An Online Debate With John “Birdman” Bryant

The following is an online “debate” between Tim Wise and John “Birdman” Bryant, concerning an article written by Wise, to which Bryant responded. Bryant is an internet-based commentator on issues of race, whose perspective is decidedly racist, white supremacist and anti-Jewish. In addition to spinning yarns about the global Jewish conspiracy to run the world (yawn), he also fancies playing with pigeons, thus his nickname. How nice. What follows is Wise’s response to Bryant’s critique of his article, “Color Conscious, White Blind,” and includes Bryant’s comments, interspersed with Wise’s rebuttal.

News travels slowly, I guess. Or in this case, editorial commentary does.

Despite the fact that I wrote “Color-Conscious, White Blind,” (the first of my columns to which John Bryant recently replied), in the fall of 1998; and despite the fact that it has been distributed on several dozen websites and a couple of print magazines since then; and despite the fact that it received the British Diversity Award for best editorial on race and ethnicity issues in 2001; it is only as of a few weeks ago that “The Birdman” stumbled across it. Fair enough. I am sure that cleaning up pigeon shit, which appears to be among John’s vocations, is time consuming. Doing research, even on one’s sworn enemies, is troublesome, and not nearly so much fun as promoting your own views via a weekly newsletter, or swiping internet porn so as to place a few choice pics on your own website, as John likes to do (Hey, you try masturbating to pictures of Adolph Hitler and see how far you get–I don’t blame him one bit).

It has taken me a couple of weeks to compile this response, which is still far more timely than John’s reply to my now-nearly-seven-year old article, yet I have been harangued by both he and many of his loyal readers, who have assumed (very wrongly as it turns out) that my silence up to now is because I “can’t respond” to his “well-crafted rebuttal” of my “liberal” (or better yet, “Jewish”) trickery.

Oh, but I can, and am doing so now. Taking the time to do this will certainly put a crimp in my normal daily routine, which naturally involves baking matzo from the blood of gentile children, poisoning well water, catching up on my Talmud study, so that I never forget my people’s directive to control the world, and manipulating the money supply for ZOG, but hey, a guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do.

I will say, before delving in to this material here, that much of my response to Bryant, and more broadly the white nationalist movement (whose line he parrots, whether he considers himself a member or not) will be forthcoming in a full length (at this point 300+ page, 1200+footnote) book, Great White Hoax: Responding to the Politics of White Nationalism. In the interest of timeliness, breadth of exposure, and the ability to regularly update the book with new data and analysis as they become necessary or available, I will be putting this book online, where it can easily be accessed, for free, by anyone who wants to read it, critique it, use it to line their birdcages (John?), or otherwise spend time trying to rip it to shreds. It will be on my website, hopefully by mid-summer, but almost certainly by late August.

Now to John’s rebuttal. His words will appear in regular print. My responses and words, after this point, will be interwoven, as in a typical e-mail kind of format, and will appear in boldface, while John’s words will be italicized, so as to help easily distinguish who is speaking.

First, John provided the links to my articles, the first of which is the relevant one here:

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_34.htm and an untitled companion article referred to in the link as ‘On the whiter side’ at http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_34_p2.htm

The above are two articles (or perhaps just one) by Tim Wise, someone said to have once debated David Duke “and won”.

Actually, this has never been claimed, certainly not by me. I was the Associate Director of the primary opposition group to Duke’s political campaigns in 1990 and 1991. During that time, he was challenged to debate me on three occasions, and on three occasions the debate either fell through (in the first instance, because of the disorganization of the folks who were putting it together), or he sent one of his lackeys instead (lawyer Jim McPherson, who by his own admission at the end of the debate got his clock cleaned), or Duke refused to appear. His refusal, was in response to a challenge to appear on WYLD radio in New Orleans, in May, 1991 and debate me on a piece of legislation he had introduced in the state legislature during his time as a representative from District 81 in Metairie. The bill, which would have created financial incentives (or practically speaking, ultimatums) for women on welfare to be “voluntarily sterilized” with NORPLANT contraceptive inserts, was flawed on a number of levels, and the organization for which I worked (The Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism) had issued a report attacking it as bad policy, and ultimately as part of a larger eugenic policy supported by Duke, but which he was (at that time) denying. He openly advocates eugenics now, but back then he was play-acting as a moderate, and it was largely our job, and mine, specifically, to expose him. We did so. He lost in the Senate and Gubernatorial bids. In that sense, I guess, my side “won” against him electorally, but I never claimed to have debated him and won. He had his chance, and he passed on it.

Back to John:

Well, perhaps Wise did, but Duke is a pretty smart and well-informed fellow, so I would rather doubt that Wise won anything, particularly because the articles Wise wrote are anything BUT smart and well-informed. They are, however, a good example of a standard liberal ploy for avoiding acknowledgement of the fact that blacks are a virtual criminal class.

To argue that blacks are a “virtual criminal class” is truly the height of illogic, even with the data below, introduced by Bryant, which is also flawed, as I will demonstrate. Even though black crime rates are disproportionate, relative to population size (no one denies this, though the reasons for it are something about which I feel certain we would disagree), the fact remains that AT MOST, no more than 4 percent of African Americans will commit a violent crime in a given year (at least, as of 2002). In fact, this is a serious overestimate. Here’s why.

In 2002, which is the most recent year for which comprehensive crime data is available from the Justice Department, blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes. This data is from Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004, Tables 40 and 46. This data is based on victim estimates, and is more comprehensive than FBI crime data, because the latter only includes crimes reported to police, while the NCVS data includes the more than half of all crimes that are never reported, including simple assaults, which are actually the most common violent crime, by far.

Note, this number is well below the numbers claimed by the white nationalist movement, and specifically by Jared Taylor, or Paul Sheehan from Australia, etc., because their much higher numbers were from much older reports, from the early 90s to mid 90s, and since that time crime by all groups has fallen considerably. Apparently, racists don’t feel the need to update their stats, so much so that Taylor, in The Color of Crime flatly lies, by saying that the Justice Department doesn’t publish comprehensive data tables annually, (which is presumably why he was using old numbers in his report), even though they do in fact, publish new numbers, every year.

In 2002, there were approximately 29.3 million blacks in the U.S., age 12 and over (and thus eligible for inclusion in crime data), according to the Census Bureau, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2003, Table 14, page 16. This means that the black “crime rate” was 4 percent (40 violent crime perpetrations per 1000 blacks). But even that number assumes that each black criminal only committed one violent crime each, which of course is silly, as I’m sure we’d all agree. Indeed, criminologists estimate that 70 percent of all crime, within and between groups, is committed by just 7 percent of all the offenders (Greenwood, Peter and Alan Abrahamse, 1982. Selective Incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; also, Clear, Todd R. 1996. “Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime,” Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Center: www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc7.htm), because there are a handful of hardcore repeat offenders who commit a disproportionate share of all crimes. Based on this estimate, 70 percent of those 1.2 million crimes by blacks would have been committed by just 7 percent of the black offenders, while the other 30 percent of the crimes by blacks would have been committed by the remaining 93 percent of the offenders.

So, this means that 840,000 of the crimes by blacks would have been committed by just 7 percent of the black offenders in 2002, while 360,000 would have been committed by the other 93 percent. If we assume that the 93 percent who weren’t the major repeat offenders only committed one crime each (also likely a conservative estimate, but one which errs on the side of the white nationalist argument by maximizing the potential numbers of black offenders), this would mean that, at most, the 360,000 crimes actually REPRESENT roughly 93 percent of the offenders. If so, then the 7 percent of offenders remaining would only amount to an additional 27,000 offenders–major hardcore criminals to be sure–bringing the absolute MAXIMUM number of individual black violent offenders in 2002 to 387,000.

For the hell of it, let’s round up to 400,000. In fact, what the hell, let’s just round up to 500,000 so as to give the maximum possible benefit of the doubt to the white nationalist, and Birdman’s position. Even that would represent only 1.7 percent of the 12 and over black population that committed a violent crime in 2002. This means, of course, that at least 98.3 percent did not, and presumably will not in any given year.

How a group can be called a virtual criminal class when 98 percent of its members don’t commit a violent crime in a given year, is something about which I remain utterly perplexed, because it makes no sense at all.

