I don't have the link anymore. If you Google FBI Uniform Crime Statistics you will find it. IT can also be found in a book entitled Paved With Goood Intentions authored by Jared Taylor and another entitled The Myths That Divide Us, the author's name escapes me at the moment.

As far as it being "significant". It is. The number of atrocious crimes committed by Blacks against White people is astounding.
The major media here hide the true nature of these predations. If a white spray paints the dreaded " N word" on the sidewalk of a black home it becomes national news.

"each and every female African slave was raped and usually impregnated by her White American owner"

Please provide a hyperlinked source to support this claim.

Taurus689: According to the Uniform Crime statistics ( I'm posting this for other readers because I have no doubt that you already know this.) there are an average 10,000 reported rapes of White women by men "of color" annually while the number of black women who are assaulted by White men is negligible.
 
Please provide a hyperlinked source to support this claim, because this would mean that 9-11% of all rapes in the United States are perpetrated by non-White males against White females, which is significant to say the least.
 
I must remind you, however, that each and every female African slave was raped and usually impregnated by her White American owner. Indeed, Black Americans, save for African immigrants, all have from 10%-33.3% or more White ancestry as a result.

"These acts are directly related to race and are not isolated or random acts. To the conqueror goes the spoils, and women, along with wealth and land have been part of these since time immemorial. All I can respond with is that any White woman who associates with non-White men takes her life into her own hands."

True. But today avoidance is no guarantee of safety as in the case of the Wichita Massacre, the Knoxville case and too many others to count. According to the Uniform Crime statistics ( I'm posting this for other readers because I have no doubt that you already know this.) there are an average 10,000 reported rapes of White women by men "of color" annually while the number of black women who are assaulted by White men is negligible. 
 

"I am certain the 'bad' men have been inducted into the Catholic priesthood for centuries. Secondly, I do not believe homosexuals are anymore prone to sexual criminal acts or pedophelia (please do not mention sodomy!) than heterosexuals. There is no "problem" in the Church, declining attendance notwithstanding; the "problem" is the mass media seizing upon every scandal and convincing the public consciousness that Catholic priests are all homosexual pedophiles."

I agree that "bad men" have been in the Church since the beginning (i.e. Judas Iscariot), but I am referring to a special situation in the Catholic Church in the US, as I am not very knowledgeable about the Church in other countries. In the past 30 or 40 years, some seminary schools in the US have been screening applicants by asking them questions about their attitude towards homosexuality. If the applicant responds that homosexuality is a "sin", or that he objects to practicing homosexuals in the Church, he is deemed "unfit" to enter the seminary, while preference has been given to homosexual applicants, and those who support homosexual agenda. I think this screening practice is wrong and encourages homosexual behavior in the priesthood.

Taurus689: Black families are not lining up to adopt these kids however they are the first to protest these inter-racial adoptions; claiming that the children will not grow up to appreciate their culture,the very "Culture" that brought them into this world and made them unadoptable.

 
Clearly Black Americans would rather march to folly than admit responsibility or White cultural superiority.
Taurus689: There was the case of the woman in Wissconsin, Minnesota or one of those northern states who took in a couple of NOLA evacuees and was later murdered by them...Some colleges and universities require students to do community service projects as part of their graduation credits. I read of a case where one coed was assigned to an inner city area to teach kids to read. She was rewarded by being taken up to a rooftop, gang raped and then thrown from the roof.
 
These acts are directly related to race and are not isolated or random acts. To the conqueror goes the spoils, and women, along with wealth and land have been part of these since time immemorial. All I can respond with is that any White woman who associates with non-White men takes her life into her own hands.
 
@Armor: full agreement there.
 
@Quijybo: watching too many special programmes on Catholic sex-abuse scandals I see...
 
@Nebuer: great post!
 
atheling: Indeed, the problem in the Church is that because of political correctness, homosexual men have been welcomed into the priesthood, and now our children are paying for our stupid and false ideologies.
 
