Eldridge Cleaver Told David Mills Same Things About Black-on-White Rape that I Said in My Article
By • 5/16/07David Horowitz in May 2006 told David Mills that my statements about blacks were “racist and offensive” and that he would therefore not publish me any more at FrontPage Magazine, even though Horowitz himself, without my knowledge and without paying me, had published at his Discover the Network website my main article containing those “racist and offensive” statements. My “racist and offensive” article is still posted at Horowitz’s website at this moment.
Now it turns out that David Mills, who has repeatedly portrayed me as some race-obsessed sicko for writing that black rapists target white women, conducted an interview with Eldridge Cleaver in 1982, published at Mills’s website, in which Cleaver discussed his career of raping white women and said that there was a lot of denial of the reality of black-on-white rape:
>MILLS: When you came out after that first term, you spent about a year on the outside before your second conviction. And during that time, as you revealed in “Soul on Ice,” you set about raping white women as a principle of black rebellion.
>CLEAVER: I wrote this in prison. And I wrote this because I was trying to describe my own feelings, my own attitudes, and the attitudes of a lot of black men. At that time, this was something that was not really written about, talked about. It was kind of scandalous. There was a lot of denial in blacks who had these feelings.
>MILLS: What feelings? Sexual attraction to white women?
>CLEAVER: People used to deny that. The whole phenomenon was raging at that time because this whole black consciousness thing was coming in, interracial relationships were rising.
>One of the old bugaboos of race relations in America has been black rape. It has been a big problem down through history and continues to be a problem. For my own part, I think there is often a lot of denial in that. But I think the facts will support a case that there is quite a bit of black rape.
There are three things established from the above interview and from the Cleaver quote in the previous blog entry:
>* Cleaver raped white women in order to defile them and thus get revenge on the white race.
>* Cleaver raped white women because he was attracted to them, and he says that other black rapists of white women have the same motive, and that there is a lot of denial about this.
>* Cleaver says that because of the attraction of black men to white women, “there is quite a bit of black rape [of white women],” though “there is often a lot of denial” about that as well.
Further, David Mills did not disagree with Cleaver’s assertions of the prevalence of black-on-white rape and of black men’s attraction to white women. Nor did Mills take Cleaver to task or call Cleaver a “self-hating black” for saying such racist things about blacks. Mills accepted Cleaver’s statements then without demur, and he publishes them today at his website without demur.
Why, then, has Mills been waging war on me over my article at FrontPage Magazine on interracial rape? The only flaw in that article was the misleading figure from the Department of Justice table (correctly reported by me) which put the amount of “white”-on-black rape in 2005 at close to zero. The main points of my article were (1) the huge amount of black-on-white rape in this country, (2) my comment that the statistics suggest that black rapists “target” white women, and (3) my statement that the facts of black-on-white rape are denied and covered up in America. But Mills himself uncritically accepted all three of those assertions when he heard them from a venerable Lion of the Left in 1982.
According to CNN’s obituary of Eldridge Cleaver in 1998:
>In one essay, Cleaver described his rape of white women as “an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law … defiling his women.”
>”I wanted to send waves of consternation through the white race,” he said.
>And he did. When Cleaver was asked to speak at the University of California at Berkeley, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan expressed outrage.
>”If Eldridge Cleaver is allowed to teach our children, they may come home one night and slit our throats,” Reagan said.
Yet, notwithstanding the very high number of black-on-white rapes,—far above what can be accounted for by the greater number of potential white victims, and also far above what the number would be if the victims were chosen randomly—it remains the case that it is racist, wicked, and horrible to suggest that other black rapists may have thoughts and motives similar to Cleaver’s.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click the "digg it" button to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever a new article is published on the site.
“Cleaver raped white women in order to defile them and thus get revenge on the white race.
Cleaver raped white women because he was attracted to them, and he says that other black rapists of white women have the same motive, and that there is a lot of denial about this.
Cleaver says that because of the attraction of black men to white women, ‘there is quite a bit of black rape [of white women],’ though ‘there is often a lot of denial’ about that as well.”
