interracial crime figures are even worse than they sound. Since
there are more than six times as many whites as blacks in
America, it means that any given black person is vastly more
likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa."
Notes
n. 317. "What Should Be Done," US News & World Report
(August
22, 1989), p. 54. See also Department of Justice, Criminal
Victimization in the United States, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1989), p.7.
n. 318. Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the
United States , 1987.
n. 319. Gary D. LaFree, "Male Power and Female Victimization:
Toward a Theory of Interracial Rape," American Journal of
Sociology , Vol. 88, No. 2 (September 1982).
n. 320. William Wilbanks, "Frequency and Nature of Interracial
Crimes," submitted for publication to the Justice Professional
(November 7, 1990). Data derived from Department of Justice,
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987 , p. 53.
n. 321. Andrew Hacker, Two Nations , pp. 183, 185.
The annual Department of Justice
Victimization Surveys report that in nine
cases out of ten interracial violent crime is
perpetrated by blacks on whites.
Figures for 1996 show that on a per capita
basis, blacks are three times as likely as
whites to commit crimes driven by racial
prejudice.
\
1999
Total White
Black
Violent crime 419,473 248,120
162,264
1999
White population 224,611,000
Black population 34,862,000
Rate of white arrests for violent crimes to white population per 100,000
248,120 / 224,611,000 x 100,000 = 110
Rate of black arrests for violent crimes to black population per 100,000
162,264 / 34,862,000 x 100,000 = 465
Black arrest for violent crimes are 4 times the white arrests.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t410.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt
Black defendants were the most likely
to have a criminal history. Seventy
percent of black defendants compared to
60% of whites and 35% of Hispanics had
previously been convicted. Additionally,
black defendants had more extensive criminal
histories than whites or Hispanics. Of
those defendants with a prior conviction,
34% of blacks had been convicted 5 or more
times compared to 26.4% of whites and 14.2%
of Hispanics.
About 40% of those incarcerated during 1997
were black; 33% Hispanic; 24%, white; and 3%,
other racial or ethnic groups. Hispanic inmates
were among those most likely to report being
involved with opiates, cocaine powder, and
marijuana. Black inmates most often reported
being involved with cocaine powder and crack
cocaine; white inmates, methamphetamine and
marijuana.
----------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the
statistical agency in the U.S. Department
of Justice. Lawrence A. Greenfeld is
acting director.
BJS Special Reports address a specific
topic in depth from one or more data sets
that cover many topics.
John Scalia wrote this report. Urban
Institute staff, under the supervision of
Laura Winterfield, and Matthew Hickman
of BJS, provided statistical review. Tina
Dorsey produced and edited the report.
Jayne Robinson prepared the report for
final publication.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fdo99.txt
====================================
Charles Reese, writing in the Florida Sentinel, tells us
Whilst 100 rapes were carried out by whites on blacks, blacks carried
out 20,202 rapes
on
whites.
Against the 7,031 robberies which involved a white perpetrator and a
black victim, we
have to
balance the 167,924 robberies where
the roles were reversed.
The number of assaults by whites on blacks was 49,800, but black on
white assaults
were a
massive 431,670.
In the category of all violent crime, 55,301 involved white perpetrators
and a black
victim, whilst
the reverse situation was an unbelievable
572, 458.
WHILE OUTNUMBERED BY ALMOST 9 TO 1
Charles Reese, writing in the Florida Sentinel, tells us
In the category of all violent crime, 55,301 involved white (and hispanic)
perpetrators and a black
victim, whilst
the reverse situation was an unbelievable
572, 458.
White and hispanic violent crimes against niggers = 55,301
nigger violent crimes against Whites = 572,458
populations:
niggers 12%
Whites 70%
It doesn't get any more obvious than this.
Getting down to the facts...
The facts
about interracial crime, of which "hate" crime is an insignificant subset,
are at once
known,
skewed and hidden.
The main
fact you need to know is that there are under 10,000 so-called hate crimes
a year, less
than half
of which are violent. But there are 1.7 million interracial crimes each
year -- more than
ninety
percent of which are black on White.
The only
reason we are discussing such a tiny subset of crimes is that Jews, who
control the media
and can
make their lies stick, find it politically useful. Their agitprop artists
created the very category
and concept
of hate crimes; their TV stations broadcast the brainwashing until it sinks
in; and their
lobbyists
will pester the Congress until the mere existence of White males is criminalized.
Jews are
like that.
To them, Whites and White males are by their very nature and existence
hate criminals.
As Jewess
Susan Sontag said, speaking for all Jews, "The White race is the cancer
of human
history."
Jews truly believe this. They are our enemy. We Whites are just too naive
and gullible and
decent
and unassuming to realize it.
As I write,
black savages have gone on White-attacking sprees at Mardi Gras celebrations
in
Philadelphia
and Seattle. Both have been covered up by the Jewish media, which consistently
point
the finger
away from the black man when apportioning blame. Drunken revelers, weak
cops, The
Beast
-- anything will be blamed except black criminals. Were it not for Jewish-inspired
"civil rights"
laws,
niggers who punched blonde White girls in the head would be cowering in
their ghettos afraid of
being
lynched. Now these savages are out among us, terrorizing us, and we are
afraid to fight back
out of
our cowardice and fear of committing a hate crime by defending ourselves.
Such is the world Hymie has led us to.
And if
the criminals aren't blacks, they are Asians or Mexicans -- street scum
that wouldn't be here if
the Jew
hadn't destroyed our racial homogeneity through the 1965 Immigration Act.
Before that act,
America
was 90% white, and civilized. After that act, America is barely seventy
percent white, and
the number
is dropping rapidly. Before that act, there were more Americans of Swiss
ancestry than
Mexican.
Today one in ten -- nine? -- Americans is a Mexican.
All this
disintegration, this crime, this misery, can be laid at the feet of the
Jew. He encouraged The
Act knowing
full well the results, and he glories in what he has achieved: the destruction
of cohesive,
civilized
WHITE America. Shows like MTV's Hate Whitey Day are one of myriad ways
he pulls the
wool over
your eyes, White man, while laughing in your face. He doesn't think you
have the guts or
brains
to call him on it. And don't expect any help from the conservatives. The
conservatives are
Christian
cowards, constrained by their paychecks to toe the Semites' line. White
nationalism is where
we must
turn to find the only genuine opposition to the Jew controlling our schools,
media and
government....
Now back to the crime data.
The data
come from the corrupt Department of Justice, whose FBI collects statistical
information
from counties
all over the United States. Before digging into it directly, let's just
observe that the data
show that
interracial crime is hugely and disproportionately committed by minorities,
and that these
same go
out of their way to attack White victims.
For example, a White man is fifty-six times as likely to be attacked by a black man as the reverse.
Fifty-six times.
That is
what FBI data forwarded from the counties show. And rest assured, the actual
picture is even
worse,
because the FBI discriminates -- commits a hate crime in the same way MTV
does -- in
categorizing
the data.
The FBI
years ago eliminated the Hispanic offender category. So that crimes committed
by the
brown
invaders are lumped into the White perpetrator file. That's right: the
government that takes
your tax
money at gunpoint makes sure that you and your fellow Whites receive full
credit for violent
"hate"
crimes committed by Hispanics.
Whites are blamed for crimes that Mexicans commit, by federal decree.
Are we living under a hate government? Is the FBI a hate group? It would appear so....
In the
ultimate absurdity, if a brown commits a hate crime against a White, the
statistics reflect it as a
White-on-White
hate crime. There are hundreds of these White-on-White cases annually.
Let's cut
to the chase with an easy-reference guide to interracial crime, data taken
from The Color
of Crime,
a special report prepared by Jared Taylor's outfit, American Renaissance:
* 1,700,000 interracial crimes are committed each year
* 90% of interracial crimes are black on White
* blacks commit interracial crime at 56x the rate of Whites: 10 per 100k vs 560 per 100k
* 94% of multiple-offender interracial crimes were black on White -- nig packs
* about 500,000 of these in average year
* robbery was motive in less than 1/3 (nigs beat Whites for fun)
* 1990
Hate Crimes Statistics Act compels FBI to collect data on acts motivated
in whole or part by
bias.
* Most counties (83%) supply info, although not legally required to
* 1997 report showed under 10,000 "hate" crimes
* 7,000 were ethnic/racial bias
* less than half were violent (graffiti, cross burnings, etc.)
* blacks are twice as likely to commit a hate crime as Whites
* blacks are 2.2x as likely to commit a violent hate crime as whites
* niggers are 38x likelier to rape White women than Whites are to rape blacks
* 30,000 White women were raped by niggers (1994)
* 5,400 blacks were raped by Whites (how many of these Whites were Mexicans?)
* 56% of black violent crime is committed against Whites
* 2.6% of White violent crime is against blacks
After reviewing
these data, ask yourself who are the real haters: The Whites who suffer
from nigger
depredations?
Or the niggers who have laws and admissions and employment policies twisted
in their
favor?
The answer is neither. The nigger's just doing what comes naturally, proving
Jefferson's words
about
the "indelible lines of distinction" nature has drawn between jungle blacks
and civilized Whites,
and bearing
out his truth that the "two races, equally free, cannot live in the same
government." No,
the real
hater is neither race. The real hater is the Jew who bans these facts from
the television and
public
sheets, confines them to corners of the Internet -- and even there works
night and day to get
them filtered,
censored, banned and ultimately criminalized. The MTV Jew who replaces
the truth
with his
lies is the hater. The Jew is your enemy, White man. As is MTV, which is
owned and run by
Jews.
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index57.htm
"In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),the
Justice
Department revealed
blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against
whites. Only
15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. We can safely infer that
most of the
rest had race as at least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the
attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against
whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent offenses
against blacks.
Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more
than 90 percent
of the violent inter-racial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent
crime committed
by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence
committed by
whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to
Tom Shelly, White God
Tom Shelly, White God
Well, quit doing dumb shit.
Blaming the victim is a typical nigger criminal response.
> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
LOL! Bullshit!
Bullshit? You say? Where's your proof? Where's your sources
to back up your 'bullshit' claim? (I posted ours below, where's yours)
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men
are more
> dangerous than women.
LOL!
Hell, you fuckers just become serial killers and hack a few
hundred of 'em.
Serial killers have nothing to do with the comparisons he posted above. But just for the record, niggers are more likely to be a serial killer than a White person is. In fact, it was one of the ground-breaking issues that I used on here to humiliate over four niggers and one whigger. (proof posted below)
This is a typical of you nigger one and the reason why I made you the
AFN house nigger. Your babble is humorous, meaningless, and funny.
When nothing is on TV, we like to tie your monkey hands and feed you peanut
butter sandwiches to watch you try to chew it off the roof of your mouth....