I am certain the 'bad' men have been inducted into the Catholic priesthood for centuries. Secondly, I do not believe homosexuals are anymore prone to sexual criminal acts or pedophelia (please do not mention sodomy!) than heterosexuals. There is no "problem" in the Church, declining attendance notwithstanding; the "problem" is the mass media seizing upon every scandal and convincing the public consciousness that Catholic priests are all homosexual pedophiles.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uninformed it may be.

Didn't you read any of what Nebuer or I wrote? Or did you just simply ignore it in order to cling to your prejudices?

I see no reason why Catholic priests should not take some helpful hints from the rabbis and take the lead on this matter.

Why not be allowed to marry? It is a simple and meaningful way to show to westerners the way out of the predicament that we are in!

Just wanted to clarify something you said. You claim that the Church is riddled with "pedophilia", which is inaccurate.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to preadolescent children. However, as Nebuer stated, the overwhelming majority of molesters were HOMOSEXUAL priests after teenage boys, which is properly called "ephebophilia". Major difference, as ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to adolescent males. Ephebophilia has been practiced among the ancient Greeks, Persians, etc... and is nothing new under the sun, and, in most rational people's opinion and in the eyes of the law, is less egregious than molesting young children.

Also, if priests are sexually molesting children because they are "deprived", then why do married men (or any man who can easily procure a sexual partner in this permissive age) sexually molest children? You cannot deny the fact that non-clergy members do it in VAST numbers. Your false premise is belied by that fact.

Indeed, the problem in the Church is that because of political correctness, homosexual men have been welcomed into the priesthood, and now our children are paying for our stupid and false ideologies.

The Catholic Church has a special, disastrous problem with pedophilia.
From wikipedia, the incidence of priest pedophile accusations in the US to date:
The John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, equalling about 4% of all U.S. priests. Figures supplied by the Catholic League, and the U. S. Department of Education theorize that the abuse figures in the Catholic Church are similar to abuse in other institutions such as education.
The key word is "accusations". And, the other, not to be ignored, comparison is to the incidence with teachers.
I don't know the stats globally, I'm guessing that they are in line with the US.
Pedophilia is hardly the reason for the collapse of Christianity in Europe.  Socialism is no friend of religion.

Since largely Catholic countries have had little trouble with reproduction, despite the celibacy of the clergy (e.g. look at the Philippines), their setting a fine example for the laity by their own behavior seems to be irrelevant.

The "many of them" who molest are, in fact, less than 1.5% (A very low percentage, lower than protestant clergy who number 2-3%). If one compares this behavior to therapists or teachers, the proportion of priests involved in such activity are probably much lower. According to the U.S. Department of Education, around 9.6% of students are subject to some sort of sexual misconduct by teachers. The percentage of teachers who are involved in this is unknown because the the unions and laws of this country protect them from prosecution to a large extent. Furthermore, 80-90% of the sexual abuse cases in the Church involve post-pubescent boys, i.e. it is a homosexual problem.

Your statement that "In this modern world such crimes can no longer be covered up" is false, because it is regularly covered-up when it is committed by teachers and therapists.

Your statement that "The Catholic Church has a special(2), disastrous(1) problem with pedophilia(3)" is false insofar as 1) children are both proportionally and absolutely less likely to be abused by a priest than by many other normal authority figures; 2) the problem is widespread throughout many sectors of society where adults have control over children ; and 3) the problem was not primarily a pedophilia problem but a problem of homosexuals abusing teenage boys and being shielded by other men (either cowards, self-interested men, or the so-called "Lavender Mafia").

As far as your statement about the Church's "suicidal denial of the sexual needs of its Priesthood" . . . There is little room to go into the practical, spiritual and theological aspects of clerical celibacy. However, I have spent some time in formation with a religious order, and I know many priests and seminarians very well. I can say that this idea about the connection between frustrated sexual desire and pedophilia is completely false. It is mostly a pet theory of those who, for partisan reasons, want to eliminate celibacy within the Church. They have duped many others outside the Church, who are ignorant of the struggles that have been going on within the Church since the Second Vatican Council.

