Women lied, black men died
The Democrats thought Brett Kavanaugh was a safe target. Accusing a white prepster named “Brett” would be a great way to achieve several goals: stopping him from changing the balance of SCOTUS in favor of conservatives, and showing solidarity with women and with #MeToo. Who on earth would identify with Kavanaugh except other white preppy guys on the right, and they weren’t going to vote for Democrats anyway, so no great loss.
Well, it turns out that some women are concerned about the men in their lives, too. False accusations can ruin nearly anyone (women included, although I’m not sure how many women consider that aspect).
However, another obvious group that might look at the Kavanaugh hearings and become concerned about what was happening to him is black men. If that sounds counter-intuitive to some people, it certainly doesn’t sound counter-intuitive to me. It occurred to me, while watching the proceedings, that black men might not take too kindly to this little exercise in Believing Women No Matter What.
After all, Clarence Thomas—the man whose position during confirmation for SCOTUS presented the closest analogy to what Brett Kavnaugh faced thirty years later—didn’t call his own hearings “a high-tech lynching” for nothing. Thomas was reminding the country of a terrible past in which black men were lynched not metaphorically but actually, and to whom unspeakable atrocities were committed, merely on the word of a white woman accusing them of rape or other more minor sexual advances. This is not ancient history, either. It is a history that the majority of Americans—and certainly virtually all black Americans—know about.
Why didn’t it occur to Democrats that their approach to Kavanaugh might bother black men as well as white ones? My theory is that Democrats now think so completely along racial lines that it probably wouldn’t occur to them that a black man could identify with something happening to a white man, and a preppy white man at that. That must be why writer Jemele Hill of the Atlantic could write something like this [emphasis mine]:
On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.
Hill, who is a black woman (formerly a sportswriter), assumed that these black men would identify with the woman’s story of sexual assault, rather than the man’s story of false accusation. She thought they would accept and perhaps join in with the Democrats’ ridicule and demonizing of Kavanaugh’s rage at being falsely accused.
I’m not a black woman; Jemele Hill is. I don’t pretend for a moment to have my finger on the pulse of the black community or the feelings of black men, and yet I’m not the least bit surprised at their reaction. Anyone with even a smattering of historical knowledge, or a particle of imagination and empathy, should probably have expected it. I am virtually certain that Hill has enough historical knowledge (since I don’t know her, I have no idea about the imagination and empathy part) to have predicted it herself. And yet she did not; her politics blinded her.
David French (a man, but not a black man) has written this piece on the topic, in which he points out that it’s not just knowledge of history that drives this reaction on the part of black men, although that’s part of it. Black men are also the disproportionate targets of a tremendous percentage of the rape and/or sexual abuse accusations today, particularly in Title IX proceedings which have virtually eliminated due process. Between their history of having been lynched (the very definition of the lack of due process) and the reality of being accused of sexual crimes in the kangaroo courts of today’s colleges, is it any wonder that the black man speaking up so “passionately” (Kavanaugh spoke with passion, too) in that meeting Jemele Hill attended was “met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods” from the assembled group?
Hill was obviously shocked, however [emphasis mine]:
If you think Kavanaugh receiving some measure of support from black men in inner-city Baltimore is as strange as Taylor Swift suddenly feeling the need to become a modern-day Fannie Lou Hamer, then brace yourself: The caping for Kavanaugh does make a twisted kind of sense. Countless times, black men have had to witness the careers and reputations of other black men ruthlessly destroyed because of unproved rape and sexual-assault accusations.
Why “strange”? And why “twisted”? There’s nothing strange or twisted about it unless your mind is so set along separatist racial and class lines that you think black men can never empathize with the plight of a white man, and vice versa.
Hill continues [emphasis mine]:
Kavanaugh’s emotional defense of his reputation against the claims of a sympathetic white woman resonated with these unlikely allies. And it wasn’t just in Baltimore, at the town hall organized for Ozy Media’s “Take On America” series. This bizarre kinship was something I noticed in my Twitter mentions, too, where black men were tossing out examples of how white lies had wrecked black lives.
“Unlikely.” “Bizarre.” Hill can’t stop being gobsmacked by the common principles that unite this group with Kavanaugh and the obvious similarities. Race and class make it nearly impossible in her mind; that’s all she sees.
And yet she continues to make the case for exactly why these black men would identify with Kavanaugh:
A report released last year, examining 1,900 exonerations over the past three decades, found that 47 percent of the people exonerated were black, despite the fact that blacks make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population. In sexual-assault cases, blacks accounted for 22 percent of convictions, but 59 percent of exonerations.
Hill’s article is titled “What the Black Men Who Identify With Brett Kavanaugh Are Missing.” But basically, she makes a very weak to nonexistent case that they’re missing anything at all. She seems to be saying that because a higher percentage of black men than white men are accused of sexual assault and a higher percentage are convicted or exonerated, that somehow makes a difference and they shouldn’t identify with Kavanaugh. That’s a preposterous argument.
I’ll close with this video I found on YouTube, in which an eloquent black man explains how he feels about what happened to Kavanaugh:
[NOTE: I think the title of this piece would be a good slogan for the GOP to get into the public domain before election day.]