THE PROOF (that the niggers never seem to post to back up their claims)
we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent
likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified
as a racially motivated hate crime.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/perazzo/jp08-30-01p.htm
The number of hate crimes per capita in the USA is so low that it raises
the question, "Why is there the belief that
hate crimes are frequent when actually they are very rare?" The Associate
Press ran an article today on FBI
statistics for hate crimes, demonstrating that only 4,831 hate crimes
were reported having allegedly occured by
whites against blacks in the entire nation. Some of these complaints
may have been frivolous. The article does not
examine the status of the complain nor its outcome.
If we take the entire number of 4,831 hate crimes as the "real" number,
we can see that out of 180 million white
Americans coming up to a black person on the street, only 1 out of
37,250 persons would be guilty of attempting a
hate crime. Of course, the hate crime may have occured only once in
the 365 day year or 37,250*365=13,596,000
persons. In other words, a black person would have to pass 13,596,000
white persons before being the victim of a
hate crime on any given day.
The question then, is why do we find so many NEWS stories about hate
crimes? Perhaps the answer is found in
politics and propaganda. There must be persons in the United States,
such as groups who receive money for civil
rights, human rights, and crime watches who can fund-raise better when
people believe that prejudice and hate
crimes are predominate.
When we remember the church burning fiasco in which it took six months
for the FBI to find a single KKK associate
to pin a fire upon and hundreds of black teenagers and ministers setting
fires to their churches, we begin to see the
desperation in this type of anti-white hatred and viciousness, because
that is what white-baiting-hatred-stories like
these are all about. Never forget also that President Clinton's 1996
DNC Acceptance Speech contained a lie about
whites having placed swastikas on the doors of black soldiers at Fort
Bragg's 82nd Airbourne facilities. Mr. Clinton
knew full well that a black man had painted those swastikas on those
doors in order to implicate white men unfairly,
yet the NEWS media nationwide failed to mention this mistake. Had this
mistake been made by a Republican, it
would have been on page one.
The press wants the public to believe in the fiction of white racial
violence, when, as a matter of fact, there is slightly
more likelihood that a black hate crime against whites is performed
per capita than vice versa. In addition, the
number of hate crimes is miniscule. The likelihood of one happening
to anyone is less than the likelihood of winning
the lottery.
So, where's the hate? What's the fuss?
Blacks more violent
says new study
Violent crimes like murder, assault, robbery and rape cause far more
damage
to U.S. race relations than officially recognized "hate crimes," a
study
based on federal crime statistics concludes. The study reports
that some
1.7 million violent interracial crimes involving blacks and whites
are
committed annually. But in 1997 only 4,105 of those were deemed "hate
crimes" under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, according to
a study
by the New Century Foundation, based in Oakton, Va.
Although Americans most often think of "hate crimes" as acts by whites
against racial minorities --such as last year's killing of James Byrd
in
Texas by three white ex-convicts -- the majority of violent crime across
racial lines are committed by blacks against whites, the study finds.
Black-on-white crimes were almost nine times as frequent as white-on-black
crimes, the study reports.
"Hate crimes are thought to be the most serious acts of interracial
crime
... but it is likely that the millions of ordinary interracial crimes
-- 90
percent of which are committed by blacks against whites -- are more
damaging
to race relations," the study concludes.
Jared Taylor heads the New Century Foundation. He is author of Paved
With
Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America,
a
1991 book that documented fundamental problems with U.S. policies on
civil
rights, crime and welfare. Academics who have studied crime rates
said that
although some of the New Century report's conclusions may seem startling,
the statistics about crime and race are well known to researchers.
"It's an issue that most white scholars ignore, because you can only
get in
trouble," said Morgan Reynolds, director of the Criminal Justice Center
at
the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. "It's no news
to
anybody who's pursued the differences of race and crime, but it's
politically incorrect."
Racial aspects of violent crime are "too sensitive" to be openly discussed,
said UCLA professor James Q. Wilson, but they have a major impact on
American society. "This affects both races," said Mr. Wilson. "Whites
are
apprehensive. Blacks are irritated by being subjected to this apprehension."
The New Century Foundation study cites the National Crime Victimization
Study (NCVS) for 1994 -- the most recent such study issued by the Justice
Department. That latter study reported that blacks committed 1,140,670
violent crimes against whites, while whites committed 135,360 violent
crimes
against blacks. More than 80 percent of violent crime committed by
blacks
were perpetrated against black victims; only 16.7 percent of violent
crimes
against whites were committed by blacks, according to NCVS data cited
in the
study. But because only 12.1 percent of Americans are black, those
figures
mean that blacks committed interracial crimes at much higher rates
than
whites, who constitute 72.7 percent of the U.S. population.
"Put in the most easily understood terms, the average black was . .
. 56
times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white than
was a
white to commit criminal violence against a black," the study said.
The New Century study also finds: Non-Hispanic, U.S.-born whites committed
only one homicide that counted as a racial hate crime by the FBI in
1997.
The FBI reported only five racially motivated killings in 1997, three
that
were "anti-black" and two that were "anti-white." In two of the anti-black
killings, the killers were Hispanic. In one of the anti-white killings,
the
killer was an immigrant from India.
"Any study of group crime rates in America is complicated by the
inconsistent treatment of Hispanics by different government agencies."
The
study notes that because the FBI's annual Universal Crime Reports "do
not
treat Hispanics as a separate category, almost all the Hispanics arrested
in
the United States go into official records as 'white.' "
The FBI's "Hate Crime Incident Report" lists "anti-Hispanic" as a category
of hate crime but does not list Hispanics as a category for perpetrators.
This "inflates the number of hate crimes committed by 'whites' by calling
Hispanics white" and "gives the impression that Hispanics never commit
hate
crimes," according to the study, which notes that "most Hispanics think
of
themselves as . . . distinct from non-Hispanic whites, and are perceived
by
others as a different group."
"Blacks are arrested at dramatically higher rates than other racial
groups."
Compared with whites, blacks are nine times as likely to be arrested
on
robbery or murder charges, and about four times as likely to be arrested
on
assault, rape or car-theft charges, according to the study.Civil rights
activists argue that police arrest blacks more often than whites because
of
racism.
Accusations of "racial profiling" by law enforcement made headlines
in
February when the head of the New Jersey State Police was fired after
he
said minority groups were more likely to be involved in drug trafficking.
Federal crime statistics show that 63 percent of those arrested for
drug
offenses are black or Hispanic. Asians are arrested at lower rates
than
other racial groups, with rates about half those of whites.
"The single best independent indicator of a jurisdiction's crime rate
is the
percentage of its population that is black. . . . The tendency is clear:
The
higher the percentage of blacks, the greater the number of murders."
The racial disparity in crime rates makes integration difficult, Mr.
Wilson
of UCLA said. "The fact that whites and blacks have different rates
of
crime -- especially violent crime -- affects the willingness of whites
to
live in black neighborhoods." As damaging to race relations as such
fears
and suspicions may be, Mr. Wilson said, "it doesn't get discussed by
politicians very much, but it's a fact of daily discourse."
Mr. Taylor's work, Paved With Good Intentions, was praised by economist
Walter E. Williams of George Mason University. "If racism is ever going
to
die a well-deserved death, we will have to thank many courageous
individuals, and Jared Taylor is one of them," he wrote.
But Mr. Taylor was criticized as an advocate of "the new white racism"
by
conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, whose 1995 book "The End of Racism"
reported many of the same racial problems Mr. Taylor had examined in
his
earlier book.
The New Century report says hate crime laws "recognize the harm done
to
society when people are attacked because of race or other characteristics.
However, one might ask which does more damage to society: the few thousand
violent acts officially labeled as hate crimes or the vastly more numerous
interracial crimes of violence that go virtually unnoticed?"
"Hate
Crimes" Are
Rare,
Compared
To Hate Or
Crime
According to FBI data (Crime in the United States, 1997,
and Hate Crime Statistics, 1997), "hate crimes" account
for only a tiny fraction of total crimes:
Of every 20,000 murders, 9 are "hate crimes"
(0.044 percent).
Of every 20,000 rapes, 2 are "hate crimes" (0.009
percent).
Of every 20,000 robberies, 6 are "hate crimes"
(0.029 percent).
Of every 20,000 aggravated assaults, 24 are "hate
crimes" (0.121 percent).
The vast majority of alleged "hate crimes" are not
violent crimes, but rather "simple assault" or
"intimidation." Simple assault means no serious injury
occurred, and no weapon was used. Intimidation is the
use of threatening words or conduct, such as angry
shouting and fist-waving.
But as the statistics above show, most violent crimes
are not "hate crimes," including crimes that are
committed against members of a particular group -- such
as rape, which is primarily a crime against women.
The same applies to most attacks on homosexuals,
since, according to the National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs, the number of "gay-on-gay"
domestic violence cases is 14 times greater than the
number of violent "anti-gay" attacks.
Source: Timothy J. Dailey, "Talking Points: "Hate Crime"
Laws Mean Unequal Protection," October 4, 1999,
Family Research Council, 801 G Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 393-2134.
The annual Department of Justice
Victimization Surveys report that in nine
cases out of ten interracial violent crime is
perpetrated by blacks on whites.
Figures for 1996 show that on a per capita
basis, blacks are three times as likely as
whites to commit crimes driven by racial
prejudice.
we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent
likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified
as a racially motivated hate crime.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/perazzo/jp08-30-01p.htm
"In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),the
Justice
Department revealed
blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against
whites. Only
15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. We can safely infer that
most of the
rest had race as at least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the
attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against
whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent offenses
against blacks.
Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more
than 90 percent
of the violent inter-racial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent
crime committed
by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence
committed by
whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to
attack a white
than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It is the
media's well-kept
secret."
http://www.ety.com/HRP/hatecrime/blackwhite.htm
HERE'S A LIST OF NIGGER SERIAL KILLERS IN THE U.S. AND THE
ASTOUNDING NUMBER OF SERIAL KILLINGS IN AFRICA
ROB STEWART'S / MIKE KAVALTIS DEFEAT #7
Rob claimed that serial killings don't happen or hardly happen in sub-Saharan
Africa. He did this
because I challenged his claim that most, if not all serial killers
are White and he only posted statistics
from predominately White countries and regions.
As usual with niggerphiles and their lies, he was unable to back up his claim with any facts or statistics. He simply wanted it to be true. He even went as far as to post this:
A search indicates virtually no statistics on serial killings in
Africa. The reason is simple, they don't happen there or they happen
on such a small basis, it is not statistically significant
Wrong! Here's just a small sampling of news reports of rampant
serial and ritual killing in
sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, as you read these, notice how one
African governmental official
calls it a 'major problem'. I've included at the end some information
on nigger serial killers in the
U.S. as well.