More specifically,

Yes please, let us be more specific, since thus far, no specificity at all has been offered. This is somewhat like saying “The moon is made of cheese. More specifically…”

Blacks are 9 times more likely than whites to be convicted of a felony (That’s 900%, not 9%, just in case your math is weak)

Not sure where John gets his felony conviction data, since he doesn’t footnote it. Having said that, a few things should be noted here:

Conviction rates, to begin with, do not necessarily mirror rates of offending. Who gets convicted depends on who gets prosecuted, which depends on who gets arrested, or who takes a plea bargain to avoid a long sentence, but may not have actually committed the crime in question. This happens with whites too, I should point out, but not likely as often, given the reputation for big city prosecutors to overcharge crimes in the hopes of getting quick pleas and making their jobs easier. I am not suggesting that DAs overcharge blacks because of some overt racial bias, please note, but merely because caseloads create an incentive to get as many cases as possible pleaded out, and the only way to ensure such a result is to dramatically overcharge a crime as a way to intimidate a defendant. Bottom line: arrest rates do not mirror perp rates, and neither do conviction rates.

Having said that, of course it is true–and I have never denied it, nor would I do so now–that the rate at which blacks commit felonies is disproportionate relative to the rate at which whites do so. Absolutely, for reasons I will explore below and in my response to John’s second article, critiquing my piece, The Color of Deception.

As for violent crimes (which most of those felonies are not, by the way: they are disproportionately for non-violent drug offenses, as with whites), for the latest year (2002) for which data is available (the reference was given previously) the rate of black offending comes out to roughly 40 such crimes per 1000 persons, while for whites it would be roughly 16 such crimes per 1000 persons: a rate multiple of 2.6 to 1 for 2002. (3.1 million violent crimes by whites, divided by 196 million whites, age 12 and older that year).

Now I realize Bryant (and for that matter, Taylor and others) are quick to argue that the white violent crime numbers are inflated because they include Hispanic crime, or at least most of it, since a little more than 90 percent of Hispanics are folded in with the white group in Census and also crime related data. While this is true, the inflation is not nearly as large as they would have you believe.

For example, Taylor argues, in Color of Crime, that the Hispanic crime rate is 3-4 times higher than the “real” white rate. But the claim is muddled and dishonest. First, he looks at data from California (which maintains separate records on Hispanics, apart from whites) and then extrapolates to the nation as a whole. But this is methodologically unsound because the California Hispanic/Latino population is much more likely to be poor than the national average, which is a factor correlated with higher crime rates; it is also more likely to be concentrated in urban areas, and urbanicity is independently linked with higher crime in almost all countries where the phenomenon is studied; (see Zimring, Franklin and Gordon Hawkins, 1997. Crime is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. NY: Oxford University Press: 82-3; 234-236, etc). Also, within these urban areas, especially in a place like CA (think East LA, for example) there is a much higher level of population density (meaning crowding, though I’m sure that pigeon boy will miss no opportunity to insert an IQ joke here–so funny those white supremacists!), and crowding is also independently linked to crime rates. For Latinos who live outside of the major metropolitan areas such as these–and those numbers are increasing rapidly by more than 200 percent in the last few years in many Southern areas, for example, or in smaller Midwest towns–the crime rates are not nearly as high.

For example, Puerto Ricans in New York have homicide rates and violent crime rates much higher than the white averages, but outside of NY, there is no statistically significant difference between whites and Puerto Ricans when it comes to homicide (Rosenwaike, Ira and Katherine Hempstead. 1990. “Mortality among three Puerto Rican populations: Residents of Puerto Rico and migrants in New York City and in the balance of the United States, 1979-81. International Migrations Review. 24. Winter: 684-702).

Likewise, Hispanic offending rates in Southern Florida (and not just for Cubans, by the way) are not significantly higher than for non-Hispanic whites. (Rose, Harold M. and Paula D. McClain, 2003. “Homicide Risk and Level of Victimization in Two Concentrated Poverty Enclaves: A Black/Hispanic Comparison,” in Violent Crime: Assessing Race and Ethnic Differences, Darnell Hawkins, ed., Cambridge University Press: 9).

Finally, the California data used by Taylor is arrest data, not offending data, and as with blacks, these numbers may not be the same, and certainly cannot be compared to the NCVS data on offending. If police patrol more in black and brown neighborhoods, which they do (because of generally higher crime rates there, which again, I have never denied), then they will uncover more crime there, leading to greater chance of arrest. But this is not necessarily because more of those crimes are happening among certain populations. It may be, but you cannot assume it from arrest data; you would need to have victimization data similar to that in the existing NCVS, wherein victims attempt to recollect who attacked them, what their race was, etc. I would be all for the Justice Department collecting more accurate data in this regard by the way–perhaps one of the few areas of agreement I might have with Bryant and the rest of you reading this on his website, or in his newsletter.

So, how many of the whites in NCVS data are actually Hispanic? Well, it’s impossible to know for sure, but there are ways to estimate it.

According to the only source I have ever seen on the subject, and certainly the only criminologists who have weighed in, the Hispanic/Latino offending rates for violent crimes, are 20 percent above their percentage of the population (Gilliam, Franklin D. Jr., Shanto Iyangar, Adam Simon, and Oliver Wright. 1995. “Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News,” Center for American Politics and Public Policy, Minority Politics Program, Occasional Paper Series, 95-1: September). So, in 2002, according to the Census Bureau (citation mentioned previously) there were 29,589,000 Hispanics, age 12 and older in the U.S. (thus eligible for consideration in crime data). 92.4 percent of these were classified racially as white in the data that year. This means, there were roughly 27,340,000 Hispanic whites in the U.S. in 2002: approximately 11.4 percent of the overall 12 and over population that year in the entire country.

If Hispanic whites offend at a rate that is 20 percent above their share of the population, and they represented 11.4 percent of the population in 2002, this means they would have committed 13.7 percent of all violent crime that year (for which the race of the perp was known or potentially knowable): approximately 683,470 such crimes that year. This is a crime rate of effectively 2.5 percent (25 violent crimes per 1000 Hispanic whites).

Now, according to white nationalist logic, all of these should be extracted from the white crime category, because, presumably, they are all located there, illegitimately. And perhaps that is true (indeed I’ll assume it is in a minute), but I would like to offer a word of caution here. The idea that Hispanics are all caught in the white crime totals (or, perhaps 6 percent or so are caught in the black category, as with Dominicans, etc) lacks a certain amount of credibility, when one examines the “other” category in the NCVS data. Although the NCVS insists that the “other” category consists almost exclusively of Asians and American Indians, this is hard to believe when one sees the extraordinarily high percentage of violent crime committed by “other” race perps.

So, for example, in 2002, 13 percent of single offender violent crimes were committed by “others,” while 17 percent of multiple offender crimes were committed by others. But this cannot possibly consist only of Indian or Asian crimes, since the Asian crime rates are known to be low, relative to their population numbers (the latter of which are around 4 percent), and the Indian numbers, though dispro to population size, can’t be very high as a percentage of all crime, since Indian folks are only about 1.2 percent of the population according to the Census.

So if we estimated that Asians committed, say, 2 percent of all crime (probably a bit high), and even if we assumed Indians committed 5 percent (which would be ridiculously high–a population multiple of more than 4 to 1–far higher than the black multiple, for example), this would still only account for 7 percent of violent crime. So, where is the other 6-10 percent coming from in the NCVS tables? There is literally no possibility, other than Hispanics being classified as “other” by victims (which actually makes sense, since most folks don’t think of Hispanics as white when asked, and would not, on their own, refer to them as white when asked the race of their attackers by NCVS representatives).

If this is the case, and it almost has to be, then at least 6 percentage points in the “other” perp tables represent Latinos, thereby reducing the number of Latinos who would need to be extracted from the white category in order to provide a “real white” crime number. If 6 percent of violent crime is committed by Hispanic whites, being currently classified as other, and Hispanic whites only committed 13.7 percent of all violent crime in 2002, this means that only a little more than half of the Hispanic white crime (about 7.7 percent of all crime) would be currently found in the white data set, thereby reducing massively the numbers of crimes that would need to be extracted.

Indeed, doing the extraction this way would mean removing only 384,000 crimes from the white totals (those representing Hispanics), as opposed to removing the full 683,470. Thus, the real white crime totals would remain about 2.7 million (down from 3.1, roughly), rather than 2.4 million, as with the larger extraction. If we assume the more realistic and smaller extraction of Hispanics from the white category, this would leave “real whites” with a crime rate of 1.6 percent STILL (2.7 million crimes, divided by 168,600,000 non-Hispanic whites 12 and over that year): meaning that the black rates would remain 2.6 times higher than the white rates for violent crime, and the Hispanic rate, at 2.5 percent, (see above) would be higher than the white rate, to be sure, but nowhere near as high as white nationalists assume: only about 56 percent higher, in 2002.