Here’s a brutal rejoinder to the most red faced, intransigent #MeToo SJW:
So, we are always supposed to believe the woman?
Yes
No exceptions?
Yes
No further context?
Yes
No mitigating circumstances?
Yes
So, that includes the Scotsboro Boys?
Or any other of a half a thousand false rape accusations against black men in an earlier era (c.f. “To Kill a Mockingbird”).
There are many intelligent, reasonable arguments in response, or course. But when the SJW argues for belief of women categorically, she forfeits all of those responses. She has to backtrack.
Offering this rejoinder will only make 90% of them even angrier. But I hope it gives the other 10% pause
This article doesn’t surprise me too much, for the reasons Neo pointed out. It really shouldn’t surprise anyone, if considering the Kavanaugh fiasco outside of the narrow intersectional lens of lefty activists.
I do not have any great or special insight on the opinions of black men. I am white and I live in a very white community (with a decent smattering of Hispanics and Asians). However, I did spend a year working for a social services agency in a large city ten years ago. Probably about 60-70% of our clients were black and we were located in an overwhelmingly black neighborhood. My limited experience suggested the black communities aren’t nearly as monolithic in viewpoints as many non blacks think.
I suspect the SJWs make presumptions based on their own very small bubble. One salient presumption is that ordinary people of “victim” status of some sort (whether racial, religious gender or orientation), have either bought on to intersectional babble as much as the SJWs, or will do so with enough propaganda. Reality suggests otherwise.
There was a piece on HuffPo the other day (I can’t find it now) about how white women are not going to be accepted. Black women rule.
The racial thing is getting more and more complicated. One reason why OJ was acquitted was that black women resent white women “taking their black men.”
Black women are probably the angriest group in the race/social sweepstakes.
First, we recognize individual dignity. That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.
Second, the intrinsic value of human life cannot be far behind.
Third, men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature. So, a flaw like original sin (i.e. potential for immoral thoughts and behaviors) is common to both sexes.
Finally, diversity or “color” judgments… one step forward, two steps back.
I think we have made a breakthrough, a baby step, perhaps, and in the right direction.
Warlock trials are unconstitutional. So are witch trials. Whatever the truth may be, it is not discernible by human perception in a scientific logical space. So, we err on the presumption of innocence, which grants a reprieve to both the accuser and accused.
Jemele Hill was fired by ESPN after she tweeted this about President Trump last year:
Ann:
But the Atlantic, once a good magazine, gave her a forum nevertheless.
Neo cited an NR article by David French. Consider the following quote from French’s article:
This is a consequence of Title IX regulations that came from the Obama Administration. Irony of ironies.
Regarding ESPN’s firing Jamele Hill for her over-the-top tweets: her Atlantic article doesn’t exactly make the case for her being a deep thinker, though she should be given credit for writing about opinions she didn’t anticipate. Tweeting without thinking at ESPN; sloppy thinking at The Atlantic. Rather similar.
Neo,
Thanks very much for the video. It’s encouraging.
And for your posting also, of course.
Ackler: Good point, well done.
Comment at Samizdata:
Neo,
Yes, it’s pretty sad about The Atlantic, although it still now and then publishes something worth reading. This in that article I linked to above about ESPN firing Hill, though, shows how just how far the magazine has fallen:
Embarrassing, if nothing else.
Note–last quote above in response to Gringo’s comment.
This “war on blacks” stuff goes clear back to the ’70s or even earlier. But Obama made Race War a Democratic Party strategy.
Neo’s video and Gringo’s excerpt from David French show that whereas Race War may live in the hearts and minds of the Dem PTB and those Dems who buy their line — and of SJWs in general of course — it’s maybe not so alive & well in the hearts and minds of everyday Americans, regardless of their race.
The unmasking continues. Enjoyed the video. The left is just now discovering that people are individuals. Shocking.
Parker, they still don’t BELIEVE people are individuals.
The Left’s complete absorption of The Narrative, and their ignorance of history, is making fools of them all.
Roll on, Red Tide, roll on, and surge above the Party of Evil, by eroding and destroying the barriers they’ve built to divide us from our fellow Americans..
“She’s a Roman Candle…” Lots of noise and flash but very little illumination, is that it?
Women should understand the effect of baseless, where-there’s-smoke-there’s-fire accusation. It’s malicious gossip on a national scale, and women are most often the targets, and the origin, of such gossip.
My SIL and other female in-laws are angry with me for not believing all women when 99.7% of accusations are REAL (because .3% of cases the men get off? I was intrigued by the statistic but didn’t want to get slapped out of the Sisterhood.) I was also not “keeping quiet” when traumatized women are speaking their truth.
Ironically, after I repelled the advances of a male supervisor – I had a temporary state job at a time when jobs were rare – he initiated the process to get me fired for faking my timecards. Since there was no punch clock, I had always checked in with the female supervisor before leaving, but she put up no objection to his charges.
The only one who went to bat for me was a regional director with whom I worked a few times a week. He offered to let me report to his office in another county. However, that seemed to wake up my female supervisor to my value.