Once again, Rob/Mike is exposed as a liar who boasts unsubstantiated
claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1472000/1472452.stm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_afri.htm
http://tabloid.net/1998/01/21/
http://www.expotimes.net/issue010815/AAessay1.htm
http://www.namibian.com.na/2001/July/africa/014A6E47B.html
http://www.expotimes.net/issue010926/AAessay3.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_820000/820680.stm
http://www.news24.co.za/News24/Africa/Southern_Africa/0,1113,2-11-40_1013814,00.html
http://www.news24.co.za/News24/Africa/Southern_Africa/0,1113,2-11-40_1036478,00.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/200104190437.html
http://www.sn.apc.org/wmail/issues/971001/NEWS16.html (five on the loose)
http://onafrica.net/sandy/news/newsmessages/74.html (just regular
killings)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_819000/819744.stm
http://www.peacelink.it/afrinews/62_issue/p6.html
http://www.i-psy.com/biennial/abstractHodgkissCanterWelman.html
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2000/07/06/southafrica/BEEN.HTM
http://govt.ghana.gov.gh/story.asp?ID=17
http://allafrica.com/stories/200102130318.html
Wayne Williams ( Kills: 28)
Suspected of being the Atlanta Child Murderer, Wayne killed mostly young,
black boys and dumped their bodies in the Chattahoochee River. He was
caught
when he departed from his modus operandi and murdered a couple of adults.
After his arrest the killings ceased. Police say the evidence against
him
was flawed and believe the case should be reopened. Williams' lawyer
claimed
a Klansman named Charles Sanders confessed to helping the KKK kidnap
and
murder twenty-one black youths. Allegedly, this evidence was suppressed
to
avoid a race riot. *The suppression of evidence idea has come to carry
less
weight as time has gone on. The physical evidence in the case
continues to
support that Wayne Williams is the Atlanta Child Murderer.
Gregory Clepper (20+)
Killing more than 20 persons, Gregor Clepper had moved to Chicago from
Minnesota where it is suspected that he may have killed others. Gregory
was
arrested in May 1, 1996 in Chicago. He stabbed, gunned, and strangled
his
victims.
William Ivory (7)
William Ivory, 31, killed 7 persons in East St. Louis. Several were
decapitated. His victims were black women
Lawrence Fayen (6)
Killing 6 black children in St. Louis and the East Side, Larry, 26,
was
arrested in 1991. His method was strangulation after he raped them.
Cleophus Prince, Jr. (6)
Cleophus raped and murdered 6 white women in San Diego. His favorite
method
was to stalk women in health clubs, follow them home, enter the house,
rape
them, then beat them and strangle them to death. Cleophus started killing
in
1990 and was caught in 1991. Received the death penalty.
Craig Price (4)
In Providence, Rhode Island, Craig started killing at 14 years old.
Raped
and stabbed and robbed the house of a 28 year old white woman when
he was
13. One year later at 15, he entered a house, raped and stabbed a 30
year-old white woman 25 times, then stabbed her two white children
35 times
each; one was 7, the other was 10.
Timmy Spencer (7)
Timmy, 26, raped and murdered 7 white women between 1985 and 1988 in
Richmond, Virginia. Convicted in 1989, executed in 1994, first man
convicted
using DNA evidence.
Vaughn Greenwood ( Kills: 11)
In 1974-75 the LAPD found six downtown derelicts with their throats
slashed
and their bodies bearing signs of ritualistic abuse. They had cups
of blood
next to them, salt sprinkled around the outlines of their heads and
cryptic
marks around the slash wounds. When the cops announced that the killer
was
probably "a blond, sexually impotent and cowardly homosexual," Greenwood,
a
black man, was obviously not in their suspect list. Eventually he was
arrested after he axed someone next to Burt Reynold's house. The police
linked him to the skid row murders and four others. Surely he must
have been
wearing a wig or something when he committed his crimes.
Alton Coleman & Debra Brown ( Kills: 8)
Alton Coleman, a black man, thought other blacks were forcing him to
kill
members of his race. He was diagnosed by a prison psychiatrist as having
pansexual propensities, that is, willingness "to have intercourse with
any
object, women, men, children, whatever." In the summer of 1984, he
teamed up
with twenty-one year old Debra Brown for a brutal rampage across the
midwest. They were arrested in Evanston, Illinois after a crime spree
in
which they committed a new act of violence each day. Alton was sentenced
to
death.
Harrison Graham ( Kills: 7+)
This lethal junkie from hell lived in a fetid two-room apartment in
North
Philadelphia that was covered with trash, dirty syringes and a sea
of fleas.
In the summer of 1987, after numerous complaints from his neighbors,
the
police pried his door open and found six female bodies in different
states
of decomposition. On the roof they found a duffel bag full of legs
and a
torso in the neighbor's basement. All the dead women were black junkies
like
himself who he invited over for a fix and a little one-on-one.
Darnell McGee (31+)
Darnell McGee killed his victims through unprotected sex. Darnell
deliberately and knowingly killed black and white women by infecting
them
with the AIDS virus in St. Louis and East St. Louis. So far, more than
31
women are known to have been infected with a total of 101 identified
as
having sexual relations with him.
Eighth Street Killer ( Kills: 31)
It took fifteen deaths for Dade County authorities to acknowledge the
existence of an unidentified killer operating in the streets of Miami.
He
preys after black prostitutes that he picks up and dumps in Miami's
famous
Eighth Street. As of June, 1995, he is up to thirty-one hits and counting
Southside Slayer ( Kills: 12+)
The Southside Slayer has tallied at least twelve black women (mostly
crack-addicted prostitutes) in Los Angeles since 1984. After denying
the
existence of a serial killer wiping out "strawberries" in South Central
LA,
authorities arrested a black policeman in 1993 in connection to the
killings. The man proved to be innocent but the whole incident ruined
his
career in the police department. The real killer is still at large
and at
work in the streets of Los Angeles.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
...And has just been submitted to Portal of Evil in order for it to be
subjected to the ridicule of (mostly) white males aged between 25 and 35.
What a bunch of fucking losers.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
brojack
>> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
>
>LOL! Bullshit!
Read and learn about black hate crimes, Rastus:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/rubush/2001/rubush08-30-01.htm
Bro Jack
mr.One
"Tom Shelly, White God" <ap...@niggers.com> wrote in message news:3CCF32C9...@niggers.com...
> a.. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.Well, quit doing dumb shit.
> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
LOL! Bullshit!
> d.. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
> dangerous than women.LOL!
Hell, you fuckers just become serial killers and hack a few hundred of 'em.
mr.One
"brojack" <bro...@windswept.home> wrote in message
news:3ccf36d2...@news.teranews.com...
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:00:39 GMT, "mr.One" <ext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> c.. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
> >
> >LOL! Bullshit!
>
> Read and learn about black hate crimes, Rastus:
SLAP!
It's a crime that a fuckin retard like you cant post freely.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
[snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
Oops! Nothing left.
*plonk*
Tom Shelly, White God
Post proof, nigger.
Oh, the usual cut & paste? I'll pass Tomm
No, just verifiable statistics that you can not comprehend.
Bullshit Tommi. The last time that you tried that Blacks are more
likely to be serial killers crap, I buried your ass.
But, of course.......you'll pull the classic TWB: "I don't recall"
syndrome
EXCUSE ME?
You 'buried' my ass? hahaahah
hahaha
hah
You are such a funny nigger. Here's the thread, where were you? As I recall, you ran the minute you knew I was on the case. I ended up flaming Rob/Mike because you were too scared to debate once you knew that I not only had facts from the FBI proving that niggers are more likely to be a serial killer than White are but that serial killing is rampant in nigger Africa.
If you think you can 'bury my ass' on this or any other topic, by all means, let's hear it.
I"M WAITING!
Here's the thread:
MOST IF NOT ALL, SERIAL KILLERS ARE WHITE
Rob Stewart likes to make up all sorts of lies and claims to support his notion that niggers are just like Whites and that they are 'equal'. Sometimes, he even makes up lies to degrade White people.
He boldly made the statement that 'most if not all, serial killers are
White' without any statistics
or proof whatsoever. He just thought it was true and even wrote:
'everybody knows that it's true!'
Not surprisingly, Rob has been unable to come up with any statistics
to back up his claim. So far, all that
has been posted on his behalf are statistics from the U.S. and Europe
which is around 85% White in
population. And unwittingly, the statistics posted by nigger
extreme prove that the likelihood of a nigger
and White to be a serial killer in the U.S. and Europe is about the
same.
After some research, I found that there are many serial and ritual killers
in sub-Saharan Africa, where most
the niggers live. In fact, one African governmental official
called serial killing a 'major problem'. (I will post
my findings on serial killings in sub-Saharan Africa in Rob's Defeat
#2 within a few days)
This is a particularly humiliating defeat in that Rob so strongly claimed and believed that most serial killers are White. He wholehearedly believed it to be true even though he has no evidence to support the claim. In fact, when one correctly looks at world wide statistics on serial killings (not just statistics from U.S. and Europe), it appears that just the opposite is true: that the majority of serial killers are niggers.!
An excellent example of how deep brainwashing can go. An excellent example of how a niggerphile's thoughts and beliefs run directly counter to the reality of the world around them.
And an excellent example of how Rob Stewart lies and has no credibility
due to his inability to back up
his claims with facts.
FULL TEXT BELOW:
FIRST ROUND:
Rob has posted the most pitiful reply I've ever gotten. But I
can't say as I blame him. He made the most ridiculous claim I've
ever seen on here:
Why are most serial killers
white males?
This of course, opens himself up to all sorts of challenges. Not
the least of which is mine. I simply asked him to post proof to
the claim that most serial killer are White males. That is not
much to ask, since he proclaimed:
Why are most serial killers
white males?
And of course, Rob did everything he could to avoid the simple fact
that he put his foot in his mouth and can't back up his
statement with any fact...Here we are..days later and I haven't seen
one shred of evidence to back up his claim. The closest
I've seen so far is from nigger extreme who posted evidence from the
U.S. which states:
In the U.S.
84% of American killers are caucasian.
>
>16% are black.
And as I correctly pointed out, this doesn't prove much since the population
is around 12% nigger and 75% White. In fact, it
proves that there really isn't that much of a difference in the U.S.
. Remember, Rob didn't mention a specific geographic location
or country in his post. So, excluding sub-Saharan Africa where
most niggers live is unacceptable.
Just for fun...let's pick apart Rob's feeble post...piece by piece,
shall we? His post in italics:
How about we discuss other countries such as whites standard of living
in the Balkans vs black living standards in the US. You will the
blacks have a much higher standard of living than the whites of the
Balkans.
What in God's name does the standard of living have to do with White
serial killers? I don't know! Well....it's late...he must
have been drinking...we've all been there..I guess..