I have never seen either a credible psychological explanation for why such a thing would happen (and I have read many attempts at such an explanation) or any actual examples of individuals being sexually perverted by a voluntary embrace of celibacy. While the sacrifice is great, it is an important spiritual discipline, with which a priest can live happily, if the priest is both a man of prayer and one who is focused on the mission which Christ gave to the priesthood. If either of these elements fail and the priest has a crisis of vocation, he will leave and will retain whatever sexual interests he had before. This is my experience and the experience of many men I have known.

Rather than believing the propaganda in the papers (thus placing yourself among the "most blinkered"), you might try to read something mildly sympathetic toward the Church (or at least not overtly hostile) and get to know a priest or two. The Church has survived for 2,000 years against many, many dedicated enemies (yes, even before "the modern world"). It has not survived so long by being a "Golem" with "suicidal denial" nor by wielding political control (which it has often lacked entirely); rather it survived by being something perpetually vital and perpetually vitalizing, as opposed to those tired political, cultural and ideological programs, which pass like the seasons, and in which you seem to seek your salvation.

This is an interesting point. While it might not make a difference statistically in itself, it would set a better example. Look at the religious Jews. The Rabbis practice what they preach and this contributes to the survival of the Jewish people. If the religious Jews were not fruitful and multiplying, the entire Jewish people would long since have vanished from the earth. Does anyone seriously think if the Rabbis pretended to be celibate this would not have an effect?

Contrast this with the Catholic Church. Not only do the religious leaders NOT reproduce, many of them molest children instead of having natural sexual relations, and the Church protects those who do so serially. In this modern world such crimes can no longer be covered up, as they were for over 1000 years of Priestly celibacy. The Catholic Church has a special, disastrous problem with pedophilia. Not to mention, all those children who are molested grow up with severe relationship issues and are less likely to found families, let alone healthy ones.

There is much lamentation here and on many blogs about the collapse of religious values and fertility in Europe, particularly among Catholics. Is this really a surprise? The Catholic Church has made itself, but its suicidal denial of the sexual needs of its Priesthood, the poster organization for systematic child rape. Their shame has been exposed for all the world to see and only the most blinkered have any respect for them. This Golem of a Church, rather than presenting a solution to Europe's problems, can only contribute to its self-destruction.

CJ: "Imagine if 10% of the families of the West opened their hearts and homes to the neediest, most vulnerable people on the planet."

You are not kind hearted, you are stupid and crazy. You have a conscious or unconscious desire to destroy other people's lives. Maybe you think you are not really helping Africa unless you are hurting Europe? For the price of raising an African orphan in a European home, you could help raise a hundred in Africa. It is easy to pay Africans to take care of their own children. Even in the USA, the administration pays black grand-mothers to adopt their own grandchildren. Why don't you like this solution? Because you are a fanatic who likes to destroy things. There's an article today in the news about people like you. The title is: "Six Zoe's Ark workers jailed for trying to kidnap 103 African children". Zoe's Ark is a french group of adoption maniacs who felt a compelling need to adopt African children. So they just went to Africa to get them. They did not mind that those children were not orphans at all. They saw themselves as kind hearted helpers. In fact, they are crazy fanatics. They don't mind destroying white society (on the contrary). They don't mind that adopted children won't have a proper identity.

CJ: "Adoption adds no more people to the currently existing total. It only increases the odds that those with the bleakest futures may become productive, contributing members of society."

Most third-world people are a drain on European society. Even though Chinese immigrants (or adopted babies) are not a drain on white society, they are not contributing to our society, they are replacing us. If they want to contribute to our society, they can send movies, books, food recipes, new technology... But when they start replacing us, they do not contribute to our society, they contribute to our removal. If you cannot see the difference, it is a sure sign of madness.

We have a healthy successful place called Europe, and a sick disastrous place called Africa. How could we improve things? Your suggestion is that we destroy the healthy place in the magical hope that it may help the sick place. The contrary will happen. Europe is the conscience of the world. When we are no longer there, things will get worse in Africa. You think it is horrible to be an African living in Africa. I don't agree at all, but if it is what you think, then you should recommand to Africans that they use condoms or stop having sex. But it seems you would rather see Europe commit suicide, so that Africans may continue to reproduce like rabbits. This is crazy. Immigration to (or adoption by) white countries will not improve at all the situation of the third-world. It is only destroying us. Europeans have a right to exist, as much as anyone else.