The male supervisor was fired three years later for sexual harassment and it came out that he “dated” direct-report employees every summer.
“Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists”
This is becoming a Democrat talking point regardless of the evidence. A commenter on Althouse posted it. I think it is evidence of desperation. I don’t know if the election repeats 1994, whether this will calm them down or give license for violence.
A discussion at Chicagoboyz about men looking to other countries for wives.
That’s why I cannot understand these idiot women. I can’t be the only one who has had a lecherous boss, a jerk coworker, or a drama queen make a false accusation of a firing offense.
My guess is that black men know all about being judged by their appearance and their background.
The fact that any blacks vote for Democrats at all is shocking. The biggest scam in us history. Blacks are wising up.
Dems have 170 years of experience using the “ sexual savage” stereotype. They have traded their white hoods for antifa mask and puccy hats. Nonetheless- ruining lives is a matter of course for dems to retain power.
Ann on October 13, 2018 at 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm said:
There’s a warm welcome waiting for her from editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg adds. “I like having journalists on our staff who make all sorts of useful trouble, and Jemele, I believe, will make all sorts of useful trouble.”
* * *
Kevin Williamson, on the other hand, was going to make all sorts of useless trouble, I suppose.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/a-dissent-concerning-kevin-williamson/484052/
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF
APR 8, 2018
“Goldberg added, “The tweet was not merely an impulsive, decontextualized, heat-of-the-moment post, as Kevin had explained it. Furthermore, the language used in the podcast was callous and violent. This runs contrary to The Atlantic’s tradition of respectful, well-reasoned debate, and to the values of our workplace.”
Finally, he fired Williamson. And from that I dissent.
…
More specifically, I dissent from the way that Williamson was dragged, regardless of his position. That dragging would be a small matter in isolation, but it is of a piece with burgeoning, shortsighted modes of discourse that are corroding what few remaining ties bind the American center. Should that center fail to hold, anarchy will be loosed.
And I dissent from the termination that followed—a matter for which responsibility must fall on The Atlantic, not on Williamson’s critics, even those critics who most egregiously distorted his words or their prominence in his journalism.
What about the mode of Williamson’s dragging alarmed me?
Word of Williamson’s hiring was greeted by some as if by mercenary opposition researchers determined to isolate the most outlying and offensive thoughts that he ever uttered, no matter how marginal to his years of journalistic work; to gleefully amplify them, sometimes in highly distorting ways, in a manner designed to stoke maximum upset and revulsion; and to frame them as if they said everything one needed to know about his character. To render him toxic was their purpose.
[that sounds…familiar]
That mode was poison when reserved for cabinet nominees; it is poison when applied to journalistic hires; and it will be poison if, next week or year, it comes for you.
Insofar as opinion journalists indulged in it, the mode is also a professional failure.
…
And then the termination: I worry that the firing was a failure of “the spirit of generosity,” a value that The Atlantic has long touted as a core value. I know that it raised thorny, unresolved questions about what exactly is verboten at the magazine. I fear that it will make it harder for the publication to contribute to the sort of public sphere where the right and the left mutually benefit from fraught engagement.And I expect that many of my colleagues will bear the burden of being dragged in ways that opportunists on the right and the left will now take to be effective.
Finally, I worry that the dragging and the firing were failures of tolerance.
…
I reject the assumption that social justice or civic progress are advanced, that repressive outcomes are avoided, or that vulnerable groups are best served, by partisans who focus on everyone’s most extreme, or wrongheaded, or taboo, or outlying, or shocking, or problematic view—all but guaranteeing needless polarization.
[see Dem-onization of Kanye West]
I believe that justice is best advanced, that repressive outcomes are best avoided, and that vulnerable groups benefit disproportionately from a polity in which the public sphere is characterized by tolerance, forbearance, deliberate cross-ideological engagement within moderating institutions, and attempts at moral suasion rooted in love. At the group level, my sort of public sphere serves as a bulwark against the threat of authoritarianism that targets minorities; on an individual level, I believe engagement within it causes many to soften their most extreme views.
And I draw a distinction between the position that a given belief “is not something that belongs anywhere in the mainstream,” and the crucially distinct belief that a person who holds any such position should be totally excluded from mainstream institutions, even if their participation in them never broaches the outlying view.
The latter approach fuels balkanization.
…
Civil libertarians also quickly learn that morally repugnant policies cannot be stigmatized out of the mainstream; that moral grandstanding cannot substitute for persuasion; and that Twitter mobs seldom choose the objects of their ire wisely. Marc Thiessen acts as a regular apologist for torture—yet Bari Weiss was dragged for a micro-aggression in a well-intended tweet congratulating an ice-skater. Don’t drag Thiessen either. Purifying media institutions of beliefs that enjoy a measure of mainstream popularity, or of people most Americans do not regard as beyond the pale, merely guarantees that the terrain where fraught subjects are inevitably contested shifts to Reddit or Joe Rogan’s podcast.