"Your data only states that in the U.S.:" (not world wide)
Too bad. Prove me wrong.
Well...you see, Rob. The point here is for you to back up your
statement. I didn't make the statement that most Whites are
serial killers or that most niggers are serial killers...YOU did.
This is not about me..it's about you backing up your claims. All
I'm asking is some proof..some statistical data to back up your claim...that's
all. I don't really have an opinion on the subject
one way or the other. It is not my burden to prove you wrong.
YOU made the statement.
"Which if you consider that the U.S. population is around 12% nigger"
The US is more than 12 percent black. "Shelly" is caught telling fibs
again.
Notice how Rob conveniently omits and ignores the word AROUND in my
post? Did he take lessons from snippy? He must
have. Well, just for fun..let's check and see what the U.S. Census
Bureau has to say..OK?
According to the US Census Bureau, the US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.
Of
that, 194,552,774 (69.1%)
were white; 33,947,837 (12.1%) were black; and 35,305,818
(12.5%) were of Hispanic
origin. Additionally, 2,068,883 (0.7%) were Native American,
and 10,123,169 (3.8%) were
Asian.
Source: US Census Bureau,
Department of Commerce, Census 2000 Redistricting Data
(P.L. 94-171) Summary File
for states, Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for
the United States: 2000
(PHC-T-a) Table 1, from the web at
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.txt
, last accessed September 8,
2001.
Oh look!...12.1% are niggers. And I made that statement that the
U.S. is around 12% nigger. Well..that sounds pretty
accurate to me..don't you think? When someone writes the word:
around..That's exactly what it means..: around or
approximate. And I'm sure we would all agree that 12.1% is AROUND 12%.
I guess Rob will apologize for saying that I'm
telling fibs now, right? Should I wait for that too?
"the statistics seem to imply that
>they leave out many parts of the world and only include:
>
>The USA has 76% of the worlds serial killers.
>
>Europe in second, has 17%. England has produced 28% of the European
>total; Germany produces 27%, and France produces 13%.
>
>This of course, leaves out Asia, South America, Africa, Australia,
>etc...."
Which only would make up the remaining 7 percent. Using your own
postings since US is 75 percent of serial killers and 84 percent of
those are white using simple math of 84%x75%= 63% of all world
serial
killers are white males from the United States.
Where did Rob go to school to learn math? The Congo? How could
Asia, South America, Africa, Australia, etc..only equal
7% of the world's population? Beats me...maybe he doesn't want
to count 1 billion Chinese or the some of the largest cities in
the world in South America..oh well... Or more importantly, sub-Saharan
Africa where most the niggers live.
Let's ignore that and expose his dodge tactic. Notice how he writes,
"using your own posting since US is 75% of serial killers"
but he conveniently leaves out the point of my reposting his data that
"the statistics seem to imply that
>they leave out many parts of the world"
In other words.., his statistic that the U.S. is 75% of the serial killers
leaves out the following areas:
"This of course, leaves out Asia, South America, Africa, Australia,
>etc...."
So in other words, what I was doing by reposting it was telling him
that his statistics are faulty because they do not include all
areas of the world. And what does he do? He reposts it as proof
that I agree that it's correct. How lame? Did he learn this
one from Jeffrey too? And remember, Rob has to post statistics
that include the whole word, not just selected countries mainly
populated by Whites.
""And in fact, the information only proves that niggers and Whites have
>the same likelihood to be a serial killer in the U.S."
84% of American killers are caucasian.
>
>16% are black."
No, what is says is that whites are by far the vast majority of serial
killers.
How convenient for Rob to leave out sub-Saharan Africa in his broad,
sweeping statement! Oh..I suppose the U.S. just
represents the entire rest of the world, huh Rob? Let's just
take a country that is around 12% nigger and 69% White and use
statistics here to represent the entire rest of the world. Let's
especially leave out sub-Saharan Africa where most the niggers
live. Since you didn't mention any country or geographic location
in your statement, your statistical proof must include the entire
world.
Liberals often deny that the phrases 'more likely' and 'per capita'
exist. If it were in their best interest to use them, they would
be using them over and over and over. I could post the claim
that 'over half of all niggers live on less than $1 per day" and then
post statistics from sub-Saharan Africa to prove it. In fact,
I've been spamming the group with just such a tactic using statistics
from sub-Saharan Africa to show them how silly they look when they
use statistics from a country that is around 70% White
and 12% niggers to base their comparisons on.
Let's explain this very carefully:
The U.S. is 69.1% White and 12.1% nigger. If 84% of American (serial)
killers are White and 16% are nigger, that indicates
that in the U.S. the likelihood of nigger serial killers and White
serial killers is about the same per capita. Not hard to
comprehend and not hard to figure out. In fact, with the margin for
error inherent in these statistics, it's a dead heat.
Like your claim that blacks are not homo sapiens but refuse to give
what species you believe they are.
Nope, the fact you are a yellow -bellied coward to take the challenge.
This has nothing to do with White serial killers..More drinking..I suppose.
Sorry, if you can't prove me wrong then shut up. I can easily refute
any of your material with evidence.
Once again, I don't have to prove you wrong. YOU made the statement,
not me. I'm simply asking you to back up your claim
that:
Why are most serial killers
white males?
And you just can't do it. You just can't back up your claim.
You can't back up your words. Why didn't you just append to
your message and write: "IN MY OPINION, most serial killers are White
males?" But no...you had to go and put your foot in
your mouth and now you find yourself with no way out because I'm challenging
you.
And if you can easily refute my material with evidence than why don't
you post it? That is what we are all waiting for. I've
been waiting for days for you to back up your claim that:
most serial killers
white males?
And I'm still waiting...Not only that..but I'm waiting and laughing
at what a fool you are making of yourself. Why don't you just
admit that you WISH most serial killers are White males so you can
feel good about hating them?
I"M STILL WAITING.
Now is your chance to prove me wrong...go ahead....do it. Prove me wrong..Post
world wide statistics that puts me in my
place...Come on nigger lover....POST IT!
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most-Hated Racist, 2002
SECOND ROUND:
He has already been presented
evidence that 75 percent of the world's serial killers are from the
US
and
at least 84 percent of them are white, meaning the majority of the
world's
serial killers are white males from the US.
"Tom Shelly" just wants attention like all racist do. That is why they
have
to lie.
--
--
Rob Stewart
Oh how funny...
Let's look at the niggerphile's 'evidence' to support his claim that
most if not all serial killers are White:
The serial killer statistics -
* The USA has 76% of the worlds serial killers.
* Europe in second, has 17%. England has produced
28% of the
European
total; Germany produces 27%, and France produces
13%.
* California leads in the US with the most Serial Homicide cases that
have occured. Texas, New York, Illinois,
and Florida follow
shortly
behind.
* Maine has the lowest occurence of serial murders - none.
Hawaii,
Montana, North Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont
each have had only one
case of a serial murder.
* 84% of American killers are caucasian.
* 16% are black.
* Men make up at least 90% of the world wide total of serial killers.
* 65% of victims are female.
* 89% of victims are white.
* 44% of all killers start in their twenties.
* 26% start in their teens.
* 24% start in their thirties.
* Out of all the killers, 86% are heterosexual.
Notice how it only lists the following areas:
U.S. and Europe
Is that the whole world? NO...certainly not. Does it include
sub-Saharan Africa where the majority of niggers live? NO...it
only includes predominately White countries! How convenient.
Remember,
niggerphile Rob made a world wide claim,
therefore, I want world wide proof. Not just some percentages
that
don't list any other countries than: U.S., Europe,
England,Germany, and France.
And from those countries that are 85% White he makes the broad generalization
that:
meaning the majority of the world's
serial killers are white males from the US.
So..according to Rob, the U.S and Europe
are the WHOLE WORLD! Wow!
Since you made your claim that most serial killers are White, I've
been collecting data from massive serial killings
in sub-Saharan Africa committed by niggers. But none
of that is included is it? OH no...you just tried a good,
old fashioned liberal attack on Whites using statistics from a country
that is around 12% nigger and 69% White.
UNACCEPTABLE.
Why didn't you just write, "Why are most serial killers in the
U.S.
White?" And I would have replied, "That's because the
U.S. is 12% nigger and 69% White, niggerphile."
But no...you had to make a world wide claim and now you can't back it
up, can you?
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most-Hated Racist, 2002
THIRD ROUND:
Nope, notice how I list 93 percent of the world's serial killers. All
the
combined make up 7 percent. Maybe you were too stupid to read that
part.
Nope, what you did was list statistics that list serial killers from the following countries or areas:
U.S., Europe, England,Germany, and France
Your claim was world-wide. Keep lying niggerphile.
I"M WAITING FOR YOU TO BACK UP YOUR WORDS.
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most-Hated Racist, 2002
FOURTH ROUND:
We've already proven that 75% of all reported serial killers come from
the US with 86% of them white. You do the math. Then again, you're
too
stupid to do basic statistics.
-----
Rob Stewart
Remove the 7 from the email address to write
Are you kidding me, Rob? You can't be serious. No one proved that 75% of all reported serial killers come from the U.S.
All you proved was that, from the following areas, 75% of the serial
killers come from the U.S.:
Europe and America
(which the population is probably around 85% White anyway so on a per capita basis, your post doesn't prove much)
Why did you leave off sub-Saharan Africa and asia and South America?
Why did your statistics only include America and
Europe? Which are mostly White anyway?
Here's the quote from the statistics posted from nigger extreme:
The USA has 76% of the worlds serial killers.
>
>Europe in second, has 17%. England has produced 28% of the European
>total; Germany produces 27%, and France produces 13%.
>
>This of course, leaves out Asia, South America, Africa, Australia,
>etc...."
And when I asked you why the statistics left off these major parts of
the world where the niggers live, you told me that serial
killings don't happen or hardly happen at all in sub-Saharan Africa.
But I'm proving you wrong on that one. Did you see all the
nigger Africa serial killing stories I've been posting? I posted
about 6 or 7 of them yesterday and guess what? I have MORE! Matter
of fact, serial killings are a 'major problem' in sub-Saharan Africa, according
to
a governmental official there.
I'm going to put them all in one message and post it.
On top of the message, I'll repost your quote that:
Serial killings don't happen or rarely happen in sub-Saharan Africa
I bet you'll really feel stupid then, huh Rob? Will you retract your claims then? I doubt it.
I'm still waiting for your proof that most, if not all, serial killers
are White. So far, all you have posted is statistics from America
and Europe. Well..those areas are mostly White Rob and that's
not fair. What about sub-Saharan Africa? What about South
America? Asia? hmmm?
I"M STILL WAITING!