But for the sake of argument, and because I am feeling generous, I will assume that all of those Hispanic whites really are buried in the white data, and subtract all 683,470 from the white numbers, leaving about 2.4 million real white crimes in 2002. This would bring the real white crime rate down to 1.4 percent (14 per 1000 whites, because it would reflect 2.4 million non-Hispanic white criminals, divided by 168,600,000 such whites, age 12 and over): not much of a change. Even this computation would only mean that the black crime rate for violent crimes was 2.9 times higher than the white rate, and that the Hispanic rate was 79 percent higher than the white rate: nowhere near the crazy multiples being claimed by white nationalists.

The other data in CofC, which relates to Hispanic offending is even more absurd, as it reflects national incarceration data for ALL crimes, not merely or mostly violent ones, and thereby reflects massive numbers of immigration violation incarcerations as well as non-violent drug offenders, and as such, cannot be compared to the NCVS data used by CofC, or the more updated data from the same source, used in my pieces (see, Martinez, Jr. Ramiro and Matthew T. Lee. 2000. “On Immigration and Crime,” Criminal Justice 2000: The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Volume 1. National Institute of Justice: 496).

One more point, as regards blacks as a criminal class:

In all, 92.3 percent of blacks arrested are arrested for crimes that are not violent and not among the more serious property crimes catalogued by law enforcement officials, indicating that arrest figures alone hardly warrant concern that blacks are therefore “dangerous” as a group (Mann, Coramae Richey, 1993. Unequal Justice: A Question of Color. Indiana University Press: 37-38)

Now, back the Birdman…

Blacks are 14 times more likely than whites to be convicted of a VIOLENT crime (1400% more likely, not 14%)

Again, there is no source here, and this makes no sense, since the above data makes quite clear that the offending rate difference for violent crimes between whites and blacks is no more than 2.9 to 1 (even after the maximum Latino extraction from the white totals), and perhaps as little as 2.6 to 1. If Bryant’s claim above is accurate, as a per capita rate claim for conviction, this would only demonstrate the extent of racial bias in the system, since, if the violent offending rate is only 2.6-2.9 times higher, for the conviction rate to be 14 times greater would require massive concentration on black crimes to the exclusion of white ones.

Birdman again…

Black-on-white rape is 50 times more prevalent than white-on-black rape (5000% more prevalent, not 50%)

This is simply false. So much so that Taylor made sure not to repeat it from the article by Paul Sheehan, which had been massively circulated prior to the release of CofC in white nationalist/supremacist circles, and in which source the claim originated.

The fact is, for 2002 (again, I already provided the source above), there were:

8,448 white-on-black rapes (see Table 42 in the report) (14.2 percent of all rapes against blacks were thus committed by white rapists); and,

17,572 black-on-white rapes (same table) (13.1 percent of all rapes of whites were committed by blacks).

Now, to be technical, it is no doubt true that some of the white perps in this data, AND some of the white victims were actually Latino, given the closer proximity between blacks and Latinos, spatially. But doing the complicated extractions necessary to know what percentage of either is Hispanic, though it can be done (and I am working on the methodology for my book) is more detailed than I feel the need to be here. So for the sake of comparison I will leave the numbers as they are, knowing that both would likely be smaller, and reduced in rough proportion to one another, if Hispanics were excluded.

A few things should be noted here:

First, blacks raped were more likely to have been interracially raped than whites were.

Secondly, although the number of black-on-white rapes was higher than the reverse, to be sure, the multiple is nowhere near 50:1. Numerically it is a little more than 2 to 1. On a per capita basis, since whites are roughly 6 times more prevalent in the population than blacks (as of 2002), this would mean that on a per capita basis, any given black person was about 12 times more likely to rape a white person than vice versa.

Now perhaps you are thinking at this point, “OK, whatever: whether it’s 50 to 1 or 12 to 1, that’s a huge disproportion!” And that’s true, sort of, though not nearly as meaningful as it seems.

To begin with, as I explain in my piece “The Color of Deception,” whites and blacks do not encounter each other at rates that are comparable. Because of residential and spatial isolation from one another, this won’t surprise anyone reading this, I imagine. Indeed, according to Census data, presented by criminologist Robert O’Brian (the footnote for this one is in the original Color of Deception article, which has now been critiqued on Bryant’s website, and which notes can be viewed there), any given black person is about 19 times more likely to encounter a white person than vice versa. Blacks, on average, encounter 57 whites out of every 100 people they encounter–so even with spatial isolation, blacks run into lots of white folks–while whites, on average, are actually more racially isolated, encountering, on average, only about 3 blacks for every 100 people we encounter.

Now obviously, you can’t victimize someone you don’t encounter, and if blacks were choosing rape victims purely randomly, we would expect that 57 percent of the victims of black rape would be white. But in fact, only 26 percent are (17,579 divided by 68,621: again, you can do the calculations easily from Table 42). This means blacks are half as likely as we’d expect to rape whites, numerically speaking, if they were raping at random, let alone TARGETING whites, in which case they would have no problem finding even more than 57 percent of their victims to be white.

Likewise, based on encounter rates, if rapists picked victims randomly, we would expect 3 percent of the victims of white rapists to be black. But indeed, in 2002, there were 110,394 rapes committed by whites (check yourself in Table 42–the computation takes about two minutes). 8,448 as a share of 110,394 is actually 7.65 percent: more than DOUBLE what would be expected if white rapists picked victims randomly. If anything then, this would tend to suggest that whites are targeting blacks for rape, though indeed I am not claiming that. The disproportion is probably a statistical anomaly based on small sample size. But still, at the very least this demonstrates no disproportionate black on white rape.

Based on encounter rates alone, we would expect the 68,621 black rapists to have raped 39,114 whites, while the 110,394 white rapists should have raped 3,312 blacks: a numeric multiple of nearly 13 to 1, rather than the 2.1 numeric multiple in actuality, and we would have expected a per capita rate multiple, therefore, of 75 to 1, rather than the 12 to 1 that manifested in actuality.

In other words, based on encounter ratios and rates, blacks raped whites far less often than would have been expected, and whites raped blacks far more often than would have been expected.

Back to Bryant now…

Since Wise did not get within a country mile of quoting these statistics, he of course did not try to refute them; but other liberals have been more honest and at least acknowledged that they exist.

They exist, as do stories of alien abduction. So what? It doesn’t make the data accurate, nor the interpretation of the data the least bit competent. They are false, and/or terribly misleading for reasons I discuss more in detail in the second article.

Such liberals have, however, attempted a refutation by proposing the theory that these statistics are the result of that monolithic situation which, to the liberal mind, is responsible for approximately everything which is bad nowadays, namely, ‘white racism.’

That has never been my argument, either in the articles or here

This, however, does not bear even superficial examination; for black crime stats are pretty much uniform thruout the United States: Wherever you go, you will find these statistics replicated, whether in the redneck enclaves of the Deep South or such liberal and sophisticated states as New Yawk and Taxachusetts. Thus any claim that these stats show that blacks are the victims of ‘white racism’ would rest on the liberal conspiracy theory that everyone everywhere, from the smallest berg to the largest metropolis, was cooking the books and arresting blacks in unwarranted numbers ‘just for fun’, or maybe just because the white soul is–dast we say it? –black. It takes a bit more wide-eyed naivete than I possess to believe such a conspiracy theory, or at least to believe in the proposition that whites everywhere are so corrupt — even in New Yawk and Taxachusetts — and blacks are so powerless in all the cities and towns which have black police chiefs and black mayors — that blacks can get no better treatment in these places than anywhere else.

Again, I have never claimed that black crime is due to white racism, especially of the conspiratorial–“let’s get black folks”–variety. Rather, higher black crime rates reflect the specific conditions that stem from a number of socioeconomic realities that disproportionately face the black community. Now sure, some of those conditions stem from a history of discrimination in housing and elsewhere, such that blacks have been concentrated in highly populated urban areas, with less job opportunity, etc (See, Massey and Denton, American Apartheid, Harvard Press, 1994; or Oliver and Shapiro, Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge, 1995). But it is also due to fairly impersonal economic developments, such as the collapse of manufacturing in the cities, and the resulting job crisis. In neither case am I blaming racism per se, in the sense we traditionally think of the term. Not at all.