[cue Mark Steyn’s maxim about shutting reasonable people out of the conversation]
In an era without gatekeepers, purity-seekers threaten the relevance of journalistic institutions. And forcing people toward fringes, even in those rare cases where they earnestly want to more closely engage the mainstream, threatens civil society. ”
[for some of them this is a feature, not a bug]
* * *
Friedersdorf drives me nuts sometimes, but he is almost always enlightening.
Ken:
As to your comment about Democrats “ruining lives is a matter of course for dems to retain power,” that’s how Obama won his early elections.
http://humanevents.com/2012/08/01/ann-coulter-obamas-signature-move-unsealing-private-records/
I must say I find the current generation of liberal black commentators such as Jemele Hill, Toure, and Jonathan Capeheart — not to mention Ta-Nehisi Coates — to be pretty weak tea when it comes to critical thinking, much less being able to step out of the box of grievance thinking.
What conservative young black voices am I missing?
must be a foreign concept to a racist like Jemele Hill that people could make up their minds about a case based on facts, evidence, how plausible was the accusations presented and the credibility of everyone involved instead whom do they identify with. identity politics should be drained into a toilet like a piece of used toilet paper like everything else associated with Karl Marx. i am appalled by the fact this little racist witch assumed that black men would automatically support the little witch-hunt staged by the democrats against an obvious innocent man just because she believed all black men bear a grudge against all white men and presumably this grudge would cause them to turn a blind eye on all the evidence that could draw no other possible conclusions but ford being a sociopath and Kavnaugh a honourable man and completely innocent.
Those metaphors keep ‘a comin….
https://wreg.com/2018/10/12/man-run-over-by-lawn-mower-while-trying-to-kill-son-with-chainsaw/
In fact, it’s metaphors (and more) galore (and oodles of symbolism to Boot):
https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html
Indeed “All the news that’s fit to print”… should be, and likely should always have been, “All the new that WE decide is fit to print”… (granted, it would be a challenge to shoehorn all THAT in the corner of the masthead—but then, it no longer has to be done since it’s become so ridiculously obvious!)
In any event, move over NYT! (because “The Times” they are ‘a changin’, etc., etc.):
“She’s a Roman Candle…” Lots of noise and flash but very little illumination, is that it?
Richard McEnroe, winner.
Dave, runner-up: “I am appalled by the fact this little racist witch assumed that black men would automatically support the little witch-hunt staged by the democrats against an obvious innocent man….”
Not only on-target outrage, but also a sentence that, by the time I had reached its end, had me wound up to 90 dbs in my subvocalizing….. Good one!
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2018/10/13/white-woman-falsely-accuses-crying-black-child-groping-her/1628918002/
I wonder if this clip will become a political hot potato ??
My sources stated that Brett Kav was chosen so that the Sessions sealed indictments could use military tribunal systems to resolve them. In the confirmation, one of those RHINOs asked B Kav some interesting questions.
The military tribunal system would be much better at dealing with Deep State enemy combatants rather than the civil or federal system. That is because of how much blackmail Demoncrats have on civil servants. Although even military peeps like Petraeus are not immune to Demoncrat blackmail.
This October Surprise will be interesting to see. Maybe Trum will finally be able to put HRC in jail, rather than Trum supporters talking about it as if it has already happened.
People can’t even save their own children from the Deep State. Roberts had to cover for his kids so leverage was applied successfully. Trum cannot protect every American, since he cannot even adequately protect his own secrets and information.
The Deep State is that embarassing American truth that nobody was taught about in history because public education deemed it a “conspiracy”. Just like the rest of you all thought the same about Flat Earth theory, until Leftists started being anti FE core at least.
Friedersdorf drives me nuts sometimes, but he is almost always enlightening.
Lack of quotes, italics, and bold drives me nuts.
Someone buys tin foil by the ton, has enough on hand to wrap an entire planet.
Akler,
The REAL irony is that black on white rapes in the U.S. are very high but get absolutely no attention from the left wing media, since they’re just “presstituting” themselves for the Democrat Party and know, full well, that this ongoing rape epidemic must be hidden in order to keep the Democrat “coalition” together. The Left is no different from the “feminists” in Sweden, who allowed thousands of muslim “refugees” into their country, who rape of hundreds of the women they claim to represent.
The REAL irony is that black on white rapes in the U.S. are very high but get absolutely no attention from the left wing media…
Melissa: I once looked up black and white crime statistics from the DOJ. In 2005 the numbers for sexual assault (not necessarily rape) were:
White-on-Black-completed-violence-cases: 9,025
Black-on-White–completed-violence-cases: 131,006
White-on-Black-sexual-assault-cases: 10
Black-on-White–sexual-assault-cases: 37,460
Whites outnumbered Blacks by a ratio of 5.67 in 2005. If you normalize these numbers to compare as if there were as many Blacks as Whites
White-on-Black-completed-violence-cases: 9,025
Black-on-White–completed-violence-cases: 742,807
White-on-Black-sexual-assault-cases: 10
Black-on-White–sexual-assault-cases: 212,401
So the likelihood of a Black completing violence against a White is 82x higher than the other way around.
And the likelihood of a Black committing sexual assault against a White is more than 20,000x higher than the other way around.