CJ: "Children from China, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Russia, Haiti, etc. are all capable of learning to cherish such "Western" values as freedom and self-determination"

I don't think freedom is a western value. People like their freedom everywhere in the world. As for self-determination, it does not go well with your project to replace European children with third-world adoptees. You are confusing self-determination and self-extermination.

"Imagine if 10% of the families of the West opened their hearts and homes to the neediest, most vulnerable people on the planet."

Why is it that only we in the West are constantly opening our hearts to those who often repay us by cutting out those same hearts?
In the US many White families are adopting Black children who are considered unadoptable. Black families are not lining up to adopt these kids however they are the first to protest these inter-racial adoptions; claiming that the children will not grow up to appreciate their culture,the very "Culture" that brought them into this world and made them unadoptable.
When there is a catastrophic event such as the Sunami in the Indian Ocean or the mega famines in Africa, the evil Caucasian devils are generally the first to rush in with humanitarian aid. I remember the pictures of American helicopters landing in Indonesia and being greeted by the locals, some of whom where wearing tee shirts bearing the image of Osama bin Laden.
The evil White devils who came in to rescue people from rooftops in NOLA after Katrina had to deal with being shot at.
There was the case of the woman in Wissconsin, Minnesota or one of those northern states who took in a couple of NOLA evacuees and was later murdered by them.

Some colleges and universities require students to do community service projects as part of their graduation credits. I read of a case where one coed was assigned to an inner city area to teach kids to read. She was rewarded by being taken up to a rooftop, gang raped and then thrown from the roof.

Diversity kills!!!

Europeans definitely need to birth more children these days.

The mentality that not enough food will be available for them is narrow minded and frankly quite backwards.

Westerners have and continue to develop methods and technologies that have allowed us to feed the world, let alone ourselves.

New technologies will help us use the oceans to grow our food, draw drinking water from the air around us and more.

The problem lies with our abilities to fight off ideologies that have spelled ruin for many civilisations..ideologies that when embraced will cause the fountain-heads of learning to run dry and bring the greatest poverty and blight to our world.

I'd like to mention another option: adoption. There are literally millions of children across the globe who will never have a chance at normal family life. In his book America Alone, Mark Steyn points out the most important aspect of cultural cohesion is values, not race. Children from China, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Russia, Haiti, etc. are all capable of learning to cherish such "Western" values as freedom and self-determination -- if they are raised by loving parents who hold those values dear.

Take note, those who would excuse their desire for perpetual adolescene by insisting the earth cannot sustain further population growth. (Such as these people: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495) Adoption adds no more people to the currently existing total. It only increases the odds that those with the bleakest futures may become productive, contributing members of society.

Imagine if 10% of the families of the West opened their hearts and homes to the neediest, most vulnerable people on the planet.

Hippocrates believed that abortion was wrong, how true! Today the Law allows abortions, but that does not make it right! Slavery was also legal. We sneer at Nazis because of their cruelty and  murders. How about us? Since abortion was made legal in Western Europe, there have been over 40 million abortions: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html. We can't afford all these children, they would cramp my lifestyle... was the cry. Now we have had to import workers from overseas, mostly Muslims, who's descendants are mostly on welfare and who are really cramping our lifestyle! We did not want to raise our own children, now we are forced to raise the children of others! Abortion is the killing of unborn children and it should be outlawed! People who don't want children can use contraceptives. We don't and we can't legally kick out tenants from their premises at whimm, but we can mince babies out of their wombs on a moment's notice and legally!  The unborn cry out for justice !

 Taurus689: Why do we need them to intermarry with our own? If we begin reproducing in sizeable numbers and in homes where there are two parents, a mother and a functional father who is actually married to the mother, we may be back to where we were before all this madness began.Let's leave the Third World immigrants out of the equation. Anyone who wishes to intermarry with them should represent the exception rather than the rule. Of course De gustibus non disputandum est but the West doesn't need to look like the colors of Benneton. Many a good stew has been rendered unrecognizable by overspicing it.