Anyway, as I was saying, according to several studies, socioeconomic variables explain the difference between white and black violence rates, and where economic conditions are comparable between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime differences (Krivo, L.J. and R.D. Peterson, 1996. “Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime,” Social Forces. 75, 2. December: 619-48.; Chasin, Barbara, 1997. Inequality and Violence in the United States: Casualties of Capitalism. NJ: Humanities Press International: 49). In fact, the correlation between economic variables and crime are remarkably consistent from one society to the next. Evidence gathered from more than thirty countries has found that race and ethnicity have far less to do with crime than these environmental factors (Mukherjee, Satyanshu. 1999. “Ethnicity and Crime,” Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra. May: 1).

Although whites also suffer poverty, black poverty is more severe and more likely to correlate with crime. Seven out of ten poor whites live in stable, mostly non-poor neighborhoods, while eighty-five percent of the black poor live in mostly poor areas (Johnson, Calvin and Chanchalat Chanhatasilpa, 2003. “The Race/Ethnicity and Poverty Nexus of Violent Crime: Reconciling Differences in Chicago’s Community Area Homicide Rates,” in Violent Crime: Assessing Race and Ethnic Differences. Darnell Hawkins, ed., Cambridge University Press: 98.; also, Smith, Robert C. 1995. Racism in the Post Civil Rights Era: Now You See it, Now You Don’t. SUNY Press: 128).

Blacks are three times more likely to live in extreme poverty than whites (less than half the poverty line) (Sklar, Holly, 1998. “Let Them Eat Cake,” Z Magazine, November: 31), and six times more likely to live in concentrated poverty neighborhoods (Wachtel, Paul L. 1999. Race in the Mind of America: Breaking the Vicious Circle Between Blacks and Whites. NY: Routledge, 294, fn 15). Indeed, three-quarters of persons living in concentrated poverty neighborhoods are people of color (powell, john, 2001. “Socioeconomic School Integration,” Poverty and Race Research Action Council Bulletin, 10: 6, November/December: 6).

Looking specifically at homicide rates, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that crowded housing was the key to higher murder rates among blacks in the U.S. When census tracts with similar incomes, population density and housing conditions are compared, racial murder rate differences evaporate, (Pope, John, 1995, “Murder linked to dense poverty,” New Orleans Times-Picayune. June 14). because the poorest neighborhoods have similar homicide rates, no matter racial composition (Johnson, Calvin and Chanchalat Chanhatasilpa, 2003. “The Race/Ethnicity and Poverty Nexus of Violent Crime: Reconciling Differences in Chicago’s Community Area Homicide Rates,” in Violent Crime: Assessing Race and Ethnic Differences. Darnell Hawkins, ed., Cambridge University Press: 106).

A 1990 meta-analysis of twenty-one different studies on homicide, covering thirty years of research found much the same thing: among all the factors positively correlated with higher homicide rates, two of the most significant were unemployment rates and community resource deprivation (Land, K., P.L. McCall and L.E. Cohen, 1990. “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space?” American Journal of Sociology, 95: 922-63).

Indeed, racial crime gaps in the U.S. are largely a reflection of geography. Since blacks are more concentrated in cities, which have higher crime rates no matter their racial makeup, the crime rate among blacks is skewed upwards; but this has nothing to do with any genetic or cultural predisposition to crime. In large measure, because cities are more crowded, and because crowded areas tend to increase levels of anonymity amongst residents, and chip away at the levels of organization in a neighborhood, they will be the site of elevated levels of crime (Johnson and Chanhatasilpa, 2003: 97). Adjusting violent crime rates for levels of urbanization alone cuts the racial disproportion in half, with economic conditions explaining the remainder (Zimring, Franklin and Gordon Hawkins, 1997. Crime is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. NY: Oxford University Press: 82-3; 234-236).

In fact, absent a litany of socioeconomic factors, there is no substantial independent relationship between a community’s racial composition and its homicide rates (Johnson and Chanhatasilpa, 2003: 92). Although the homicide rate among “middle class” blacks is higher than that for middle class whites, the reasons for this have nothing to do with race: middle class blacks tend to live in much closer proximity to poor communities, tend to be substantially less well off than middle class whites, and are thus exposed to more negative social influences than whites of their same general class group (Ibid, 107).

The role of social and economic environment and community conditions in determining crime rates is particularly evident among juveniles. A comprehensive analysis of homicide and robbery data, which looked at the importance of such things as race, poverty, family disruption and unemployment in determining crime rates in these categories, found that black male joblessness explained black family disruption, which in turn was highly related to black murder and robbery rates, particularly for youth (Hawkins, Darnell, John H. Laub, Janet L. Lauritsen, and Lynn Cothern, 2000. “Race, Ethnicity and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June.)

Further research has demonstrated that racial differences in delinquent behavior can be explained entirely by the highly unequal community conditions faced by white youth and those of color (Ibid). One study of white and black youth in the Pittsburgh area, for example, found that Black youth residing in neighborhoods more similar to their non-poor white counterparts, were no more likely to engage in acts of delinquency than their white peers (Peoples, F. and R. Loeber, 1994. “Do Individual Factors and Neighborhood Context Explain Ethnic Differences in Juvenile Delinquency?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 10, 2. June: 141-57).

Examination of longitudinal data indicates that once an assortment of economic and social variables are controlled for by the common social science technique of regression analysis, blacks are no more likely than whites to commit crimes, are less likely to commit property crimes than whites, and Latinos are also less likely to commit crimes than non-Hispanics (Crutchfield, Robert D. 1995. “Ethnicity, Labor Markets and Crime,” in Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place, Darnell F. Hawkins, ed., State University of New York Press: 200-201).

Now, I know that Bryant, and others will simply respond, “well sure, but blacks are in those conditions in the first place BECAUSE they are black, thus have low IQs etc., so the dispro crime rate is still about race.”

But putting aside the general and significant flws with IQ testing, this argument about IQ and poverty actually confuses the relationship between the two. Yes, they may well be related; and certainly poverty is related to education levels, etc. But the relationship is primarily in the opposite direction of that claimed by white nationalists. In other words, greater opportunity and reduced poverty brings gains in performance (in school, on tests, etc) such that “IQ” (however defined) rises as a response to better conditions. Likewise, bad conditions stunt IQ development beginning in early childhood. So it is not that low IQ predetermines economic status so much as economic status depresses IQ and related measures of ability.

To believe that IQ is what largely determines black poverty, and thus, black crime rates, one would have to then believe that black IQ had literally shot through the roof since the late 70s, because black crime rates (as with white rates, and all rates for all groups), and especially in cities, have dropped by about half in that time period (Fox, James Alan and Marianne W. Zawitz, 2000. Homicide Trends in the United States. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics). Somehow, I doubt Birdman wants to make this claim.

Likewise, black performance on various indicators of intellectual ability have improved in the past 20 years (on the NAEP, for example and other standardized tests), yet black poverty rates and unemployment rates have jumped around: going down, then up, then down, then up, in ways that clearly cannot be related to similar fluctuations in native IQ.

Finally, to believe that poverty is determined by IQ, and thus black crime indirectly determined by it as well, is to ignore that from 1960-1973 (the first thirteen years of the extension of the “welfare state” income support programs to blacks, who had been blocked from them for the most part previously), black poverty was cut in half. Only after the programs were cut back after 1973 (and after the real dollar value of the programs failed to keep up with inflation) did poverty rates stop dropping among blacks. But surely, the drop wasn’t due to an increase in IQ during that time, just as the drop in poverty among the elderly since the 30s wasn’t due to increased intelligence among old folks: rather, it was due to state policy, macroeconomic policy, etc., effecting levels of opportunity, support, etc.

And finally, if IQ explains the poverty of the poor (white, black or otherwise) then by definition IQ would also need to explain the success of the wealthy. Yet how can that be? For example, in 1977, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans owned roughly 26 percent of all the financial assets in the country (stocks, bonds, commercial property, and other “liquid” assets). By the early 90s, that wealthiest 1 percent owned 48 percent of the same type of assets.

Now, would anyone in their right mind argue that the reason the rich got richer in that period was because of a massive increase in IQ, or for that matter work effort, in that time frame? Of course not. Public policy, including tax and money policy, assisted the accumulation and concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few persons, having nothing to do with native intelligence on the part of the rich.