If a Martian looked at these numbers, likely he would conclude blacks are waging a race war against whites.
Happily, the Obama administration changed the reporting so it’s much harder to extract these statistics.
These backward thinking tiki torch loving sjws want to dial back the time to dark age by abolishing Due Process and every great thing that came with enlightenment because these useful idiots have been indoctrinated by someone higher above with greater malicious intents and a grander scheme that enlightenment was created by white men and any thing created by white men are inherently racist and misogynistic by design and needs to be getting rid of. Don’t be mistaken though that they don’t like due process, only problem is they want to hoard all the due process for themselves only but for not anyone else, every time a democrat get accused of anything the first thing they demand is their due process or Don’t get judgemental before all the facts in. believe the women doesn’t apply when the accused is a democrat, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus also doesn’t apply when Ford got caught lying about being afraid to fly or other Kavanaugh accusers got caught blatantly lying.
all of Kavanaugh ex girlfriends stood by him, the same can’t be said about Ford’s
Democrats don’t operate with common sense, to them when a Republican is accused even if it has been proven that there is 99.99999999% chance that he is innocent they would still convict him because of the 0.00000001% that he could still be guilty, but when a Democrats is accused even the chance that he did do it is 99.99999999% they would still exonerate him because of the 0.00000001% that he could be innocent. There is something about socialism that is anti-intellectual, they think they can manipulate reality just because they are adept in manipulate words, always looking for some loop holes in reasoning to create confusion to push their agenda. just like the above example, they were manipulating the arguments and moving the goal post all the time by exploiting the loophole in reasoning that nothing could ever be 100% certain in a he said she said situation. Collins said the best, in a situation like that we could only go with the story that is the most certain and corroborated by the facts we could find, but the democrats insist that we take a leap of faith on everything and only choose to believe their side of the story no matter how ridiculous and uncorroborated the story is.
There reasoning is it doesn’t matter how many times Ford got caught lying, it doesn’t dispute the fact that maybe this time she is telling the truth, a broken clock is right twice a day you know so we must believe her because she had nothing to gain. To that I would say she got as much to gain as Julie Swetnick.
huxley:
I’m not at my computer now and it’s hard to do a proper search, but I recall that the statistics you cited are based on very small and invalid samples. Also reporting problems.
That said, I also seem to recall that black on white rape is higher than the reverse. But both races are FAR more likely to rape women of their own race.
Non-Player Characters such as Hill cannot comprehend the thought processes of Player Characters.
neo: I took my numbers straight from the DOJ website, https://www.bjs.gov. If the DOJ’s numbers are unreliable, I would like to hear how so.
Of course, Black-on-Black and White-on-White crime are much more frequent, but that doesn’t lessen the sting of the mixed statistics being so terribly disproportionate.
huxley:
Ignore the editorializing here, but this is the sort of thing I mean.
Women lied, men died.
We need to stop operating in a diversity frame of reference (i.e. color judgments including racism, sexism), unless there is probable cause to paint with broad, sweeping strokes, or infer motive, extrapolate motives, and instead focus on character (e.g. principles) alignment.
A real rape survivor has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Democrats are not to be found. American women are the most pampered on earth.
neo: Not much meat there. Mostly a rant about the horror of white supremacists using math on official government statistics. The nerve of those people!
I’m not a white supremacist and I didn’t get to Table 42 because David Duke told me to. I was curious and when I’m curious, I do my own legwork and arithmetic.
Yes, I saw the asterisk on the numbers below 10 and I know that means a sample too low to be reliable. I don’t believe blacks absolutely, literally rape white women 20,000x more often than the other way around.
But even if one grants the numbers are exaggerated against blacks by a factor of ten, that means black-on-white violence is still 8x more frequent than the reverse and sexual assault still astronomical.
There is something very wrong here and I don’t think it gets washed away by complaints about low sample numbers.
The right thing to do is get some better numbers and go from there, but there is no chance that will be done.
MikeK, thank you for the link. Maybe this time the people getting the Peace Prize actually deserve it. What a refreshing change.
In 2015 after I read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me” and his litany about white Americans “breaking the black body,” I wanted to compare the black-on-white and white-on-black violence. So I went to the DOJ and found my way to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the dreaded Table 42.
The BJS statistics show in 2005 blacks were breaking white bodies far more often than visa-versa. Statistics aren’t perfect, but they are useful.
Note that the black-on-white violence number was quite high — 131,006 — and can’t be discounted as a small sample.
huxley:
I suggested you ignore the editorializing.
But the samples for black women are way too small. That’s the point. It’s kind of a garbage-in/garbage-out situation.
I wasn’t talking about the general figures for violence.
You might find this interesting.
https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
Late to the party here; I’ve been traveling. Neo, thanks for posting that video.
I was up in Washington, DC, where my husband and I had dinner in the steak restaurant in the Trump International. It was great!