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most-Hated Racist, 2002
ROB LOSES:
At this point, I taunted Rob by reposting the above for about a week and a half warning him that if he didn't answer, I would consider it a win and claim his defeat. He has not answered.
I now claim Rob Stewart's total and complete humiliation and defeat regarding this issue.
The majority of serial killers are NOT White and Rob clearly could not back up his claim.
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most-Hated Racist, 2002
Mr.One
"Tom Shelly, White God" <ap...@niggers.com> wrote in message news:3CCF6BB0...@niggers.com...
Hardly. Check the case of the SWAT team Sgt who killed his neighbors. He blamed them for him killing them.Post proof, nigger.
Oh, the usual cut & paste? I'll pass Tomm
Bullshit Tommi. The last time that you tried that Blacks are more likely to be serial killers crap, I buried your ass.
But, of course.......you'll pull the classic TWB: "I don't recall" syndromeEXCUSE ME?
Apostle 13
Jürgen
J.: My throughoutly unanimous experiences with racist people and their
claims formed the equation 'racist = liar'. Thus, written lip-services
making absurd statements are not the appropriate means to even access
discussion.
IBen Getiner
> In article <3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>, "Tom 'Small Penis' Shelly,
> White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
>
> [snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
>
> Oops! Nothing left.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
It's a fact that there is more black-on-white than white-on-black hate
crimes, per percentage per race. Why are you lying about it? Check out
the Sourcebook for Criminal Justice. They've got all kind of nice
little charts and graphs for you sorry liberal kreempuffs to make
funny faces over.
Let's see..... oh, yea... like.. the total number of white murderers
is slightly greater than the total number of black murderers,
therefore, whites are more violent. It that your reasoning? Because if
it is, it's a farce and it's flawed.
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, "Mr Q.
Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
> In article <3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>, "Tom 'Small Penis' Shelly,
> White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
>
> [snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
>
> Oops! Nothing left.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Since PV is hard on the use of the "N" word perhaps he could comment.
I noticed that this poster spammed his posting all over the place, I
purposefully reduced the group list to "our own".
The posting`s contents and its language is, unfortunately, not exceptional.
Cecil, my friend in South Central LA says that Blacks pretty much can`t
take this kind of crap and just sign off. This NG has no black posters yet
it is usually only midly racists in claiming that Blacks* are inherently
more criminal than Whites.
*****
Cecil wrote:
"---- there is probably no newsgroup where we Blacks are not BOMBARDED
by racist diatribes of all sorts.
It's disgusting.
It has turned friends off to the Internet...they have NO DESIRE ever
again to expose themselves to these insults, or to allow their
families/children to be so exposed."
Earl
*As far as I know, Cecil`s one run in with the law is durng the
student demonstrations at Berkeley in the late 60s early 70s.
He got arrested, I did not although we did the same thing, marched.
The Alameda Sheriff`s department at that time was composed of
some ex-GI vets who had served in Vietnam and were not kindly
towards protesters. So one had a "police" riot now and then although
not in the style of what occurred down south.
Earl
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Iapp...@aol.com (IBen Getiner) wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>, "Tom 'Small Penis' Shelly,
> > White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
> >
> > [snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
> >
> > Oops! Nothing left.
> >
> > *plonk*
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. D.
>
> It's a fact that there is more black-on-white than white-on-black hate
> crimes, per percentage per race. Why are you lying about it? Check out
> the Sourcebook for Criminal Justice. They've got all kind of nice
> little charts and graphs for you sorry liberal kreempuffs to make
> funny faces over.
You obviously have trouble with recent developments in the English
language - specifically the notion of "hate crimes." Don't worry - I'm
sure that completing your secondary education will aid you in
comprehension of basic English language.
> Let's see..... oh, yea... like.. the total number of white murderers
> is slightly greater than the total number of black murderers,
> therefore, whites are more violent. It that your reasoning? Because if
> it is, it's a farce and it's flawed.
http://www.nizkor.org/fallacies/straw-man.html
You are a complete wanker.
*plonk*
Mr Q. Z. D.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:3ccfab17$0$9313$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
>
>
>
> Dans l'article <diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, "Mr Q.
> Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
>
> > In article <3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>, "Tom 'Small Penis' Shelly,
> > White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
> >
> > [snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
> >
> > Oops! Nothing left.
> >
> > *plonk*
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. D.
>
> Since PV is hard on the use of the "N" word perhaps he could comment.
>
to any concept of the 'soul' of our species. It is destructive in
a societal sense as well, as it creates a chasm which cannot
be overcome, losing the understanding that we are all together
in our hope to advance as a species... and when we divide through
ignorance and prejudice, we shame ourselves, and as the Prince
said, "have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd" Certainly...
ALL are punish'd... when we use or accept the use of that word.
> I noticed that this poster spammed his posting all over the place, I
> purposefully reduced the group list to "our own".
>
No, Earl... actually you didn't. Apparently you are unfamilar
with how to clip headers, since your post went to the groups
we should certainly hope do not continue to provide comments
here. I have clipped the headers so my post will only go to
AADP.
> The posting`s contents and its language is, unfortunately, not exceptional.
> Cecil, my friend in South Central LA says that Blacks pretty much can`t
> take this kind of crap and just sign off. This NG has no black posters yet
> it is usually only midly racists in claiming that Blacks* are inherently
> more criminal than Whites.
>
A proven lie. From the FBI crime statistics for 2000 --
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf
Table 2.8 provides black murder offender statistics for 2000.
Black offender/Black victim 2,723
Black offender/White victim 417
Since blacks constitute 12% of the U.S. population, see
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/poppart.html
We can clearly see that Blacks would need to murder
more that 18,000 Whites to simply represent the
same average of Black offender to White victims,
as they presently do Black offenders to Black victims.
In fact the statistics bear out the fact that Blacks
DO NOT murder in 'hate crime.'
PV
<rest clipped>
> Earl
>
>
IBen Getiner
> In article <94b4bfe7.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> Iapp...@aol.com (IBen Getiner) wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:<diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > In article <3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>, "Tom 'Small Penis' Shelly,
> > > White Weenie" <rac...@fucktard.com> babbled incoherently:
> > >
> > > [snip meaningless, unsubstantiated, racist hatemongering]
> > >
> > > Oops! Nothing left.
> > >
> > > *plonk*
> > >
> > > Mr Q. Z. D.
> >
> > It's a fact that there is more black-on-white than white-on-black hate
> > crimes, per percentage per race. Why are you lying about it? Check out
> > the Sourcebook for Criminal Justice. They've got all kind of nice
> > little charts and graphs for you sorry liberal kreempuffs to make
> > funny faces over.
>
> You obviously have trouble with recent developments in the English
> language - specifically the notion of "hate crimes." Don't worry - I'm
> sure that completing your secondary education will aid you in
> comprehension of basic English language.
You don't fool ME... I've been surfing these groups and butting heads
with creeps like you for years. The typical response from a coward is
to criticize the other fellow's spelling. Is that the best you got?
You know what I'm saying is the truth but you also know you can't
defend against it. Pussy.
>
> > Let's see..... oh, yea... like.. the total number of white murderers
> > is slightly greater than the total number of black murderers,
> > therefore, whites are more violent. It that your reasoning? Because if
> > it is, it's a farce and it's flawed.
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> You are a complete wanker.
>
> *plonk*
You're a complete yellow-belly. I heard you say once that you thought
you were bad. What a joke! Like I said then.... you wouldn't last a
day against the big boys. Go back and hide under your rock.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:kqUz8.156192$nc.21...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
snip
> > The posting`s contents and its language is, unfortunately, not
exceptional.
> > Cecil, my friend in South Central LA says that Blacks pretty much can`t
> > take this kind of crap and just sign off. This NG has no black posters
yet
> > it is usually only midly racists in claiming that Blacks* are inherently
> > more criminal than Whites.
I didn't realise that you could tell the colour of a poster's
skin - you really do make some extraordinarily stupid
statements, Earl.
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <_RWz8.32$%u1....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "John Rennie"
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
> I didn't realise that you could tell the colour of a poster's
> skin - you really do make some extraordinarily stupid
> statements, Earl.
I have never run into a Black poster on the non-Black
news groups. They will eventually declare themselves
in their writing between the lines, their life experiences
etc. I am referring to American Blacks, not British.
American Black English has its own characteristics,
and most American Blacks are "bilingual" in that sense.
Barry, for instance, will use verb forms specifically black
in his writing. It is true that writing on a computer
tends to mask this a bit, however. It comes out more
in long hand.
Earl
Mr.One
>
> You are a complete wanker.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
dirtdog
wrote:
Looks like this one's easily pleased, QZD.
Respond with a smiley and you may well get a blow job.
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
I'm not taking a blowjob from no ni...
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Tom Shelly, White God
Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
Shall I remind you of your utter failure at the subject, housenigger one?
Tom Shelly, White God
Purveyor of Truth
Proud Recipient
AFN's Most Hated Racist, 2002
Mr.One
"Tom Shelly, White God" <tom_shelly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3CDB53E1...@yahoo.com...
Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
Shall I remind you of your utter failure at the subject, housenigger one?
St.George
> In article <ni3mdugsrj7qvfdkp...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
> <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 May 2002 22:34:09 GMT, "Mr.One" <extre...@prodigy.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message
> > >news:diablo-DF18CF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > >>
> > >> You are a complete wanker.
> > >>
> > >> *plonk*
> > >>
> > >> Mr Q. Z. D.
> > >
> > >Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Looks like this one's easily pleased, QZD.
> >
> > Respond with a smiley and you may well get a blow job.
>
> I'm not taking a blowjob from no ni...
Are you one of the knights who say ni...?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-FD2020....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <ni3mdugsrj7qvfdkp...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
> > <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 09 May 2002 22:34:09 GMT, "Mr.One" <extre...@prodigy.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> message
> > > >news:diablo-DF18CF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > >>
> > > >> You are a complete wanker.
> > > >>
> > > >> *plonk*
> > > >>
> > > >> Mr Q. Z. D.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Looks like this one's easily pleased, QZD.
> > >
> > > Respond with a smiley and you may well get a blow job.
> >
> > I'm not taking a blowjob from no ni...
>
>
> Are you one of the knights who say ni...?
</Monty Python>
I'm one of the knights who say "nigger," actually.
And "jigaboo."
I'm not worried about the words of themselves. I just thought that
"ni..." would be funnier (in a South Park kind of way).
A Planet Visitor
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:diablo-FD2020....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > In article <ni3mdugsrj7qvfdkp...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
> > > <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 09 May 2002 22:34:09 GMT, "Mr.One" <extre...@prodigy.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> > message
> > > > >news:diablo-DF18CF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You are a complete wanker.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *plonk*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mr Q. Z. D.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks! Keep slapping that racist piece of shit.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looks like this one's easily pleased, QZD.