Thus, we have the well summarized motivations of one of the “heroes” of the glorious counter cultural revolution of the 1960s, that has distilled into the vile poison of multiculturalism today. I have been instructed from almost first lucidity on racial politics in this country by the mass media oracles, that such Comrades as Cleaver do indeed speak for the entire black “community?” While I am normally more than a bit skeptical of the electronic and print Marxist brainwashing organs, here I will make an exception to that critical circumspection of mine in these regards. Thus, we have chapter and verse from one of the Red demigods of color, the 2 main reasons that so many white women, children, and even men nowadays, are raped by these semi-evolved bipedal beasts; it is because they hate us and find us more attractive than their own. A very potent combination to be sure that translates into a barbaric form of psychosocial warfare upon our people that needs to be dealt with, without compunction or mercy!
While I do not have all the answers, I do know that if your enemy fears you, no matter how much he hates you, he will respect you so far as the fact that his fear of you is based on the fact that his actions against you will result it quite horrid outcomes for him (and worse still, his own loved ones or compatriots) in response. Thus, while many countries possess nuclear weapons, none dare (even China) use them against the USA or Russia in an act of war or treachery because we simply both hold enough destructive power in the same terms, to not only destroy a single isolated country but the entire world as well, if either of us or both in concert decide to do so.
Thus, should be our response to a raped white of any age or gender, be equally and dramatically demonstrated to be totally unacceptable in the future, when/if our people ever come to our senses collectively? For example, why not utterly obliterate the entire known family of a black rapist of whites that can be traced to him? Moreover, since they focus so collectively upon their sense of “community” and shared “tragedy” in the face of our “racism” that encourages such acts of barbarity against us as a people, why not an extended punishment to all blacks in the counties where the rape(s) occur and the rapist(s) live in as well? Such as deporting all blacks from these counties, to Mexico or better still Haiti?
I shall end here by noting that blacks will never love us and act in “brotherhood” with us because we extend our hands in friendship. That hand at best will be slapped away and at worst be given a dagger of one kind or the other; it all boils down to the simple fact that we represent what they are not, the fully evolved and fit to be in our own dominion.
End of story!
By on 5/16/07 at 10:47 pm
UBM,
Perhaps the following links will confirm that whites are misrepresentated in current day crime statistics.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/fugitives/boston/delacruz.htm
http://az.gov/webapp/offender/offender.do?id=009243
By on 5/17/07 at 12:47 am
Undercover “Black” Man is lying.
Lawrence Auster did not write his article in bad faith. He wrote it based on his flawed understanding of the statistics presented. He has since admitted to his mistake.
If you want a demonstration of bad faith, just read Undercover “Black” Man’s lopsided account of the story.
Incidentally, going by the figures that UBM quoted, we see that with the US population at 400 million, and whites at roughly 70% (I may be off by a point or two), that means that there are roughly 143 million white women (figuring women at 51% of the population). If 25 per 100,000 are raped by blacks, that means about 35,700 rapes of white women by black men per annum. In contrast, 12% blacks means about 24.5 million black women. If 16 per 100.000 are raped by whites, that means about 3900 rapes of black women by white men per annum.
It’s a huge difference. Going by these figures, blacks are about 110 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites.
There’s only one problem: Department of Justice statistics conflate whites and Hispanics. Hispanics commit crime at roughly 3 times the white rate. Illegal aliens, who are almost 3/4 Mexican, are incarcerated for violent crimes, including rape, at a rate far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. So some number of those “white”-on-black rapes—hard to say how many—were committed by Hispanics, not whites. This decreases the white-on-black numbers, and increases blacks’ relative likelihood of interracial rape.
Lawrence Auster may have misread the data, but his conclusions were fundamentally correct: blacks are targetting whites for rape, and no one in the mainstream media mentions it.
Is pointing out verifiable fact “racist”?
By on 5/17/07 at 6:14 am
“Is pointing out verifiable fact ‘racist’?”
According to liberal orthodoxy, of course it is. It’s a given that any mention of race outside the context of oppressor (whites) against victim (minority) is racist.