Teresa Sue Klein of Flatbush, Brooklyn was in a convenience store when a mother and her two children went in and went past her. Klein then got highly upset, claiming that the nine-year-old boy had sexually assaulted her by grabbing her posterior. She immediately made a scene and called 911 for the police, demanding that the little boy be arrested for sexually assaulting her. They all went outside the store, where bystanders got verbally involved, with Klein defiant. Multiple cell phone videos show the little boy and his younger sister wailing at the top of their lungs, obviously scared. The store videos show that the boy went past Klein with both hands in plain view, but his oversized backpack may have brushed against her. Fortunately, no arrests were made.
MGTOW means never having to rescue someone who hates you!!!
feminists hate men.. its out…
even now kids are talking about avoiding women
men are waiting outside the elevators
and others are following the MGTOW ettiquette
others are removing themselves from helping women, mentoring them, giving them access that may backfire… just look waht happened to most men in lower ed, they are all pretty much gone…
and all it means is stay away from people who can ruin you and not feel a thing
reserve your assets love and other stuff for those worthy of it… they are not entitled.
all it takes is one lady with a big mouth
and your whole life is in the can
not to mention anything you work for or are connected to
So I went to the DOJ and found my way to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the dreaded Table 42.
The BJS statistics show in 2005 blacks were breaking white bodies far more often than visa-versa. Statistics aren’t perfect, but they are useful.
wrong table to really see it!!
look at the table in which they show more than one attacker
[one day i was going to show how they game demographics, but waiting till too many have died out so that i dont get an argument agin from neo who hasnt hung out with these researchers day to day doing their work for them. like i hve done for nearly 20 years now… once its not arguable, i can show how it was missed and why everyone is extinct within certain groups… dead people walking]
the numbers are even higher as one group tends to attack in strength and tends to have “friends” that egg them onwards not stop them…
source of above: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/boy_nine_ruins_supreme_court_prospects.html
Camille Paglia: Feminism Based on Destroying Men Is ‘Absolute Poison’ to Culture
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/13/camille-paglia-feminism-based-on-destroying-men-is-absolute-poison-to-culture/
Camille Paglia Explains Why Feminism Is The Collapse Of Western Civilization – MGTOW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb2JEX8DYYE
HuffPost Editor Says New Year’s Resolution Is to “Kill All Men”
Emily McCombs’s tweet has been deleted, but the damage has been done
The End of Men
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/
[if so, then us MGTOW are getting out of their way… ]
“Population of men should be reduced to 10%” quote of the founder of “Gender Studies”, Sally Miller Gearhard [they scrubbed it now… harder to find… ]
The Woman Who Thinks Reducing the Male Population by 90 Percent Will Solve Everything
It’s not all bad; the remaining 10 percent will be used for breeding.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gkkj5/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems
SCUM Manifesto
SCUM Manifesto is a radical feminist manifesto by Valerie Solanas, published in 1967. It argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of SCUM, an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex. The Manifesto is widely regarded as satirical, but based on legitimate philosophical and social concerns
“the [“acronymiz[ing]”] gloss on SCUM permitted the title to pass into other languages with annihilating precision: Manifest der Gesellschaft zur Vernichtung der Männer (1969),
Manifesto de la Organización para el Extermino del Hombre (1977),
Manifesto per l’eliminzione dei masch (1994), and whatever it says to the same effect in Czech (1998)”
“Solanas argued that ‘men and women [were “divide[d]”] from humanity’; ‘[to] allow … women to move back to humanity[,] … they exterminate men.'” – Greer (1971), p. 307
sorry… but your way to late to the party
they have argued all the arguments you may bring up
they are all countered..
you have 30 years of precidence the gen pop denied this was going on
and now that ther is MGTOW, herbivore men, InCel, the marraige strike, women freezing their eggs, the big reveal that no man is safe, and so on..
what ya gonna do? nothing
you would have had to discuss this stuff long ago and “get it” but no way to do THAT… is there?
your best tactic is hide…
stay invisable
and make sure to get your internal passport so you can travel tovarish…
IF it wasnt for a security came the woman didnt know about
Woman caught on video beating herself up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eykpC0pMt4
AFTER she beat herself up, she called 911
i guess she wanted to take all his posessions, kick him out of his home, ruin his reputation, and more
and thats who you get MARRIED to today
without video, you think ANYONE Would believ him?
heck, they prosecuted me for murder and had no evidence and no body and no one sided with me on that… the judge said i had no rights… but then the body walked in (30 years later, its still walking around)
if your nice, decent, have a good life and so on
stay away… even if your just dating.. all it takes is one afternoon like above
Video of woman hitting herself in face brings abuse claims into question
https://abc7.com/news/abuse-claims-questioned-after-video-shows-woman-hitting-herself/1499008/
Mitchell is now suing Hunt, accusing her of stealing $2 million worth of jewelry from his home safe. Hunt is now facing criminal charges for the alleged heist, which she vehemently denies.
and the whole article is that he is really the abuser… funky…
see?
stay the heck away…
if he wasnt with her, she wouldnt be there
and he would not have lost 2 million he cant recover…
Woman fired after video of her blocking man from entering his downtown loft goes viral
https://www.kmov.com/news/woman-fired-after-video-of-her-confronting-blocking-st-louis/article_f40f212e-cf57-11e8-90b6-dfba9a0bf0c7.html
here is a white woman not letting a man who lives there into the building
amazing..
