But what about near-rape?

Otherwise, it seems it isn’t the white boys that the ladies need worry about:

In Table 42, entitled “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

That’s a pretty significant difference. When one factors in that Hispanics are counted as white offenders, it’s pretty obvious that there are actually fewer Caucasian offenders than black offenders. Considering that American blacks have been a part American culture for more than half of the countries existence, the idea that there is some sort of cultural difference here doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

There seem to be two contradictory multiculti arguments here. One is that “race” doesn’t exist, in which case we can go ahead and end all affirmative action and employment laws. Since I’ve never heard anyone who claims that there is no such thing as “race” is willing to eliminate all race-based preferences and laws based on that “scientific fact”, it’s safe to conclude that even they don’t believe what they are saying.

The other argument is that everyone is equal, skin color notwithstanding. But this makes no sense, as there are a whole host of statistically observable differences between the various races. And it certainly calls into serious question the basic assumption of those who believe that a racially mixed America will have more in common with historical white America than it does with every other third world nation. It won’t.

Interestingly enough, all of those sophisticated Europeans that American liberals so admire are far more “racist” in this regard than the right-wing conservative American that they despise. European laws heavily favor immigration from other European countries; in some cases America is now considered no more desirable an origin than Ghana or Zimbabwe. Perhaps that’s because Europeans have born witness to the sharp differences between various ethnic groups for centuries while America indulged itself in the myth of the Melting Pot, which was really just an exercise in seeing how many non-Anglos could be mixed into Anglo-European culture without destroying it.

(Remember, Europe’s immigration angst which is beginning to boil over into violence and their national politics concerns Muslims making up 4-5 percent of their population. The USA has twice that many ILLEGAL Hispanic immigrants alone. In France, despite the notorious ghettos and riots, the number is only has 8-9 percent.)

In any event, the risk-reward ratio simply doesn’t make sense, it’s far too high. Why risk the existence of your entire peaceful and wealthy civilization… for theories which suggest that change will be harmless? But Americans have brought this on themselves, with their sixties-era canonization of racial egalitarianism, cultural relativism and global immigration.

So, don’t cry for me, America, when you end up like Argentina.