Back to Bryant…

So how does Wise avoid the statistical evidence of overweening black crime? Very simply by enumerating long lists of horrendous crimes by whites which have become familiar thru heavy media attention, and ignoring the fact that white crime, and particularly horrendous white crime, gets overwhelming attention from the liberal media, whereas black crime gets the silent treatment whenever possible (see, for example, http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Millard-Blackwash.html). The effect of this trick is of course to exaggerate the incidence of white crime in the reader’s mind.

This is a total misinterpretation of what my article was about, and seeking to do. I was not trying to cover up anything, nor make white crime seem like the bigger issue, numerically speaking, or in the minds of the readers. The whole point of the largely sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek article was to demonstrate a fundamental inconsistency in the way crime is discussed, whether committed by whites or blacks. So, for example, black crime is ALWAYS (and especially by white nationalists) seen as being racially-determined. That is, whenever white supremacist types hear about some heinous crime by a black person, they think to themselves, “See, told ya soäthat’s just the way they are.” But when white folks commit certain heinous crimes (which we do, as I note in the article), no one suggests the crimes had a racial basis.

When it comes to black crimes, both right and left have explanations related to the black group itself. The left says it’s environmental factors faced by blacks; the right says it’s genes, or culture, or whatever. But when the criminals are white, there is no comparable discussion. We blame anything BUT the communities from which the criminals come. This was the point: not that whites are more dangerous than blacks, or that whites are natural born serial killers, mass murderers, corporate criminals, or any of the other examples I note, but merely that if we are going to claim black crime is racially motivated or determined, we should also ask if there might be something–genetic or cultural–about whites and white “culture” that leads to disproportionate rates of offending in certain categories (such as corporate crime, serial killing, school mass murders, etc–more on these below).

As for which crimes get most attention, Birdman claims that white crimes get the lion’s share of media exposure, while black crimes are hushed up, but this is simply false, as any real content analysis of news coverage has found. I mean, on the one hand sure, crimes by whites are the majority of crime stories, numerically speaking, but that’s because a little more than half of all major crimes in a given year are committed by whites, so that’s to be expected. (Again, check the 2002 Criminal Victimization in the United States data if you don’t believe me): between 50 and 63 percent of all violent crime is committed by whites, depending on how many you extract from the white totals who are Latino, while, for 2002, only 24 percent were committed by blacks. Sure, this is dispro to population percentages, but because it represents only one-fourth of all violent crime, we should EXPECT that a distinct minority of crime coverage would be of black criminals…

And yet, contrary to Bryant’s assertion, coverage of crime stories by media, especially in local news (which is where most of us get our news, especially about crime), over-represents African Americans as offenders relative to their share of crimes committed (Gilliam, Franklin D. Jr., Shanto Iyangar, Adam Simon, and Oliver Wright. 1995. “Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News,” Center for American Politics and Public Policy, Minority Politics Program, Occasional Paper Series, 95-1: September), and tends to over-represent whites as victims, relative to our share of crime victim totals. Not only are a disproportionate number of the crime stories in local news focused on blacks, but the overwhelming number of stories featuring black subjects deal with crime, reinforcing the idea that even if not all crime is black, most blacks are criminal (Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz, 2002. “The Racial Components of ‘Race-Neutral’ Crime Policy Attitudes,” Political Psychology, 23: 59-75).

Interestingly, and counter to white nationalist assumptions (which are usually based on the relative lack of media attention given to the Carr brothers, in Wichita, or Topeka, or wherever it was), media gives far more attention to violent crimes committed by blacks against whites–especially rape of white women–than the reverse (Glassner, Barry, 1999. Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things. NY: Basic Books: 113). Of course, I’m sure many will dismiss this, simply because of the last name of the author–a ha! A JEW!–but his reputation as a researcher is only a few million times greater than the Birdman, so…

Speaking of Birdman, back we go…

But does the media really suppress reportage of black crime? My own opinion on this matter was satisfied by surveying the speeches of the late Dr William Pierce, who, during the time when he was head of the pro-white group National Alliance, regularly cited then-current examples of various horrendous minority crimes that were never reported anywhere except in the media of the localities where they occurred, but would have been the subjects of unrelenting national news coverage had they been committed by white people. (Dr Pierce’s speeches are available on the Net at www.natvan.com.)

Ah yes, let’s rely on the opinions of a man who advocated mass murder of Jews and blacks, and “race traitors,” and who called Hitler the greatest man of the 20th century, on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Indeed, a great source of wisdom, who now, it should be noted, is having his flesh eaten by worms, as was long overdue. Proof of God’s existence if ever there was such a thing…

Two examples which come to mind are (1) the murder of homosexual Matthew Sheppard by white heterosexuals, which is still on liberal lips, in contrast to the homosexual torture-murder of white teenager Jesse Dirkhising (see http://www.covenantnews.com/dirkhising.htm), which received virtually no coverage at all except on the Net;

What does the Dirkhising murder have to do with race, which is what I thought we were discussing? More to the point, how was that crime–as horrific as it was, for sure–related to hate? No one has claimed, and certainly no evidence has been presented to suggest that Jesse was targeted BECAUSE he was straight, and the killers hated straight folks. As such, it’s not surprising that the Shepherd killing got more attention, as there seemed to be a clear anti-gay motive for the crime at the time. (I realize that there is some question about this now, as per a recent NBC special, but at the time that was the assumption based on law enforcement statements, the statements of one of the killers’ girlfriends, etc.). Oh, and to the extent NBC was willing to revisit the hate crime angle and seek to throw cold water on it in the Shepherd case, this also serves as evidence that the media is willing to examine these issues in more depth than Bryant likely imagines.

Back to Bryant now…

and (2) the Jasper TX dragging death of a black by two whites, which received attention even from the President, as contrasted with later dragging deaths of whites by minorities, which received virtually no publicity at all. As to documentation, I can find several mentions of these latter incidents on the Net, but no actual stories, which illustrates my point of selective media coverage

Very interesting, so a lack of stories even on the web (which is clearly not controlled media, and where stories remain up for years) indicates selective blacking out, rather than the lack of proof! The Holocaust is made up, but these crimes are real! Well, isn’t that convenient.

Here are some links:

http://rantweb.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1113347761 Near the top – Dakota Indians drag white

This thread doesn’t exist

http://www.flamingtorch.org/articles/2000/jfm/fromeditor.htm Another mention – Indians again

“Two Indians in Montana dragged a white man to death.” That’s IT??? That’s the evidence??? No source given by the author, no reference even to the city where this supposedly happened, nothing…and coming from a guy who argues throughout the screed that hate is a good thing, that God commands it, etc…Wonderful research department over there at Nazis R Us…really fabulous.

I would also note that assuming this crime happened exactly as blurted out on this web posting, there would be a very logical reason for less news coverage, having nothing to do with racial bias. Namely, the Montana media market is very very small, unlike the media markets in Texas. Even the Shepherd killing probably wouldn’t have gotten any attention had Matthew not been a college student, thereby ensuring that his killing would enrage a relatively cosmopolitan college town like the one that houses the University of Wyoming; and for the same reason–the small media market.

http://goldsea.com/Poll/AFCM/afcm_20123.html Near the bottom – Blacks drag white

Again, there is no source reference, no actual city referenced, nothing: just an anonymous web board posting by someone who then goes on to make an utterly ridiculous claim for which there is also no evidence, regarding initiation rituals among gang members.

…As John says, there are no news stories about these crimes, even, apparently, in the communities where they ostensibly occurred, since had they been mentioned there, they would be accessible on the web to this day. I guess the Jews have a vice grip on that Montana media, and the media in Northeast Texas too!

Wise goes further than merely a disingenuous attempt to exaggerate white crime, however, by citing certain seemingly-unique white crimes, and contrasting them with the presumably ‘clean’ record of blacks in committing such crimes. But here, again, Wise shows his bias, because the crimes he cites are either not really unique to whites, or are not committed by European-Americans but rather Latinos, whose crime record is much worse than for whites (tho less than for blacks) altho white and Latino stats are disingenuously merged by the government so as to disguise this fact as much as possible. Latinos, in particular, are heavily involved in crimes of Satanism, cannibalism and the like, which derive from their involvement with Santeria, tho Wise makes a big deal of attributing all such crimes to ‘whites’.