[video]
i never got to go to college post BRONX SCIENCE
but i didnt have a pudenda…. soooo i dont go
here your racist if you think admissions should be merit not affirmatice action
harvard crimson
There, the conservative majority would likely dismantle the architecture of race-conscious admissions policies — something that any diversity- and equality-valuing community should defend at all costs. In fact, destroying affirmative action writ-large has long been the end goal of Edward Blum, who leads Students for Fair Admissions. This white conservative activist is spearheading the lawsuit against Harvard — a fact that on its own should generate skepticism towards its merits, especially in an audience of color like ours.
Blum’s logic was wrong when arguing a similar case in Fisher v. University of Texas, and it’s wrong here, too. The allegation of “racial balancing,” or rejecting more qualified Asian-American applicants in favor of less qualified black or Latinx ones, can only be compelling to someone with a naively idealistic conception of the school system, and of equal opportunity in America more generally. While a complete meritocracy sounds like a good idea, it necessitates the equality of all other factors, especially resources. This couldn’t be further from the truth — a study of the 2011-2012 school year found that while 81 percent of Asian-American students had access to college-preparatory math and science courses, only 57 percent of black students enjoyed the same privileges. Such disparities exist throughout the educational sphere, problematizing the very idea of a world without racial considerations. If college admissions were based on merit alone, black students would have a disproportionately mammoth task ahead of them: not only ensuring that they meet Harvard’s standards, but overcoming unfair resource distribution to do so. That would undoubtedly cause their level of representation to plummet at elite universities, recalling an era of near-segregation as prestige becomes an excuse for racism.
i grew up in a mostly black area slum
crime ridden, section 8 housing
i lived in the same place
but i got into bronx science
by giving up my childhood
then was told, no…
i had to be homeless on a park bench to go to banard baruch continuing education
bronx sciecne, and the best i could do was continuing education while homeless…
and i was priveleged… out of a life
“but overcoming unfair resource distribution to do so.”
Fair is one of those vague and ambiguous words with no objective meaning. If you look in the dictionary, fair has about 25 different definitions. When some politician starts talking about “fair” that means you better grab your wallet and hang on tight.
The Man on American Soil, is under attack! We have seen trends women have gone through for decades, and through it all, I have concluded, the Democrat women are the ugliest women on earth, and they have the lesbanics to prove it!
Do not try to catagorize all women as man bashers, because you ugly bitches can’t pay and get a man to hump you!
Women of America by a huge majority, love men, and a huge majority, of men love women!
There are way less sex offenders, out there than straight-up, American-women-ass-loving, men!
“I’m not a black woman; Jemele Hill is.”
How do you know you’re not a black woman, Neo? Have the DNA test. I bet you’re more of a black woman than the .01% pure Native American Lizzy Warren.
Who is apparently the whitest woman in the United States.
Steve57:
Good point 🙂 .
MissJean said:
“My SIL and other female in-laws are angry with me for not believing all women when 99.7% of accusations are REAL (because .3% of cases the men get off? I was intrigued by the statistic but didn’t want to get slapped out of the Sisterhood.) I was also not “keeping quiet” when traumatized women are speaking their truth…”
OMG! You need to find a different sisterhood, because they’re either making up the .3% false accusation rate or they’re the most gullible people in the world. Not even stark raving mad feminists are crazy enough to use a number that low. They like to toss around a 2% figure, but even though that’s less insane it’s still insanely low. In fact the Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School did an in depth study published in their law review in March 2000 and do you know what they discovered about that 2% figure? It was invented by a feminist novelist back in the 1970s and has absolutely no basis in fact. It’s made up out of whole cloth to be used by a writer for a work of fiction. Typically the FBI Uniform Crime Report will pass on that the number is about 8%. I say “pass on” because very few rapes are investigated as federal crimes. The vast majority are investigated as state or local crimes, and those police agencies tell them what percentage of rapes they consider to be false. So the FBI uses boilerplate language such as, “Law enforcement determines that 8% of rape complaints are false every year.” That’s to avoid saying that only 8% of rape accusations are false. In fact it’s clearly much higher. For instance in a typical year law enforcement determines through investigation that some reports are so obviously false that they don’t even meet the standard of probable cause. So that’s what the FBI is talking about there. But in about the same percentage of cases the supposed victim recants. So now we’re up to sixteen percent of rape accusations that are clearly false.
A problem with the FBI UCR rape statistics is that it’s voluntary; state and local police agencies do not have to provide crime data. Many don’t, so the FBI’s database is incomplete so it’s impossible to say that there are more or less false rape accusations but it’s clear that it’s not a complete accounting. Also, different jurisdictions have different definitions rape, and different jurisdictions have different standards for rape accusations that they do not prosecute. What may be a false rape accusation in one state might be categorized as unfounded in one state over or unproven two states over.