> > > >
> > > > Respond with a smiley and you may well get a blow job.
> > >
> > > I'm not taking a blowjob from no ni...
> >
> >
> > Are you one of the knights who say ni...?
>
> </Monty Python>
>
> I'm one of the knights who say "nigger," actually.
>
> And "jigaboo."
>
> I'm not worried about the words of themselves. I just thought that
> "ni..." would be funnier (in a South Park kind of way).
>
Claiming that it is okay to do it as long as you are 'not
worrying' about what you SAY, can also translate into
'not worrying' about what you DO. And aren't we often
offended by those who seem to 'not worry' about what
they DO... such as your rant about the visit of the John
C. Stennis?
The point I would try to make is that NOT being 'worried'
about acts or words of ourselves or others, ignores the
plain fact that they offend OTHERS. It is this lack of
concern for OTHERS, that should cause us to examine
both words and acts. As with the Stennis, who you
presume does not 'worry' about the consequences of its
acts, perhaps you find it not necessary to 'worry' about
your words, because you are not the one who is the
OBJECT of your words. Just as the members on the
Stennis are not the object of the garbage they spill into
your waters. You, and they, are in fact the PLAYERS
in those words and acts.
The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
level. Let us never pander to the belief that what we both
DO and SAY, does not affect others. That's clear to you
in the case of the Stennis, thus I find it troubling that you
can't see it in the case of racist epithets.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Just gpt bak from a night of viewing desirable girls. Will do my best
to answer your points when I get back up and have what resembles my wits
about me.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: House nigger one and his niggerbabbble
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 19:23:52 +0000
Organization: None
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <slrnadqru8.26a6....@lievre.voute.net>
References: <cNCz8.54718$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<rmFz8.3960$GA1.15...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
<3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>
<diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<94b4bfe7.02050...@posting.google.com>
<diablo-DF18CF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<BPCC8.308$JX.10...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
<ni3mdugsrj7qvfdkp...@4ax.com>
<diablo-FD2020....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<abgl7l$p7e$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
<diablo-21294E....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
<diablo-E5866A....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Reply-To: pasdespa...@noos.fr
NNTP-Posting-Host: d006.dhcp212-198-69.noos.fr (212.198.69.6)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1021145034 19708405 212.198.69.6 (16 [91468])
X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
X-No-Archive: true
X-OS: BSD UNIX
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
Xref: news alt.activism.death-penalty:256306
Le Sat, 11 May 2002 19:14:17 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
> Just gpt bak from a night of viewing desirable girls.
Ah, so you've left Australia, then ..?
;-)
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Por que te dejas de romper las bolas
archive
mister...@hotmail.com
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
Damn. I agree with you completely PV.
> The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
> racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
> try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
> destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
> believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
> contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
> power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
> we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
> brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
> level. Let us never pander to the belief that what we both
> DO and SAY, does not affect others. That's clear to you
> in the case of the Stennis, thus I find it troubling that you
> can't see it in the case of racist epithets.
You're wandering a bit here. Still, the agreement thing was a bit of a
shock.
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1748360c1d8766979896ef@news...
Well, let's put it this way. The argument of dirt and Mark
is -- the more it is said the more meaningless it becomes.
Believing that it can be made impotent by repeating it
often enough. Putting that into the context of the Stennis,
does ANYONE believe that having 10 carriers dump
their garbage in that same pristine bay, would somehow
make it LESS offensive than the 1 doing it now? Are we
supposed to become immune to the garbage and the
damage, if it is repeated often enough, or heaped high
enough? Are Blacks supposed to become inoculated to
the word if we use it often enough? Presuming it is some
sort of vaccine, rather than the disease itself? Or are
we simply hoping to 'justify' our own words as the 'provider
of garbage'? As presumably the Stennis would try to
'justify' its own acts.
PV
mister...@hotmail.com
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
>
> <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1748360c1d8766979896ef@news...
> > In article <iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> > >
> Well, let's put it this way. The argument of dirt and Mark
> is -- the more it is said the more meaningless it becomes.
> Believing that it can be made impotent by repeating it
> often enough. Putting that into the context of the Stennis,
> does ANYONE believe that having 10 carriers dump
> their garbage in that same pristine bay, would somehow
> make it LESS offensive than the 1 doing it now? Are we
> supposed to become immune to the garbage and the
> damage, if it is repeated often enough, or heaped high
> enough? Are Blacks supposed to become inoculated to
> the word if we use it often enough? Presuming it is some
> sort of vaccine, rather than the disease itself? Or are
> we simply hoping to 'justify' our own words as the 'provider
> of garbage'? As presumably the Stennis would try to
> 'justify' its own acts.
>
> PV
It seems you've become a utopian PV. :-) The fact is, of course, that we
_do_ become inured to epithets, and sometimes epithets can even be
subverted to take on a meaning other than the original intent. Certainly
many black people seem to have appropriated "nigger" in a form that
denotes pride and defiance of the original sentiment of the epithet. I'm
sure that originally the word wasn't even meant pejoratively, but was
simply a shortening of Negro, so any such meaning has been overlaid
later. None of that has any bearing on the fact that some people find it
offensive and we should think before using it.
On the other hand, the actions of the Stennis in dumping garbage are
simply vandalism and should be deplored, and that would be the case
regardless of it's being a Septic vessel or not.
Cheers,
Craig
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Sat, 11 May 2002 19:14:17 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> > Just gpt bak from a night of viewing desirable girls.
>
> Ah, so you've left Australia, then ..?
Believe me, Des, there are any number of desirable girls to be found in
Oz, evin in this provincial backwater.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-21294E....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <abgl7l$p7e$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "St.George"
It's all a question of _intent_, PV. I acknowledge that careless use of
racist epithets can be harmful but, if someone is aware that racism is
nonsense, I can't see the problem as long as what they say is
unambiguous.
> And aren't we often
> offended by those who seem to 'not worry' about what
> they DO... such as your rant about the visit of the John
> C. Stennis?
In a moment...
> The point I would try to make is that NOT being 'worried'
> about acts or words of ourselves or others, ignores the
> plain fact that they offend OTHERS. It is this lack of
> concern for OTHERS, that should cause us to examine
> both words and acts. As with the Stennis, who you
> presume does not 'worry' about the consequences of its
> acts, perhaps you find it not necessary to 'worry' about
> your words, because you are not the one who is the
> OBJECT of your words. Just as the members on the
> Stennis are not the object of the garbage they spill into
> your waters. You, and they, are in fact the PLAYERS
> in those words and acts.
Firstly, I think that you've misinterpreted me. Very possibly
deliberately and, if so, very charitably.
A sidenote: elsewhere in this thread, mention has been made of
"pristine waters." It may be worth noting that the river Derwent is
regarded as so utterly, utterly polluted that swimming is not
recommended and eating fish caught there should only be undertaken by
those with severe mercury deficiencies.
Prepare to be offended.
When I was talking about trash of various colours, I was referring to
the ships denizens - not anything that had been ejected by way of refuse
disposal. I am constantly left feeling extremely unimpressed by the
behaviour of US servicemen (and women) when they visit our shores.
Reducing my favourite, quiet, civilised pub to a repulsive beer barn
filled with sailors and their loud, suburban hangers-on. One rape
(almost guaranteed) of a schoolgirl per visit. The introduction of
STDs. Fights which are covered up by the authorities because local
government likes the injection of money. The social cost is enormous.
And I'm left wondering why the detritus of American society is greeted
so enthusiastically.
> The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
> racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
> try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
> destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
> believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
> contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
> power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
> we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
> brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
> level. Let us never pander to the belief that what we both
> DO and SAY, does not affect others. That's clear to you
> in the case of the Stennis, thus I find it troubling that you
> can't see it in the case of racist epithets.
But I _do_ recognise the damage done by racist epithets, PV. I live in
one of the most openly racist countries in the world. The most virulent
form of racism is usually encountered when someone begins a diatribe
with "I'm not a racist, but..." Those who use racist terms on occasion
are generally not nearly as much of a worry. I leave you with the word
that is most important in this respect - intent.
A Planet Visitor
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.174869d6c08ec9809896f2@news...
Exactly who are 'we,' in your argument? My point is
the 'actor' may well become inured to both epithets and
acts. But it is the OBJECT that suffers the consequences.
And NEITHER words nor acts can be justifed by claiming
one become injured to those words or acts.
This started out as your general agreement with the
comparisons I made, yet I now find you subtly trying to
justify the word. Are you just in an argumentative mood,
or do you REALLY believe there is not a substantial
comparison to be made here?
> and sometimes epithets can even be
> subverted to take on a meaning other than the original intent. Certainly
> many black people seem to have appropriated "nigger" in a form that
> denotes pride and defiance of the original sentiment of the epithet.
Yes, it is a defiant word in the context with which Blacks
use it. Blacks use it when speaking with other Blacks to
put the word in the form of 'recognition' of how they are
prejudiced against. And defiantly DECLARE their
recognition of that prejudice. But do not presume that 'you'
using it, means 'you' find it a defiant word. It's simply
holds no possibility of 'you' saying that word in any
context of defiance. Any more than the Stennis dropping
its garbage can be seen as a 'defiant' symbol of pollution.
When someone calls you 'stupid' don't YOU become defiant?
Do not fall into the trap of 'justifying' YOUR use of the word
because you see the OBJECT of your word become defiant.
It's a natural reaction, and has much to do with the high level
of violence experienced by American Blacks. Having spent
the major portion of their life, from their first encounter with
others, with not a day having gone by that SOMEONE,
SOMEWHERE has used that word against them. And not
in any sense of defiance, but in the sense of degradation
and hate toward another member of our species.
> I'm
> sure that originally the word wasn't even meant pejoratively, but was
> simply a shortening of Negro, so any such meaning has been overlaid
> later.
You have NO IDEA of how pejorative that word was originally
meant to be. Its original meaning comes from the pejorative
belief that being Black meant little more than an animal, meant
only to be a slave. Please do not patronize me by presuming
to tell me the force behind that word in American culture.
Certainly to argue that the word does not have a pejorative
content is ridiculous, and again seems to be trying to find
a way to justify its use.
> None of that has any bearing on the fact that some people find it
> offensive and we should think before using it.
> On the other hand, the actions of the Stennis in dumping garbage are
> simply vandalism and should be deplored, and that would be the case
> regardless of it's being a Septic vessel or not.
There is no 'other hand.' If people find it offensive, we should
THINK before using the word or taking the act. It's actually
absurdly simple. Yet you seem to wish to complicate it,
by once again, hoping to diminish the one while presuming
the other is worse. Simply because one comes from
sources external to the U.S., who find it 'funny' to use the
word, which is most certainly offensive to others; while the
other is from a source internal to the U.S., who have acted
in what you find to be offensive to you. And again, I can't
help but make that identification as part of your argument.
