Rather 35,000 rapes per year than that!

Posted by T on March 05, 2009
Current Discourse

Douglas Wilson huffs that when he grew up, blacks had separate drinking fountains and this great indignity certainly had to change; indeed, so bad were those times that getting a black president (just, not this one) would be a salutary part of our repentance and redemption.

I keep thinking about those drinking fountains. Would I demonstrate and protest if cities built special drinking fountains for me? Many people evidently find me persona non grata. There is a non-profit Board that does not want to associate with me, because my language is offensive. (Most unforgivable, evidently, was my use of the term, “jive-ass dude” in a comment I once wrote.) Suppose the whole country was filled with such indignation, and demanded that special “Tim Harris drinking fountains,” separate but equal, everywhere be constructed.

Well… if you insist. I’ll take the special bathrooms too, if you please.

I suppose that, amongst the jews and other communists that led the 1960’s Revolution in America, leading to the Abolition of Separate Drinking Fountains and Other Indignities, a few probably had some genuine and human thoughts mixed in with their generally destructive motivation. Those thoughts would probably be something like this: even though at one level, it is an advantage to everyone to have more drinking fountains and bathrooms built than otherwise would be — everyone gets to the head of the line to the head sooner as a result — yet, by distinguishing access to them by class of person, one class of person will doubtless be encouraged to treat the other unjustly. This encouragement would follow from the very fact of making a class distinction per se.

A priori, which class is going to treat which unjustly? The critic is going to have to expand the analysis by pointing out, for example, that one class (Anglo-Saxons) held all the money and political power while the other (the Negroes) did not, and given that asymmetry, it would be the Whites feeling encouraged by separate drinking fountains to treat Blacks unjustly, not vice versa. At least, I have never heard a Civil Rights advocate go on indignantly about what an injustice to Whites the drinking fountains were. But then, what if there was no evidence of that political power being used unjustly? What if there was no discrimination in the granting of business licenses? what if a free school system was provided of such a quality as has yet to be built by their kinsmen in Africa to this day? what if free personal interchange was permitted in the public square, moderated only by the principle of free association? Absent specific evidence, the injustice of the situation needs to be qualified by more and more rarified notions.

The pro-integration Aryan with a daughter must logically either (a) be willfully ignorant of the crime situation that has emerged all around him, which since Integration, has destroyed every American city except perhaps Boston (which was only rescued by the very unpolitically-correct mics and dagos, at the street level — men who valued the chastity and lives of their daughters, sisters, and nieces more than some abstract social theory of internationalism), or (b) thinks that a society in which his daughter can be plucked off the street, raped, mutilated, tortured for several days, then either beaten to death or drowned in a bathtub full of lye, chopped up, and thrown into a trash bag, only to have that same society turn its eyes aside, ignore it, and pretend it never happened, is well worth it provided Negroes can drink from the same drinking fountains as whites.

Actually, there is a third option: move ever farther from the city, while pretending even to one’s own inner voice to be color-blind. We should pretend that 35,000 white women are not raped by Negroes every year, rather than think even for a moment that Integration was not all it was cracked up to be.

I am going to begin documenting the actual facts of the situation, for the sake of the culpably-ignorant white men that seem to be everywhere. Secular men read the fleeting headline in the local paper, before the story is permanently buried, and try to forget, and turn back to their ESPN. Professed Christian men like my persecutor roll their eyes heavenward and say, “it is the judgment of God.”

True: it is the judgment of God on pansies that stand by passively while their nation is destroyed all around them.

But we can all drink from the same drinking fountain! That is surely progress! Rather 35,000 additional rapes per year than not have that!

Tags: ,

13 Comments to Rather 35,000 rapes per year than that!

  • I will address the rest of the post but I have one issue that I think needs to be addressed.

    This: We should pretend that 35,000 white women are not raped by Negroes every year isn’t true. I haven’t figured out myself what the exact truth is, but it is 35,000 rapes and “sexual assaults” combined if I’m not mistaken. So simply labeling it ‘rapes’ is slightly misleading.

  • Is there a biblical distinction between the two. If a man makes an attempt on a woman and she cries out (paraphrase)…does his degree of success factor into his guilt? I assume that biblically attempted murder is to be treated as murder. Perhaps I am incorrect.

  • I understand that. My question is whether or not the distinction is a valid one. My thought is that, biblically, sexual assault and rape are essentially synonomous carrying the same biblical injunction and penalty, and therefore, in terms of the point being made in the post, TJH’s generalization is not misleading except to those who hold to the invalid distinction.

    If, biblically, we should make the distinction, then let’s do, but your pointing out the distinction raised the question in my mind of whether it is biblically valid and thus necessary. The fact that our society says so certainly doesn’t answer my inquiry.

    I know my point now is not the main thrust of the post, but I’d like someone to comment briefly on whether or not the distinction is biblically valid.

  • Daniel — you’re right, Table 42 of the Bureau of Justice statistics lumps Rape and “Sexual Assault” (hereafter: SA) into one entry. In my memory of the data, I am guilty of lumping the two together, probably because, as GV hints, the SA must be pretty serious to be included in the same entry by the FBI. I don’t think we’re talking about a man standing on the corner, winking and muttering “white fox.”