Now I’m going to shift gears and use figures reported by the Rape, Assault, & Incest National Network, or RAINN. It’s actually a feminist activist group that advertises itself as the country’s largest rape crisis center. I don’t trust their statistics due to their political biases; it’s in their political and financial interest to inflate rape numbers to support the fiction that we live in a “rape culture” and to play down the number of false accusations so you must “Always believe the woman.” But here’s a link to their stats that I’m going to use:
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
Their first statistic is complete garbage. They claim that out of every 1000 rapes committed only 310 are reported. There is no way to estimate how many rapes are committed that aren’t reported. In fact, I know how they arrive at that figure. Shrieking angry feminists at college and university wymyn’s grievance studies send surveys to women, and then the shrieking angry feminists decide which women have been raped. For instance, a normal woman might not think that just she had sex with a guy and later wish she hadn’t that she had been raped. The feminists don’t care; regret equals rape in their world (by that standard at least as many men if not more had been raped by women). There will be questions about her alcohol or drug use and if she’s ever had sex after drinking or using. If so, she’s been raped per feminist ideollogy. Men are responsible for everything they do after a few drinks, but apparently women revert to minor status and can’t give informed consent after even one drink. This is how they arrive at their bogus stats such as one in every four women will be raped in their lifetime. They just won’t think they’ve been raped, but the feminists know.
So I’m going to use as my baseline the 310 rapes that are reported to the police. Of those rape reports 57 or 18% result in an arrest. There are two reasons for this. Either the police can’t establish probable cause when the assailant is known to the woman, and women are more like to be raped by a man (and increasingly antother woman) that they know, or the woman was raped by a stranger and the police don’t have a suspect to arrest. Studies done in the last decades of the last century indicate that in fifty to sixty percent of the cases the police didn’t make arrests because they couldn’t establish probable cause.
Of those 57 cases that result in arrest prosecutors will bring 11 or 19% to trial. They drop the other 46 or 81% because the standard is higher to prosecute than to make an arrest. They simply aren’t valid cases. of those 11 cases that they prosecute, 7 or 64% result in conviction.
At what point do you see any evidence to support that wild, entirely false claim that people must always believe the woman because only .3% of rape accusations are false and 99.7% of rape allegations are “true?” In fact, if the “sisterhood” is running around saying that it’s prima facie evidence that you can’t believe anything the women in that group are saying.
Women lie. I’m not going to say they lie more than men but as groups one will lie at least as much as the other. I realize recent evidence may make you doubt this but FBI agents aren’t stupid. At least, not the agents in the field offices. They know people will lie about other people for these general reasons:
– Mental illness/depression
– Attention/sympathy
– Financial/profit
– Alibi
– Revenge
Typically men and women will lie about different things if they want attention, need an alibi, or want to take revenge on someone by ruining their life. Boys and men will lie about violent assaults or attempted murder. But girls and women will readily lie about sexual assault or rape. For instance, the Tawana Brawley in the late eighties. She was fifteen and had visited her boyfriend. She was afraid she’d get in trouble with her parents so she basically crawled into a dumpster, wrote racial slurs on her back (the writing was upside down so police immediately knew she could have written it herself. Recently there was a case in the carolinas (I don’t know which one, nor do I remember her name) of a woman who hooked up with a guy she met at a bar. Clearly alcohol was involved. She was also engaged to be married. Her fiancee was worried about her because they were supposed to meet, so she told him that some stranger had raped her.
Then there’s this recent case:
https://6abc.com/ex-college-student-sent-to-prison-for-false-rape-accusation/4042954/
“College student gets 1 year in prison for false rape accusation
…WABC-TV reports, Nikki Yovino, of South Setauket, pleaded guilty to making up the allegations and was sentenced to three years in prison. She will only serve one year, though, with the other two suspended as part of the plea agreement.
She said she made up the allegations in 2016 because she worried her consensual encounter with the two players would damage her relationship with another student.
Yovino had initially claimed she was raped by the two students in a bathroom during an off-campus party.
Detectives believed her at first and had witness statements that seemed to corroborate her story, and it appeared the investigation was leading to charging the two students.
But then another student came forward and shed light on apparently explicit text messages between Yovino and the two male students, and one of the men had even captured part of the incident on his cell phone…”
Actually, this is extremely bad reporting. First of all she wanted to have a threesome with the two football players. And she didn’t have a relationship with the other male student, but she was interested in him. Which seems to be why she made an issue about the two players being black. She originally lied because she thought her rape story by two black players would make him angry and get his sympathy and he’d want to be her boyfirend. Her next lie was that she never told the cops she had been raped. Yes, she had, and they had it on tape. The third lie was that she didn’t want to damage the relationship that didn’t yet exist with the guy she wanted to be more than friends with.
When women lie about rape it’s often hard to prove. But not when you’re dealing with H.S. or college students who live their life on social media. She was facing several felony charges and the prosecutors reduced everything to misdemeanors and the judge went along with it. She should have a felony record just like the guys she lied about would have she had gotten away with her scheme.
Black Americans are getting off the plantation, Leftists. Better catch them with bounty hunters soon or else you ain’t never gonna see them back on the field working for you all again.
Pingback:Slouching Towards Election Day (by Wolf Howling) - Watcher of Weasels