But I can tell you that the word has created MURDER in
many instances. People have MURDERED over that word.
I too agree that it is careless and thoughtless and hazardous
to dump garbage into a pristine bay. I will not defend that
dumping, and I'll thank you not to defend that word.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> In article <iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:diablo-21294E....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > In article <abgl7l$p7e$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "St.George"
pollution as nonsense, is free to pollute to his heart's
desire. At the risk of being called PC, which you seem to
find me to be in the issue of racism --- The fact that you
can't see the problem, might well BE the problem. It is
certainly what I find in the comments of dirt/Mark. A
presumption just as you now speak... that being aware
that racism is 'nonsense,' provides unlimited use of
such racism. It's the perfect 'Catch-22.' If one remarks
on the fact that the comments ARE racist, one is simply
being excessively PC, because EVERYONE 'knows' that
racism is 'nonsense.' And since racism is 'nonsense,' there
are no limits to what one may say in racist expressions.
How totally neat for the 'actual' racist. Blameless to all
fault.
> > And aren't we often
> > offended by those who seem to 'not worry' about what
> > they DO... such as your rant about the visit of the John
> > C. Stennis?
>
> In a moment...
>
> > The point I would try to make is that NOT being 'worried'
> > about acts or words of ourselves or others, ignores the
> > plain fact that they offend OTHERS. It is this lack of
> > concern for OTHERS, that should cause us to examine
> > both words and acts. As with the Stennis, who you
> > presume does not 'worry' about the consequences of its
> > acts, perhaps you find it not necessary to 'worry' about
> > your words, because you are not the one who is the
> > OBJECT of your words. Just as the members on the
> > Stennis are not the object of the garbage they spill into
> > your waters. You, and they, are in fact the PLAYERS
> > in those words and acts.
>
> Firstly, I think that you've misinterpreted me. Very possibly
> deliberately and, if so, very charitably.
>
I doubt that, since you contributed to this post in a rather
jocular manner, used both words, and claimed "I'm not
worried about the words of themselves"
> A sidenote: elsewhere in this thread, mention has been made of
> "pristine waters." It may be worth noting that the river Derwent is
> regarded as so utterly, utterly polluted that swimming is not
> recommended and eating fish caught there should only be undertaken by
> those with severe mercury deficiencies.
>
> Prepare to be offended.
You are not getting a virgin.
> When I was talking about trash of various colours, I was referring to
> the ships denizens - not anything that had been ejected by way of refuse
> disposal. I am constantly left feeling extremely unimpressed by the
> behaviour of US servicemen (and women) when they visit our shores.
> Reducing my favourite, quiet, civilised pub to a repulsive beer barn
> filled with sailors and their loud, suburban hangers-on. One rape
> (almost guaranteed) of a schoolgirl per visit. The introduction of
> STDs. Fights which are covered up by the authorities because local
> government likes the injection of money. The social cost is enormous.
> And I'm left wondering why the detritus of American society is greeted
> so enthusiastically.
Ummm... 'garbage' is 'garbage.' you're offended by what
you see as 'American garbage,' whether of sewage or human
variety... which of course justifies your racist words. Or does
it??? My point is of course, still perfectly valid.
>
> > The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
> > racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
> > try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
> > destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
> > believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
> > contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
> > power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
> > we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
> > brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
> > level. Let us never pander to the belief that what we both
> > DO and SAY, does not affect others. That's clear to you
> > in the case of the Stennis, thus I find it troubling that you
> > can't see it in the case of racist epithets.
>
> But I _do_ recognise the damage done by racist epithets, PV. I live in
> one of the most openly racist countries in the world. The most virulent
> form of racism is usually encountered when someone begins a diatribe
> with "I'm not a racist, but..." Those who use racist terms on occasion
> are generally not nearly as much of a worry. I leave you with the word
> that is most important in this respect - intent.
>
But those very words are IMPLIED in the posts of
dirt/Mark... the implication is that 'it is not racism speaking,
but a disdain for the possibility of it even existing.' They
begin with the precondition that it is not possible to be
a racist, if you presume yourself to be rational as well. And
I see that as part of your remark... presuming the words
are not REALLY 'worrying' you. I really hope you can see
this.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
I've been wanting to tell this story for ages, so here goes...
I attended a Quaker school, hence my proclivity to pacifism. I remember
to this day our principal's 20 minute talk on racism. He illustrated
the nonsensical nature of racism - the belief that people like the
racist are somehow superior - by proving that if he was racist, he would
regard the best people on the face of the planet as being tubby,
middle-aged Englishmen. _That's_ why racism is nonsense - it has no
foundation in any kind of reality.
> At the risk of being called PC, which you seem to
> find me to be in the issue of racism ---
Just a little, PV. I'm much more comfortable with your being perhaps
overly sensitive to "racist" language than I would be if you let such
words pass without comment.
> The fact that you
> can't see the problem, might well BE the problem. It is
> certainly what I find in the comments of dirt/Mark. A
> presumption just as you now speak... that being aware
> that racism is 'nonsense,' provides unlimited use of
> such racism. It's the perfect 'Catch-22.' If one remarks
> on the fact that the comments ARE racist, one is simply
> being excessively PC, because EVERYONE 'knows' that
> racism is 'nonsense.' And since racism is 'nonsense,' there
> are no limits to what one may say in racist expressions.
> How totally neat for the 'actual' racist. Blameless to all
> fault.
It's neat, for sure. That's why I always look for context and intent.
I watch out for those who use racist language if it is used carelessly,
insensitivly or with the intention of belittling others.
Quite. It's a valid point but not one sufficiently powerful for me to
react to racist language by default without examining the motivation of
the speaker.
I understand what you're saying but am, perhaps, a little more tolerant
of such language, even if it is often used thoughtlessly and
insensitively.
mister...@hotmail.com
Those who know me realise that I'm _always_ in an argumentative mood :-).
I don't _have_ to justify the word as I don't use it. I grew up in New
Guinea, as I believe I have mentioned, and to use of the word "boi" (boy,
obviously) to address any native male. Funnily enough, in that situation,
the people being addressed didn't find any insult in the term, it was
simply a generic term for a black male to their understanding, just as
"masta" (master) was the generic term for a white male. I never felt
right about that and stopped as soon as I was able to be understood using
the word "man", which took a while as it simply wasn't a part
of melanesian Pidgin. Personally, I find those terms far more denigratory
or indicative of a particular mind-set than "nigger" ever could be.
Apropos of analogy with the Stennis situation, I think your choice of
analogy is poor; "sticks and stones..". In other words, use of the word
"nigger" cannot do any physical damage, whereas dumping shit in a
beautiful bay certainly does.
> > and sometimes epithets can even be
> > subverted to take on a meaning other than the original intent. Certainly
> > many black people seem to have appropriated "nigger" in a form that
> > denotes pride and defiance of the original sentiment of the epithet.
>
> Yes, it is a defiant word in the context with which Blacks
> use it. Blacks use it when speaking with other Blacks to
> put the word in the form of 'recognition' of how they are
> prejudiced against. And defiantly DECLARE their
> recognition of that prejudice. But do not presume that 'you'
> using it, means 'you' find it a defiant word. It's simply
> holds no possibility of 'you' saying that word in any
> context of defiance.
Rot. In the context of the rest of my actions it may well be just that,
and I may well choose to use it in just that way. You're being awfully
prescriptive and, dare I say it, paternalistic here PV.
Any more than the Stennis dropping
> its garbage can be seen as a 'defiant' symbol of pollution.
> When someone calls you 'stupid' don't YOU become defiant?
> Do not fall into the trap of 'justifying' YOUR use of the word
> because you see the OBJECT of your word become defiant.
> It's a natural reaction, and has much to do with the high level
> of violence experienced by American Blacks. Having spent
> the major portion of their life, from their first encounter with
> others, with not a day having gone by that SOMEONE,
> SOMEWHERE has used that word against them. And not
> in any sense of defiance, but in the sense of degradation
> and hate toward another member of our species.
As I said, we shold be careful in our use of words.
> > I'm
> > sure that originally the word wasn't even meant pejoratively, but was
> > simply a shortening of Negro, so any such meaning has been overlaid
> > later.
>
> You have NO IDEA of how pejorative that word was originally
> meant to be. Its original meaning comes from the pejorative
> belief that being Black meant little more than an animal, meant
> only to be a slave. Please do not patronize me by presuming
> to tell me the force behind that word in American culture.
> Certainly to argue that the word does not have a pejorative
> content is ridiculous, and again seems to be trying to find
> a way to justify its use.
Can you suggest a mechanism for its coinage as a pejorative term, rather
than as an abbreviation/slang expression that acquired pejorative
connotations later?
> > None of that has any bearing on the fact that some people find it
> > offensive and we should think before using it.
> > On the other hand, the actions of the Stennis in dumping garbage are
> > simply vandalism and should be deplored, and that would be the case
> > regardless of it's being a Septic vessel or not.
>
> There is no 'other hand.' If people find it offensive, we should
> THINK before using the word or taking the act. It's actually
> absurdly simple.
I agree. I'll even shout: I AGREE.
> Yet you seem to wish to complicate it,
> by once again, hoping to diminish the one while presuming
> the other is worse. Simply because one comes from
> sources external to the U.S., who find it 'funny' to use the
> word, which is most certainly offensive to others; while the
> other is from a source internal to the U.S., who have acted
> in what you find to be offensive to you. And again, I can't
> help but make that identification as part of your argument.
> But I can tell you that the word has created MURDER in
> many instances. People have MURDERED over that word.
> I too agree that it is careless and thoughtless and hazardous
> to dump garbage into a pristine bay. I will not defend that
> dumping, and I'll thank you not to defend that word.
>
You're completely off the beam here PV. In Queensland, specifically in a
town called Toowoomba, about 120km west of Brisbane where I live, there
is a sports ground. The ground has a stand called the "E.F. (Nigger)
Brown Stand". There has recently been a string of cases culminating
recently in a High Court hearing, which have all contended that the name
"Nigger" should be removed as offensive. All have failed, including the
final appeal to the High Court, on the grounds that the term was not
intended to be offensive, but reflected the gentleman's nickname, which
was related to a brand of boot polish or something. As usual PV, context
is important.
Remember, I _don't_ use the word myself.