    The numbers themselves are shifty, as you hint at. For 2006 the number of black-on-white rape/SA is about 32,000; there is roughly as many again by “other” — presumably Mestizos, though I thought the current fashion was to count them as white; most incredible of all, almost as many again where the perp’s race is “unknown.” I’m assuming that a fair number of that group are either mulattoes, so that the victim hesitated to identify race out of technical confusion, or, the police taking the report were politically correct and refused to identify. All together then, the number of (rapes + SA) of white women by coloreds in 2006 was, by my way of reckoning, upwards of 100,000, and roughly equal to the number of (rapes+SA) of whites by whites. Even more ominous is that, over the last 10 years or so, there is a slow but steady increase in the number by colored perps, and a faster decrease in the number by white perps.

    The relation between the number in the post title and the point of the post is not exact. That is, suppose the title had been “Rather 100,000 rapes and sexual assaults than that,” and then justified the number for 2006 as in last paragraph. Or again, suppose I had said, “Rather 1,000 rapes than that” and then pointed out that the number is “figurative for a large number” and the real number is much higher. Or again, “Rather 1,000,000 rapes than that,” with the explanation that, though the actual number happens to be much smaller, there is no evidence that white men would do anything about it even if it were that big. And that is the real point.

    The other major theme that is missed by the title is the grisly crimes that Alex Linder identifies as “hush crimes.” This conspiracy of silence is a most serious matter. It means that white women as well as men are treated functionally as non-human. Indeed, as less than animals since the crimes that are hushed up would make national headlines if perpetrated against animals. It is genocidal in intent. The national media cannot be reformed, I think; it can only be destroyed and replaced with a free press. This is a problem more important in a way than whether the “number” is closer to 10,000 or 100,000.

    GV — as to whether it is a biblical distinction, we would first have to define what the scope of each term is. I’m not sure what it is even in current discourse. I would not want to find a “proof text” and opine on it before deep reflection. Intuitively, it seems like a crime needs to be “successful” in order to be prosecuted as a crime. That is, “attempted murder” would be a different crime, focusing on the “attempt,” than murder simpliciter. Ethically, of course, the matter is quite different, which is why I pointed out that ethically, Churchill and Harris are guilty of killing a million in Dresden, whether the death count was actually 30,000 or 130,000. Good question.

  • Both this and the Churchill/Harris posts were thought provoking, but what has really stuck in my gut about this post was brought out in your comment regarding the lack of “evidence that white men would do anything about it…” Our people are barely a people anymore…they’re well conditioned existential cowards with no appreciation for their heritage and no thought for their legacy. We’ve bought the lie and damned the work of our fathers and disinherited our children (of the heritage our fathers thought they left for them) all because we were either too stupid to recognize the subversive tactics of our enemies or because we were too cowardly to love our own people and defend our culture.

  • Our people are barely a people anymore…they’re well conditioned existential cowards with no appreciation for their heritage and no thought for their legacy.

    Ironic that the “Master Morality” of existentialism turned us into passive and weak slaves.

    GV – I knew that you understood, I just meant that it was important that we be ‘factually’ correct when presenting our case to the general public.

  • I was kicked out of a Scottish clans group for merely pointing out that having Blacks [Negroes] marching in the Parade of the Tartans (even if they were the spouses of such sad, self-hating White women) was ‘stretching the concept of ‘Black Irish’ a bit too far!’

    My attempt at humor did not resonate with these ‘pseudo-pscots.’
    I had committed the crime of ‘racism,’ you see. As if marching around in kilts, celebrating your ethnic heritage wasn’t just that!?!?

    When I pointed out the Scottish Nationalist Party’s slogan, “Wearing a kilt no more makes you a Scotsman, than wearing a grass skirt makes you an African,” that was the last straw. I was removed from my clan, and banned from the games. It was with a sense of divine satisfaction, therefore, that the site from which these ‘ethnic celebrations’ had taken place for some decades, was soon thereafter denied them, and the whole charade faded into oblivion, due to the inability of finding a ‘proper’ (i.e., money-making) venue in the metro area. As if Scots cared more for money than their race!

    Your comment about ‘pansy men’ made me think of this, now over a decade in the past….

  • Complaining about separate drinking fountains is silly.

    But, I think, the real complaint was that this separate drinking fountain was accompanied by an attitude of it being a separation between “humans” and “sub-humans” as opposed to “whites” and “non-whites” — an attitude fueled by the lie of Evolution.

    -TurretinFan

  • But, I think, the real complaint was that this separate drinking fountain was accompanied by an attitude of it being a separation between “humans” and “sub-humans” as opposed to “whites” and “non-whites” — an attitude fueled by the lie of Evolution.

    “Whites” and “blacks.” The idea was positive discrimination against black people and at the time, they were pretty much the only non-whites around.

  • T-fan (#10) perhaps but personally I doubt it.

    Think how comparatively unlikely a settled evolutionary worldview in the South would be: near the beginning of the Jim Crow era, the Scopes Trial took place in Tennessee; and to this day my feeling is that Evolution is not strongly rooted in the South.

    But even where it is, it is not a given that an Evolutionist would regard one race as sub-human. Some seem (even if inconsistently) to be dogmatically committed to a single origin of the human race and others probably reason that the interbreedability implies something about common descent.

    There are a lot of preconceptions about Segregation that are simply false. My liberal aunt, for example, admitted she had never seen a black and white woman embrace in public until she moved to the segregated South in the 50s.

    Speaking of evolution, an irony of this particular issue is that now that segregated fountains are prohibited, the fountains have gone extinct — I can’t even remember the last time I saw a public fountain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*