Wow, one hardly knows where to begin, with regard to this compendium of silliness.

First, I never claimed that these particular crimes (serial killing, corporate fraud, mass school shootings, etc.) were uniquely committed by whites. That would be silly: almost as silly as saying that blacks are a criminal class, based on the actions of about 2 percent of all blacks in the U.S.

However, certain types of crimes, including those I mentioned are indeed disproportionately committed by whites, relative to others. That is to say, the rate at which whites commit them is higher than the rate at which blacks do.

The point, again, was to make the argument that our dialogue on crime is stunted by a desire to see race as implicated whenever a certain category is disproportionately engaged in by blacks, relative to THEIR population numbers, but never thinking that race is implicated when whites lead the pack in certain destructive behaviors. Of course, my real point is that race is not implicated for any of these crimes–committed by anyone–but I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the existing dialogue.

Interestingly, in his paragraph above, Bryant chides me for supposedly implying the “cleanness” of blacks regarding some of these crimes, then, as if to rebut my argument, claims that many of these crimes are actually done by Latinos. This of course, doesn’t resolve the underrepresentation of blacks in these criminal categories, thus it does not rebut the “cleanness” which he says I was arguing for; and more to the point, his claims are totally unsubstantiated.

The crimes I was discussing as being dispro white, are indeed just that. The corporate misconduct is not Latinos, mistakenly identified as white. Nor the school shooters, nor the serial killers, (though there are a few Latinos therein, to be sure, but the dispro percentage are still “real whites,” as any web based examination of serial killing data can demonstrate).

As for Latino Satanism and cannibalism, thanks to their involvement with Santeria, does John Bryant feel the need to actually present evidence to support his arguments (even anecdotal?) or is it enough for the hate addled readers of his newsletter to simply assert something, provide no evidence and assume it will be believed? Fact is, he presents nothing–not even anecdotal evidence on Latino cannibalism (and no, it won’t do to talk about the ancient Aztecs John)–and of course, few Latinos practice Santeria: far less than 1 percent in all likelihood (and that includes Latinos worldwide, throughout the Caribbean, etc.,), to say nothing of Latinos in the U.S., almost all of whom are Catholic, and/or evangelical Protestant. By the way, as someone with an academic concentration in Latin American Studies, and who studied Santeria along with other Latin American religions, I can assure you that at no point has Satanism or cannibalism been a practice of Santeria. Animal sacrifice, yes. Human consumption, not even close. Do your homework.

Bryant again…

another thing which wise does not take into account is that school shootings, which he makes much over as being a white crime, may very well have involved secret government or nwo mind-control operations whose purpose was to obtain popular and legislative support for imposing draconian gun control or to otherwise further the erosion of civil liberties. while this may sound too incredible to believe, there is much evidence for this in the government’s studied coverup of the columbine killings, and similar government coverups in the port arthur massacre in australia which brought on draconian gun control there, and the dunblane school massacre in britain which also led to draconian gun control. likewise, there is evidence of government involvement in the kip kinkel school shooting for the purpose of forwarding gun control — a case mentioned by wise.

If what John posts below is “evidence” of government involvement in the school shootings in the u.s., then he has some gall to question anything I say. This must be some kind of joke, and probably explains why John would have a hard time getting any of his books published by a real publisher (even the non-jewish owned ones), since most have fact-checkers.

Fact is, there have been 38 completed or near miss school mass murders since the 1980s, according to Katherine Newman, in her recent book, Rampage. 32 of them had white perpetrators, there were only 2 by blacks, one by an asian and 3 by latinos. No, this doesn’t mean that only whites do it, and indeed the sample is small enough to say that if there were 1000 more of these incidents God forbid, the white disproportion might vanish in a larger sample. But regardless of that, the point is, if there had been 32 out of 38 of these perps or would-be perps who were black, John and most of his readers would be the first to proclaim it as proof of black depravity and their being a criminal class. That is the basis for the charge of hypocrisy and inconsistency, which I am making throughout the article.

Back to john…

here are some relevant documents:

http://www.rense.com/politics2/coverup.htm – columbine coverup

http://judicial-inc.biz/port_arthur_massacre.htm – port arthur massacre coverup

http://judicial-inc.biz/kip_kinkel.htm – kip kinkel school shooting http://www.sra-ireland.freepress-freespeech.com/breakingnewsjune2004.htm – dunblane massacre coverup

This is truly fascinating. I won’t comment on the aussie and irish incidents, as we are discussing a phenomenon in the U.S., and whatever the facts may be regarding the non-u.s. examples, cannot tell us anything about whether or not there is a government plot regarding the incidents in the u.s.

now, as for the material in the above links

…One document suggests the killings were done by NATO or other government officials, while another says the kids did it, but of course, this is only because they were jewish. so which is it? Was it NATO or a couple of post-bar mitzvah’d angry jewish teens? One would think it would help to get the story straight…

Interestingly, the article on Columbine claims that the “trenchcoat mafia” was a jewish organization at Columbine High, and yet when you follow the hyperlinks therein, which ostensibly “prove” this little nugget of nazi wisdom, there is no evidence of any kind found therein to substantiate this claim. The author of this paranoid, delusional silliness apparently considers it proof of one’s jewishness that one has a name that can be found, first or last, in some jewish baby name registry. Thus, since some of the TCM members have such names, they must be jewish, and the TCM itself becomes little more than an extension of the JDL.

Of course, there are plenty of non-jews who are given first names that are common amongst jews. So, for example, the most popular baby name for boys, the past three years running, has been Jacob. Jacob, historically, has been a very common name amongst jewish families. My middle name is Jacob, as was my great-grandfather on my father’s father’s side. Yet, it should be obvious that the vast majority of Jacobs in the U.S. cannot, by definition, be Jewish, as Jews are only 3 percent (at most) of the nation’s population. So the fact that someone has such a name means nothing, as with other “Jewish” names. Likewise, for that matter, one can be jewish and have a non-jewish sounding name, as is the case with my first name, Timothy (clearly not a popular choice in shul). Same thing with last names. Many “jewish” last names are common among non-jewish german and polish immigrant families, and so cannot tell us anything about a person’s particular heritage.

As for Eric Harris, one of the shooters at columbine, it is claimed that he was jewish, though the links provide no evidence of this, and are non-functioning in most cases. The author of the “article” on columbine, claims Harris was dating a jewish girl, for which there is also no evidence, but more to the point no relevance to the crimes. I mean, do you fruit loops who read birdman’s tripe really believe Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up their schools because Klebold’s mom was Jewish and Eric Harris might have dated one once? If you believe this, then frankly, there is very little that could be said to reason with you. You are beyond the capacity for critical thought.

The link on Kip Kinkel insists he was Jewish on both sides of his family, yet the links demonstrate no such thing. the fact that there are Kinkels in Poland, who are Jewish does not mean that the Kinkels in question were. Reproducing a family crest, of dubious legitimacy (I am Jewish and have never seen a family crest reproduced for any Jewish family) does not prove lineage or heritage. The fact that the psychiatrists called in to testify in kip’s trial were apparently Jewish also does not prove he was…it suggests that some of the best shrinks money can buy in springfield and eugene are jews: that’s about it.

To claim Kinkel was a manchurian candidate, programmed by zionists (which the link also claims) makes for good fantasy, but as with anything else, evidence is necessary, and claiming it to be true does not make it so…there is of course no evidence to suggest this is true in the least. The rules of basic argumentation hold that you all who believe this have the burden to prove it true when you argue it. it is not my burden to disprove it, any more than it is my burden to disprove your claim to have been anally probed by venusians last wednesday, or to have a small transistor radio implanted in your wisdom teeth by the mossad.

One of the sites in the above links even suggests that Ben Smith, (the neo-nazi member of the world church of the creator who went on a shooting spree in 1999) was Jewish because he grew up in Wilmette, IL, and went to New Trier High School; but when you follow the link you discover that Smith merely “had jewish friends growing up,” not that he was Jewish, and that New Trier is across the street from a temple, not that it is a Jewish school, as claimed by the link document’s author. Again, this is not evidence, unless you are insane. Of course, I once had some Jew-hating loon write to me to insist that anyone who has ever eaten matzo ball soup is a Jew, by proxy, so i guess Jews really are everywhere! And indeed, my college roommate my freshman year was from Wilmette, went to New Trier, and…oh shit!…he was Jewish! Ok, scratch everything I said…this proves Ben Smith must have been a Jew! damn, ya got me…

beyond this, wise somehow ‘fails to mention’ that hate crimes are actually committed in greater number by blacks than by whites

This is simply nonsense. Numerically, hate crimes by whites are about 5 times more numerous than hate crimes by blacks (see more on this below). Even if you extract those from the white category who are Hispanic, the ratio is still at least 4 to 1.