 
Agreed.
 
Taurus689: If we like to see exotic people and customs, we have Travelocity for that purpose and they can do the same but we need not import them. To paraphrase B. Franklin, Fish and company begin to smell after a few days.
 
Interesting and funny. However, what happens when tourism results in miscegenation? To whom does the child belong?
 
dchamil: If the Catholics want us to have more children, they can practise what they preach by permitting priests and nuns to marry and have children.
 
I hardly think that this would statistically impact fertility rates. Furthermore, their preaching seems to keep bedsprings squeaking and maternity wards (or corrugated tin hovels) filled throughout Latin America.

Zmirak: Any healthy creature or culture shows two signs of life: It reproduces itself, and it fights off intruders.
 
Full agreement.
 
Zmirak: The backbreaking jobs we are currently pressing upon middle-aged foreigners would be taken up soon by teenagers – our own and our neighbors’ children.
 
Not by middle or upper class youths. We would have to rebuild and expand the old lower class base to accomplish this or alter fundamental cultural values relating to socio-economic status and individual self-actualizaiton. Nor am I certain that Western societies can begin denying education and socio-economic opportunities without touching off upheaval and revolution.
 
Other options include greater automation and more extensive use of robotics, and suffering economically in order to preserve ethnic enclaves.
 
Zmirak: The immigrants among us would see a vigorous, vital culture – and wish to assimilate. Deprived of constant influxes from the Old Country, their offspring would intermarry with our own, and a little spice to our current stew – instead of filling up our emptying country like a vessel.
 
One would assume that the "vigorous, vital culture" is for us, not for immigrants. Moreover, I would imagine that those opposed to immigration are not eager to see such intermarriage nor add "a little spice".
 
Zmirak: Since I love old Europe too, I hope that this generation can rouse itself to reject the invasion of an intolerant, alien faith – a truncated heresy of Christianity best suited to desert nomads...
 
If this generation does "rouse itself", the European traditions that it will have to exemplify will be more appropriate for 1635, 1916 or 1942.
 
Zmirak: ...and deed its children a chance of rediscovering their heritage.
 
I do not see a rediscovery of their religious heritage; rather their racial and ethnic ones.
 
Zmirak: Better Notre Dame remain unused for a few decades in an underpopulated Paris than be turned, like Hagia Sophia, into a mosque.
 
Agreed.
 
Zmirak: We owe too much to Europe to slough it off like the shell of a hermit crab. The continent which gave us Charlemagne and Shakespeare, de Tocqueville and Vincent de Paul, deserves a second chance. Out of this filial piety to the cradle of our culture, I pray that the Turks once again will be turned back at its gates.
 
This relegates affinity for Europe to specific 'European' values and ideas, rather than to the European peoples themselves. Offspring must acknowledge their parents no matter if they are 'good' or 'bad'.

Do you know how much money a Catholic priest or nun makes?

If the Catholics want us to have more children, they can practise what they preach by permitting priests and nuns to marry and have children.

"The backbreaking jobs we are currently pressing upon middle-aged foreigners would be taken up soon by teenagers – our own and our neighbors’ children. The immigrants among us would see a vigorous, vital culture – and wish to assimilate. Deprived of constant influxes from the Old Country, their offspring would intermarry with our own, and a little spice to our current stew – instead of filling up our emptying country like a vessel."
 
Why do we need them to intermarry with our own? If we begin reproducing in sizeable numbers and in homes where there are two parents, a mother and a functional father who is actually married to the mother, we may be back to where we were before all this madness began.Let's leave the Third World immigrants out of the equation. Anyone who wishes to intermarry with them should represent the exception rather than the rule. Of course De gustibus non disputandum est but the West doesn't need to look like the colors of Benneton. Many a good stew has been rendered unrecognizable by overspicing it.
If we like to see exotic people and customs, we have Travelocity for that purpose and they can do the same but we need not import them. To paraphrase B. Franklin, Fish and company begin to smell after a few days.