Cheers,
Craig
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: House nigger one and his niggerbabbble
>Organization: None
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <slrnadsndg.ob.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <cNCz8.54718$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<rmFz8.3960$GA1.15...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
<3CCF32C9...@niggers.com>
<diablo-4EB329....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<94b4bfe7.02050...@posting.google.com>
<diablo-DF18CF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<BPCC8.308$JX.10...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
<ni3mdugsrj7qvfdkp...@4ax.com>
<diablo-FD2020....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<abgl7l$p7e$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
<diablo-21294E....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
<diablo-E5866A....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
<diablo-29A444....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@noos.fr
>NNTP-Posting-Host: d006.dhcp212-198-69.noos.fr (212.198.69.6)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>Le Sun, 12 May 2002 02:40:06 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
>>> > Just gpt bak from a night of viewing desirable girls.
>
>>> Ah, so you've left Australia, then ..?
>
>> Believe me, Des, there are any number of desirable girls to be found in
>> Oz, evin in this provincial backwater.
>
>(*cough*) from Melbourne, during my university days. Made me wonder if
>the word 'inhibitions' existed in Australia ... :-)
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
>Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Desi, Only COWARDS don't allow their postings to be archived!
A Planet Visitor
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1748a25d1d752159896f3@news...
But the word does TREMENDOUS damage. And that's my
point. It is not a word without power. It has great destructive
power, and like nuclear power should not be taken lightly,
which is obviously what I see in the posts of dirt/Mark.
It's not comparable to 'sticks and stones,' since we are
speaking of the PLAYER rather than the OBJECT. We
cannot estimate the damage done to the object, since we
are the player in both cases. Certainly as a player, both
'sticks and stones,' and 'racial epithet's do no damage to
the player, unless they provoke a retaliation. And this is
a point to examine in the violence in the U.S. You may
not see it, having not even been here, but the justified
outrage of Blacks in the perception of those words can
well create a groundswell of 'sticks and stones,' in
retaliation. Not as a part of any 'hate' crime response,
but the creation of a lessened feeling of worth among Blacks.
Resulting in a 'sticks and stones' response within the
Black community itself. Life becomes less valuable as
they see themselves felt to be less valuable. It's a
complex social phenomenon, and should not be handled
lightly or presumed to be 'nonsense.' And if one wishes
to create the 'Utopia' you often speak of, one of the FIRST
steps is to accept that both 'words' and 'sticks and
stones' are unacceptable when used as weapons of
insult against others of our own species. It's part and
parcel of just about every argument we've had here,
where the CAUSE of violence in the U.S. is largely the
result of the disenfranchisement of a 'brace of my own
kinsmen.' We do no great harm to reducing that
prejudice when we find 'humor' or 'nonsense' in racism,
and the use of racial epithets. You should actually be
greatly on my side in this argument, IMHO.
> > > and sometimes epithets can even be
> > > subverted to take on a meaning other than the original intent. Certainly
> > > many black people seem to have appropriated "nigger" in a form that
> > > denotes pride and defiance of the original sentiment of the epithet.
> >
> > Yes, it is a defiant word in the context with which Blacks
> > use it. Blacks use it when speaking with other Blacks to
> > put the word in the form of 'recognition' of how they are
> > prejudiced against. And defiantly DECLARE their
> > recognition of that prejudice. But do not presume that 'you'
> > using it, means 'you' find it a defiant word. It's simply
> > holds no possibility of 'you' saying that word in any
> > context of defiance.
>
> Rot. In the context of the rest of my actions it may well be just that,
> and I may well choose to use it in just that way. You're being awfully
> prescriptive and, dare I say it, paternalistic here PV.
>
Perhaps because I live in a country where I can SEE the
effect, while you live in a land where you cannot. See --
http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
This is a question and answer session with Dr. Darnell
M. Hunt, the Director of the Center for African American
Studies and Professor of Sociology at UCLA and with
Lecia J. Brooks the Director of Special Projects for the
National Conference for Community and Justice - Los
Angeles Region, which specifically addresses the use
of that word.
The point is expressed there, regarding Blacks using it
between Blacks. It's called 'transcoding,' and serves to
diminish the power of the word among themselves. Of
course, that does not diminish its power when used by
others. It only serves to 'harden' Blacks to the word.
With the possible attendant rise in inner anger over the
meaning of the word itself.
See the site I offered. Quoting --
"Question: What is the origin of the N-word?
boston__public: Dr. Hunt: The N-Word is a word that was derived
from the French and the Spanish term for Black. It is a word that
has been in our language for quite some time, certainly as long
as African-Americans have been understood to exist at the
bottom of society, subordinated by the white race. Its a term
that's meant to be an insult, meant to demean. And it's meant
to empower the person who uses it against a Black target. In
a way, it affirms the superiority of whiteness over blackness."
The pejorative meaning of that word in U.S. culture has
existed since slavery, and is deeply connected to that abomination.
Let me say that I personally feel (at the risk of again sounding
PC), that anyone using that word in the sense in which it has
been bandied about here, is not opposed in general to such
an abomination. Perhaps even believing that it is where Blacks
actually belong.
Unmmm. Let's take a term -- call it 'Spudlunk' Define it to be
'cattle force-fed with beer.' Now make the statement
"Beef from Spudlunks tastes better." Quite benign. Now
hold that Spudlunk ALSO has another meaning, a racial
insulting meaning. And say "All Spudlunks are inferior humans."
I hope you get my point, but if you don't that's not my fault.
> Remember, I _don't_ use the word myself.
I know. I never claimed you did. Thus, I find it hard to
see you in this thread, apparently defending the use of
those words.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnadsndg.ob.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 12 May 2002 02:40:06 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> >> > Just gpt bak from a night of viewing desirable girls.
>
> >> Ah, so you've left Australia, then ..?
>
> > Believe me, Des, there are any number of desirable girls to be found in
> > Oz, evin in this provincial backwater.
>
> (*cough*) from Melbourne, during my university days. Made me wonder if
> the word 'inhibitions' existed in Australia ... :-)
If she had anything to do with you, any possibililty of
her possessing moral 'inhibitions' can be immediately
discounted. It's axiomatic that any female over the
age of 12, who comes within an arm's reach of you, is
devoid of either the mental capacity to recognize danger,
or all forms of moral 'inhibitions.' Even the most
offensive man can always find SOME woman who will take
their money, and throw away her normal 'inhibitions.'
PV
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |PV MADE HIS KILL FILE
|PV MADE HIS KILL FILE
|GOD'S IN HIS HEAVEN
|ALL'S RIGHT WITH THE WORLD
A Planet Visitor
of reality' What planet are you from? Was your principal's
name Earl Evleth? This kind of thinking is more dangerous
than one can imagine. It lacks ANY insight into the human
psyche. It comes from someone who certainly has never
EXPERIENCED the effect of racism. One of the most
devastating brutalities on our planet was summed up
in 20 minutes by your insightful principal, who claimed it
was all 'nonsense.' And then some complain that a few
Americans still believe in 'Creationism.' Talk about 'walking
about with blinders on.'
And, if that's the case -- if racism IS 'nonsense' -- how can any
abolitionist claim that racism plays ANY role in the Justice
System... since it's 'nonsense'?
> > At the risk of being called PC, which you seem to
> > find me to be in the issue of racism ---
>
> Just a little, PV. I'm much more comfortable with your being perhaps
> overly sensitive to "racist" language than I would be if you let such
> words pass without comment.
>
> > The fact that you
> > can't see the problem, might well BE the problem. It is
> > certainly what I find in the comments of dirt/Mark. A
> > presumption just as you now speak... that being aware
> > that racism is 'nonsense,' provides unlimited use of
> > such racism. It's the perfect 'Catch-22.' If one remarks
> > on the fact that the comments ARE racist, one is simply
> > being excessively PC, because EVERYONE 'knows' that
> > racism is 'nonsense.' And since racism is 'nonsense,' there
> > are no limits to what one may say in racist expressions.
> > How totally neat for the 'actual' racist. Blameless to all
> > fault.
>
> It's neat, for sure. That's why I always look for context and intent.
> I watch out for those who use racist language if it is used carelessly,
> insensitivly or with the intention of belittling others.
>
I see that as certainly evident in the posts of dirt/Mark who
not only use, but obviously abuse those words. And in
the process abuse the object of those words. 'Careless
and insensitive' practically define the way dirt/Mark use
both those words. Why doesn't someone just say 'STOP...
someone has recognized that using the words as you
do is offensive to others.'? I can only presume they do
not because they also feel that 'racism is nonsense.'
Certainly I saw more than a benign response from you. Rather,
I saw you contribute the SAME words (and I have to say,
I was totally taken aback when you did), in a meaningless
context, while claiming you were "not worried about the
words of themselves." Which I can only presume means
that you believe racism IS 'nonsense.'
Obviously....
PV
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
> The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
> racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
> try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
> destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
> believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
> contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
> power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
> we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
> brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
> level.
This is literally the most stupid thing I have ever read.
You state that my occasional flippant use of the word 'jigaboo' reaches
heights of damage to race relations that the KKK at their height could only
aspire to. The only damage that the word 'jigaboo' written on its own does
is to your ridiculously intense sensibilities.
And BTW and FWIW, contrary to your _repeated_ statements to the contrary, I
have never used the dreaded N-word on usenet. This is because I worry that
it might be slightly offensive to some, and I have not seen an opportunity
to use it in a context which makes that slight offence worthwhile or
necessary.
However, I would not shy away from using it if I thought the fractional
offence caused was worthwhile, and yes, I've just concluded that winding you
up, you pompous verbositor, is worth the offence.
So, niggers to you, and jigaboos too.
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
news:ac1gts$ohs$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:iVaD8.460045$K52.76...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > The murderer has no concern for others in his acts. The
> > racist has no concern for others in his words. We may
> > try to 'justify' words, by presuming they are not as
> > destructive as acts. But do not beguile yourself into
> > believing that words lack a destructive power. And,
> > contrary to any belief that using them detracts from that
> > power, the truth is the more we use them, the more power
> > we lend to them. Witness dirt and Mark... who have
> > brought the destructiveness of racist words to a whole new
> > level.
>
>
>
> This is literally the most stupid thing I have ever read.
>
> heights of damage to race relations that the KKK at their height could only
> is to your ridiculously intense sensibilities.
>
> And BTW and FWIW, contrary to your _repeated_ statements to the contrary, I
> have never used the dreaded N-word on usenet. This is because I worry that
> it might be slightly offensive to some, and I have not seen an opportunity
> to use it in a context which makes that slight offence worthwhile or
> necessary.
>
> However, I would not shy away from using it if I thought the fractional
> offence caused was worthwhile, and yes, I've just concluded that winding you
> up, you pompous verbositor, is worth the offence.
>
>
Back to sleep folks... it's just another racist rant from
St.George. Notice how his idea of a good defense is an
offense. Instead of actually saying anything of consequence,
he just repeats those racist epithets a few times, and claims
it's okay to do so, if he thinks so. Like I said... the 'Player'
actually doesn't REALLY give a shit about the OBJECT of
his insults.
PV