As for victims, from 1995-2000, blacks were 65 percent of racial and ethnic hate-crime victims, while whites were only 21 percent of such victims (United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, “Hate Crime Statistics,” (various years, 1995-2000), and calculations by the author). Adjusted for population, any given black person was nearly twenty times more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime than any given white. There were approximately 4.6 times more white-on-black than black-on-white hate crimes in 2001, according to the hate crime report for 2002, and there were nearly seven times more people of color overall who were victimized in racially-motivated hate crimes in 2001 than whites, even though there were roughly two-and-a-half times more whites in the overall population.

Given the differential population sizes between whites and blacks, and whites and people of color generally, this data indicates that hate crime perps would clearly have had to engage in substantial targeting of non-white victims. After all, people of color generally, and blacks in isolation would have been far less available for white offenders than potential white victims would have been available for black offenders and other offenders of color. For whites to have found black victims nearly five times as often as the reverse suggests that whites are much more likely to seek out blacks to attack. furthermore, given the differential encounter rates between whites and blacks mentioned previously, the incidence of black-on-white hate crimes is actually lower than one might expect, since any given black person would generally be nearly twenty times more likely to encounter a white person than vice-versa.

Indeed, if blacks are nineteen times more likely to encounter whites than vice-versa, any given black person would have nineteen times more opportunities to commit a hate crime against a white than a given white person would have to commit a hate crime against a black person. Of course this does not mean that we would expect nineteen times more black-on-white hate crimes than the reverse, for the simple reason that there are only one-sixth as many blacks in the population who could theoretically commit such a crime. So, to determine the expected ratio of black-on-white hate crimes relative to white-on-black hate crimes given random chance, one must account for the fact that the blacks who are nineteen times more likely to have an interracial encounter are only one-sixth as prevalent in the population, and the whites who are 1/19th as likely to have an interracial encounter are six times more prevalent in the population.

Once the 19:1 black-on-white encounter ratio is multiplied by 1/6 (representing the smaller general black population size), we find that differential rates of encounter and population availability would predict that if levels of racial hatred were equal between whites and blacks, and the willingness to commit a hate crime were equal between the two groups, in any given year there should be 3.15 times more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes (19/6 or 19x.167 = 3.15). That in truth there are nearly five times more white-on-black hate crimes than the reverse suggests that blacks are significantly less likely to commit an anti-white hate crime than would be expected and whites are dramatically more likely to commit an anti-black hate crime than could be expected.

back to bryant again…

in spite of the fact that blacks are only 13% of the population — something that would make their per-capita rate for hate crimes far higher than for whites,

As for the claim that the per capita rates of hate crimes are much higher for blacks than whites, this is an old, but not terribly accurate argument.

Jared Taylor originated the claim in “The Color of Crime,” pointing out that blacks, (at 12 percent of the population) commit 19% of hate crimes based on race or ethnicity, while whites (at 72% of the population) commit 63%, for a black per capita disproportion of nearly 2:1 (19:12 = 1.58; 63:75 = 0.875; 1.58:0.875 = 1.8 or an 80% higher rate for blacks). But these numbers are inaccurate. To reach this conclusion, Taylor wrongly ignored the likely racial makeup of those hate crime offenders for whom race is unknown to police–a large section of overall hate crimes offenders, and yet, it is quite easy to estimate the breakdowns in this category.

There is no reason to think that the racial makeup of these offenders whose race is unknown is particularly different than the makeup of those whose race is known to police, and estimates of these numbers can be made by examining the “unknown” numbers in relation to the categories of offense/victimization. In other words, the “unknown” offenders in the “anti-white” hate crime category are likely to mirror, racially, the offenders for whom race was known in that category; so too with those in the “anti-black” category, etc.

When the appropriate adjustments are made, for 2001, whites committed 77.5% of all racially or ethnic-motivated hate crimes (78.4% of all hate crimes in all categories), while blacks committed 17.8% of all race and ethnic crimes (16.8% of all hate crimes in all categories).

At this point Taylor (and Bryant) would likely argue that even these numbers indicate a black disproportion. After all, blacks, according to taylor, are just 12% of the population age 12 and over but commit 17.8% of race and ethnic crimes, while whites commit 77.5% while representing 72% of the 12 and over population. let’s do the math:

17.8:12 = 1.48 77.5:72 = 1.076

1.48:1.076 = 1.375

Indeed, at first Taylor seems right: even with the above adjustment, blacks are about a third more likely to commit a race or ethnic hate crime than whites.

However, there is an additional adjustment that Taylor failed to make, and which is vital to an understanding of hate crime violence. Namely, hate crimes–even more so than regular crimes–are an overwhelmingly young man’s “game” so to speak: nearly all recorded hate crimes in the u.s. are perpetrated by persons (mostly males) younger than 30, especially between the ages of 15 and 25. And indeed, one of the most significant factors in predicting whether a particular community will experience high rates of hate crime activity is the percentage of its population between the ages of 15-19, from which age cohort a disproportionate share of hate crimes emanate. (See, Medoff, Marshall H. 1999. “Allocation of time and hateful behavior: a theoretical and positive analysis of hate and hate crimes,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology. October). This is critical, because this means that when comparing hate crime rates with relative black and white population sizes, one cannot use the general population cohorts (12 and 72%), but rather must use the more truncated population cohort sizes for blacks and whites between 15 and 29 years of age. And since the 15 to 29 population is blacker than the general population and there are fewer whites in this cohort, adjusting for age eliminates the so-called black disproportion.

According to the Census: (United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2002. Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2002. 122nd edition, Washington D.C., table 8: 11 and calculations by author.)

Non-hispanic whites are 62% of persons 15 to 29 Blacks are 14.4% of persons 15 to 29

Thus, if blacks commit 17.8% of race and ethnic crimes: 17.8:14.4= 1.236 And if whites commit 77.5% of race and ethnic crimes: 77.5:62 = 1.25

Thus, whites and blacks are roughly equally likely to commit a race or ethnic crime.

When looking at all hate crimes together, blacks commit 16.8%, so: 16.8:14.4 = 1.17

whites commit 78.4% of all hate crimes, so: 78.4:62 = 1.265

so whites are slightly more likely to commit a hate crime generally, once age is controlled.

Back to bryant…

and all this in the face of the fact that blacks are rarely charged with ‘hate crimes’ whereas white crimes are scrutinized with a microscope for anything that resembles ‘hate’.

Actually, I have heard some folks argue that they now oppose hate crimes legislation precisely because it has been used disproportionately against blacks, in particular. I do not share this view, but it is one I have heard articulated by several activists. As it turns out, I actually oppose hate crimes laws because I don’t think it does anything to address the problem that motivated the behavior, plus I generally think sending people to jail is something we do too quickly for most crimes, and that there are more constructive ways to punish those who do engage in bigoted actions, rather than locking them up.

as a prime example of his liberal bias, wise cites the cannibalism of white homosexual jeffrey dahmer, but does not mention that cannibalism is practically a tradition in africa, the place to which present-day ‘african-americans’ so proudly trace their ‘roots’; and that while it may not be possible to cite instances in america of black cannibalism, we can expect that this has a lot less to do with its infrequency of occurrence among ‘african-americans’ than it does with the failure of the mass media to report fairly.

Again, lack of evidence is evidence, at least to the birdman. There is little if any evidence that cannibalism was ever common in West Africa, which is the part of Africa from which most all African Americans came. If you’d like factual information, as opposed to the rambling bigotry of Mr. Bryant, I would recommend the work of Basil Davidson (neither a jew, nor a black guy, but a very white euro type–the kind even a nazi should be able to trust!).

As for cannibalism in the U.S. by African Americans, dontch’a figure that if people were disappearing and being consumed, that we’d hear about that? That the families of the eaten would be like, “Holy shit people, my auntie just got eaten up by the neighbor!” I mean, I know we (meaning the jewish media titans) are good at covering things up, but good god, how in the world can you believe that there is some kind of black cannibal phenomenon taking place in the U.S. that no one can find evidence of?