I feel like Roddy Piper in that wonderful film classic “They Live!” I’m wearing the sunglasses that allow me to see the evil of liberalism and the masses of whites are deceived and go about their distracted lives without any inkling of the danger we face.
As an aside, check out Fjordman’s excellent essays on the origins of multiculturalism as modernized communism: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/communism-for-21st-century.html and
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-conversation.html
By on 5/17/07 at 1:10 pm
Patrick Henry wrote: “It’s a huge difference. Going by these figures, blacks are about 110 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites.”
Patrick, if you can’t understand the concept of “per capita,” then we’re in trouble. Of course the raw number of interracial rapes will be much larger among white women than black women. Because black women are only 6 percent of the population!
The way to justify such a loaded word as “targeting” is to compare per capita rates of interracial rape. Which I provided (courtesy of one of Larry’s intelligent readers). They do show a disproportion… but not the grotesque disproportion he claimed. If Larry’s original piece had presented the numbers that his reader Ken H. had calculated, I wouldn’t be complaining right now.
This is where “bad faith” comes in. Good faith means you don’t analyze data with a pre-conceived conclusion as to their meaning. Good faith means you want to know the truth for its own sake. Good faith means you do what Ken H. did. Why didn’t Larry crunch the numbers for 10 years’ worth of interracial rape stats? They were right there at his fingertips… as easily accessible as the 2005 numbers he ran with.
Why? Because he apparently wasn’t interested in the true scope of interracial rape. He wanted numbers to support his pre-conceived conclusion that black rapists target white women. And that’s not cool.
By on 5/17/07 at 1:56 pm
“Patrick, if you can’t understand the concept of ‘per capita,’ then we’re in trouble. Of course the raw number of interracial rapes will be much larger among white women than black women. Because black women are only 6 percent of the population!”
Undercover BM,
You really are a fool and hypocrite!
You must answer me this, if white men are as inclined to rape black women at the same rate that black men are to rape white women, then why hasn’t every black woman in the country been raped? As white men are approximately 32% to 34% of the US population total and the interracial rates are the “same” then the rapists out there both black and white, who “target” black women would leave few of them un-raped, correct? It certainly would not be possible that no or only a few black women could be found to have a white rapist, in any given study. That is the illogic of what you are suggesting, as one must assume that white men would make up a vast majority of rapists irregardless of the race of the victim in any given study, so any time that blacks and other minorities go beyond the 32% to 35% mark of total rapists in such a sample, it would reflect their greater proclivity to rape, period!
The fact of the matter is, the phenomenon of white on black rape is so uncommon that the media has to manufacture hoaxes and sensationalize them as they did in the Duke “rape” fraud.
As usual, you play fast and loose with the numbers and the truth!
By on 5/17/07 at 7:50 pm
I am Ian Jobling, and I did the research for New Century Foundation’s “Color of Crime” report, which is available here: http://amren.com/colorofcrime/color.pdf The report deals extensively with interracial crime, including rape. Although Larry Auster’s initial statement of the matter was flawed, his assertion that blacks target white women for rape is well supported by crime data. I wrote what follows to him during the FrontPage Magazine controversy. What I write here is explained at greater length on pages 12-15 of the report, along with copious endnotes.
Larry,
The whole subject of interracial crime is enormously complicated, and due to flaws in the way that the Bureau of Justice Statistics collects statistics about criminal victimization, there are crucial gaps in our knowledge of this subject. However, no matter how you parse the data, your assertion that black rapists target white women for rape is reasonable.
One of the things you complain about in your article is the fact that, in the published Bureau of Justice Statistics figures, rape is combined with sexual assault into one category. However, in the raw National Criminal Victimization Survey data, which can be downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/), and viewed and tabulated with statistical software, rape and sexual assault are broken out as separate categories. When I wrote the Color of Crime, I found that between 2001 and 2003, there were an average of 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, but only about 900 white-on-black rapes.
