Correction, Jew: Blacks Are Indeed Far More Likely to Rape Than Whites

In the age of the Internet, Jews don’t always get to go unchallenged.

by David Sims

A LEFTIST BLOGGER named Philip N. Cohen (pictured) wrote an essay (which his fellow Jews made sure was widely copied) to pooh-pooh the idea that Black men commit interracial rape far more often than White men do. His key counterargument is that the sample size in the National Crime Victimization Survey, in the category of “black woman raped by white men,” is too small to be statistically reliable. The “confidence level” (as they say) is low.

However, instead of calling for more study of the subject to get more and better data, so that more reliable conclusions can be made, Cohen thinks that what evidence there is should be suppressed, lest some “racist” (or any unbiased and rational thinker) make hasty conclusions.

Here’s what I said to him as a first response:

“He restricts his facts, though. Racists don’t depend only on the NCVS. There are other sources of federal crime statistics, and one of them is the FBI’s Uniform Crime reports. The arrest data don’t suffer from the small sample size problems that the Table 42 in the NCVS does, yet it leads to the same conclusion that blacks are much more likely than whites to commit rape. The black-to-white per capita rate ratio for the perpetration of forcible rape was 6.227 in the United States in 1995, according to the FBI’s arrest data.”

Here is Cohen’s reply:

“That is the not the same conclusion, which was about interracial rape. And police reports are much less reliable as a source.”

Here’s my further comment:

“Your judgment here is incredibly poor, Philip. The police reports are much more reliable than any source that has too low of a sample size to be reliable. That means as long as the cops are arresting people for rape with good, if less than perfect, accuracy (i.e., a minority among those charged with the crime are innocent), the arrest data in the FBI’s UCR are better guides than the NCVS summary data are.

“And a greater rate of criminality among blacks is a longitudinal phenomenon: it occurs for most crimes. Nearly all of them, really, with a few exceptions such as driving under the influence (of alcohol) and for the abuse of a specific drug (methamphetamine). Leftists, such as yourself, have advanced the idea that whites have higher per capita rates for certain other crimes, such as child sexual molestation, that have turned out to be false when racists, such as myself, have made a close examination of the facts.

“You haven’t rebutted the racists, Philip. They’re usually right, or nearly so, when they speak of races as though they were forests rather than putting emphasis on some of the less typical trees that you might be able to find. One of your other commenters pointed out that you have, with regard to what the NCVS says about interracial rape, confused the absence of sufficient data to prove a point with a disproof of that point. No one in your position should make an error so simple as that. And likely none would, except in order to promote an idea as propaganda. The idea that you appear to be promoting is that racists don’t know what they’re talking about.

“On the contrary, it appears that they know this subject better than you do.”

* * *

Source: Author

* * *

Download our PDF flier

* * *

For Further Reading

Previous post

Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!

Next post

The Undiluted Truth: An Interview With Jez Turner, part 2


  1. February 25, 2017 at 1:49 am — Reply

    Officially bitch-slapped that guy. Way to go.

  2. March 5, 2017 at 7:03 pm — Reply

    Here is a follow-up exchange, from the discussion shown in the article above…

    Philip N. Cohen wrote: “The pattern is always the same. Racist: look at this [wrong or misinterpreted fact] that confirms our view! Reasonable person: that fact is wrong or misinterpreted. Racists: you didn’t disprove it, so our preconception is right!”

    Philip is using a propaganda technique that has been called DARVO, an acronym that stands for “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim-Offender.” Because it isn’t I, but he, who has misinterpreted facts, which in this case is the significance of the low sample size of the white-on-black rapes reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey.

    The racists are essentially correct. They can be criticized only for asserting MORE PRECISION regarding the ratio of black-on-white rapes to white-on-black rapes. What they probably did was notice that the number of black-on-white rapes occurring in the United States annually ranges from 12,000 to 18,000, then picked the middle of that range to use in further calculations. Since 15,000 is a fairly big number, that doesn’t present a problem. However, because the number of reported white-on-black rapes is so small, the precision of the aforementioned ratio is irretrievably lost. The racists read the text saying “less than ten” and winged it with an assumption of five white-on-black rapes in a typical year. They then divided 15,000 by five and got a black-on-white rape to white-on-black rape ratio of 3000.

    That’s not too bad in essence, even though it is overly precise, because what can be understood WITH CERTAINTY from the NCVS data alone is that black-on-white rape happens at least hundreds of times more often than white-on-black rape does, and likely thousands of times more often. A ratio of 3000 gives people the right impression of the racial lopsidedness of interracial rape, though it ought not be regarded as an estimate having better than, say, a factor of two of precision.

    What Philip is trying to do is pooh-pooh the idea that blacks commit interracial rape far, far more than whites do. And that’s pure deception on his part. Blacks certainly do commit interracial rape far, far more than whites do, with the ratio being at minimum several hundred, but more likely several thousand. When you look at the arrest records in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, you get the same general picture.

Leave a reply

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

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.