These numbers are skewed by the fact that the NCVS distinguishes between white and Hispanic victims of crime, but lumps whites and Hispanics together in the perpetrator category. That means whites and Hispanics together committed 900 rapes against blacks, but blacks committed 15,400 rapes against non-Hispanic whites. So the actual disparity between black and white rates of interracial rape is even greater than the NCVS numbers indicate.
If you calculate rates of interracial rape from these numbers, you will find that blacks are about 115 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites are.
However, there’s an additional complication. Since there are about 5.5 times more whites than blacks in the US, even if blacks and whites were equally likely to commit interracial crime, the black rate of interracial crime would be 5.5 times higher than the white rate. As I say in footnote 42 of CoC:
“To understand how population differences skew interracial crime rates, imagine a society of 100,000 people that is 90 percent white, 10 percent black, and perfectly integrated. For both blacks and whites, 90 percent of the people they meet are white and 10 percent are black. Imagine that everyone commits one crime per year against someone without bias towards one race or the other. The 10,000 blacks would commit 10,000 crimes but with 9,000 against whites, making the interracial crime rate 9,000/10,000, or 0.9 for blacks. Whites would commit 90,000 crimes, of which 9,000 would be against blacks, making the interracial crime rate 9,000/90,000, or 0.1 for whites.
“Thus, even though blacks had no greater inclination to commit interracial crime than whites, the black rate of interracial crime would be nine times the white rate simply because there are nine times as many whites as blacks available as victims. Dividing the black interracial crime rate of 0.9 by nine gives us 0.1, which was the white interracial crime rate.
“We can make the same calculation for the United States by using 5.5 instead of nine. Interestingly, although blacks and whites are not perfectly integrated, and segregation varies considerably by neighborhood, the same figure of 5.5 applies everywhere. This is because segregation decreases blacks’ contact with whites, but it also decreases whites’ contact with blacks by exactly the same amount. Segregation, whatever its degree, therefore does not change the relative likelihood of blacks encountering whites and vice versa.”
If you can get your mind around these concepts—it took me a while—, you’ll see that to adjust for likelihood of encounter, you need to divide the multiple 115 by 5.5, which means that blacks are about 21 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites even after population differences are taken into account. That’s still a huge multiple.
If you want to argue that blacks are targeting whites for rape, then you have to go another step. Of course, blacks are more likely to commit rape in general than whites; to be precise, about three times more likely. If blacks committed interracial rape at three times the white rate, then the interracial rape disparity would be explained simply by the overall disparity in rates of rape.
But the racial disparity in interracial rape is much greater than that in rape in general: 21 versus three. The difference means either that black rapists have a special preference for white victims, or white rapists have a special aversion for black victims, or some combination of the two. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that blacks are probably targeting whites for rape, although, as you’ll see if you read CoC, this conclusion is not reasonable for other categories of crime.
By on 5/20/07 at 1:34 am
My objection to Mr. Auster’s FrontPage article on interracial rape is that it was written in bad faith. Before one tosses about such incendiary claims as “white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists” and “There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States,” one should be sure that these statements are true.
The fact that Mr. Auster has acknowledged misinterpreting the Justice Department date on interracial rape indicates his reckless in making such claims, and David Horowitz’s carelessness in disseminating them.
Horowitz himself, in his 1999 book “Hating Whitey,” makes a similar bogus assertion: “In 1994, there were twenty thousand rapes of white women by black men, but only one hundred rapes of black women by white men.”
In fact, the 1994 version of the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates 31,600 black-on-white sexual attacks and 5,400 white-on-black sexual attacks. For 1994, the percentage of white victims assailed by blacks was 10 percent, and the percentage of black victims assailed by whites was also 10 percent.
Why does Mr. Auster keep pushing the notion of a gross disproportion in interracial rapes? One of his own readers crunched the NCVS numbers over a 10-year period, and he says:
“… we can estimate that each year, for every 100,000 white females, about 25 are raped by black men; for every 100,000 black females, about 16 are raped by white men.”
So there is a disproportion. But does it validate Lawrence Auster’s inflamed cry of black rapists “targeting” whites?
By Undercover Black Man on 5/16/07 at 8:45 pm