And while we’re on the subject of cannibalism, or general comparisons between africa and europe…

Herodotus disparaged the scythians (nomads in the grasslands of southern Russia) for drinking the blood of those they killed in combat and scalping their victims (Herodotus, 1952, The Histories. IV (George Rawlinson trans.), Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica: 45), as well as other European tribes for engaging in ritual cannibalism. European cannibalism was common it appears: among the more prominent examples, in 1476, in Milan, tyrant Galeazzo Maria Sforza was dismembered and eaten by an angry mob; and in 1572, after the St. Barthelemew’s day massacre, huguenot body parts were sold at auction and eaten in Paris and Lyon (Sale, Kirkpatrick, 1990. The Conquest of Paradise. NY: Knopf).

The Celts of Ireland were seen as particularly backwards. According to Greek geographer Strabo, the Celts cannibalized their dead fathers and the men had sex with their mothers and sisters (Strabo, 1988. The Geography. IV (Horace Leonard Jones trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University: 5.4). Diodorous said they were drunken brutes who would fight for no reason at all, (Diodorous Siculus, 1933. 26 (C.H. Oldfather trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University: 3), and until the twelfth century of the common era, it was typical for the kings of one Irish clan to celebrate their coronations by having sexual intercourse with a horse (Cahill, Thomas, 1995. How the Irish Saved Civilization. NY: Anchor/Doubleday: 12).

Master race indeed!

There are, however, numerous and continuing reports of cannibalism from africa itself, one of the most celebrated in recent years being that of ugandan dictator idi amin, who kept human body parts in his refrigerator.

This is recent? Amin was in power in the 70s, and actually there was never confimation that Amin, for all his crimes, ate human body parts.

author philip wylie once remarked of sex that “if the boys do it, then the girls must”; and the same logic applies to ‘african-americans’: if their ‘bruthas’ in wonderful africa are doing it in great profusion, then it seems rather likely that they are doing it in america, if perhaps not quite so often.

Again, lack of evidence as evidence…and by this logic, combined with the examples I gave above re: Italian and French and Celtic cannibalism, that means there must be a lot of human buffet activity going on amongst their American descendants too…not to mention some serious horse fucking by the Irish American community.

and speaking of africa and unique crimes, there are just a couple that wise ‘somehow failed’ to mention which are particularly horrendous: baby rape, which africans do in the belief that it will cure them of aids;

Source please for this claim, especially as it demonstrates some kind of common african trend?

and of course the old stand-by of slavery, which has been practiced since the dawn of time around the world, but which was stopped a century and a half ago by whites, tho it is still practiced by many african blacks.

Bryant conveniently overlooks the fact that slavery was not stopped because whites had a change of heart, but rather because the system had become unmanageable, and unprofitable, not to mention there had been over 200 serious slave rebellions, the righteous and entirely justified killing of slavers by Nat Turner, and of course the civil war itself, before whites decided to “end slavery.”

As for slavery in Africa today, I am aware of two countries where it exists–horrific to be sure–and I fully support ending all U.S. support for or contact with those nations that practice it.

Bryant yet again:

slavery may perhaps not be practiced in america, except in the case of white women whom black men manage to get their hooks into;

Ah yes, Birdman is worried about those great big hooks…Sorta like Phil Rushton and the rest of the white nationalist intelligentsia. It’s always and forever about the big black “hooks.”

…but blacks have made themselves famous for their proclivity toward underage sex, as is suggested by their best-known addition to the english vocabulary, ‘mother-fucker’.

Amazing…a word use proves that blacks have a proclivity for underage sex? How so? And anyway, wouldn’t a word like motherfucker imply, if anything, a proclivity for incest? I mean, shit, can we get our sexual fetishes straight here guys, for just a minute please?

but speaking of unique black crime, let us ask where whites have ever done anything to equal the horrendous gang rapes and murders of white women, something apotheosized by the late career criminal, admitted white rapist and proud black panther leader eldridge cleaver,

When have whites ever done anything as horrendous as that? Hmm…let’s see:

When the European Christians took Jerusalem in 1099 during the crusades (hardly a celebration of life), they massacred all the muslims and then herded the jews into a synagogue and burned it down while they remained inside (Churchill, Ward, 1997. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas: 1492 to the Present. SF: City Lights, 402-3)

Between 1200 and 1600, these “white” respecters of human life systematically exterminated “pagans,” and throughout the last millennium were regularly at war with other nations and groups (ibid).

The English pursued deliberate terror against the Irish, noting, “the heads of all those killed…should be cut off from their bodies…and laid on the ground…so that none could come into his tent for any cause but commonly he must pass through a lane of heads…it brought great terror to the people when they saw the heads of their dead fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolk, and friends” (Takaki, Ron. 1993. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. NY: Little Brown: 27).

Genocide against the indigenous of the Americas from 1492-1892, resulted in the elimination of over ninety percent of American Indians through war, extermination, overwork to the point of death, and disease: a likely death toll surpassing 100 million souls (Churchill, also, Stannard, David. American Holocaust, 1993).

According to BartolomÈ de las Casas, a priest who traveled with Columbus (he of the Italian life-loving Europeans, working for the Spanish life-loving Europeans): “endless testimonies…prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives…but our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy…(Columbus)…was so anxious to please the king that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians” (Zinn, howard, 1980. A People’s History of the United States. NY: Harper and Row: 5-6, quoting from Las Casas’s journals). He described the treatment of Taino Indians on Hispaniola by the Spanish as follows:

(They) made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut off his head at one blow; they tore the babes from their mother’s breasts by their feet and dashed their heads against the rocksä they spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords (Churchill, 1997: 87).

The Europeans who conquered North America showed no respect for the lives of those already here. In 1623, Captain William Tucker took his soldiers to negotiate a peace treaty with the Powhatans. Afterward, Tucker persuaded the Powhatans to drink a toast with poisoned wine. two hundred died immediately and his soldiers killed fifty more, bringing back heads as souvenirs (Takaki, 1993: 36). A century-and-a-half later, having still not killed enough indians, Thomas Jefferson would write: “Nothing will reduce those wretches so soon as pushing the war into the heart of their country. But I would not stop there. I would never cease pursuing them with war while one remained on the face of the earth (ibid: 47).”

Killing alone was apparently not sufficient for some. after the battle of horseshoe bend, troop leader Andrew Jackson supervised the mutilation of over 800 indian corpses. His men cut off noses and sliced strips of flesh from the bodies for use as bridle reins (Churchill, 1997: 186). Fifty years later, the third Colorado volunteer cavalry massacred Cheyenne and Arapaho noncombatants at Sand Creek. The victorious cavalry–fighting on behalf of the life-respecting white government–scalped the dead, severed the male genitals, used severed testicles for tobacco pouches, and then paraded in the streets of denver with severed female genitals stretched over their hats (ibid).

Respect for human life was also little evidenced by white treatment of Africans. Aside from the inhumanity of slavery itself, there was the fairly common obscenity of holding lynch parties. As if it were not bad enough to murder someone and to do so without due process of law, these events were more than mere killings for the white crowds that would gather to enjoy the spectacle. Lynchers would drag blacks to death behind cars, torture them with blowtorches and burn them to death in what were advertised as “negro barbecues.” One black couple had their fingers and ears chopped off one by one, their eyes gouged out and their bodies ripped open with corkscrews before being tossed in the fire (Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. NY: Simon and Schuster: 45).

Contrary to racist claims that lynchings were typically reserved for criminals in the black community who had raped or murdered whites, the reality is that lynchings were usually carried out for no reason at all, other than to demonstrate white supremacy over people of color. At the height of racial lynching, less than a third of lynchings were precipitated by alleged sexual assault (Russell, Katheryn, 1998. The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment and Other Macroaggressions. NYU Press: 21), and there were few murders of whites by blacks during this time. Rather, lynchings often stemmed from perceived “disrespect” of whites by blacks, “uppity behavior,” and “forgetting one’s place.

As Grace Elizabeth Hale explains in her study of southern race relations from 1890-1940, oftentimes whites would lynch blacks merely for arguing over a sharecropping settlement, or for demanding better wages and work conditions. She quotes W.J. Cash from 1941 to the effect that lynching was socially defensible to whites because to “smash a sassy negro, to kill him, to do the same to a ‘nigger lover’–this was to assert the white man’s prerogative…to get a black man back in his place, so as to lynch” (see, Hale, Grace Elizabeth. 1998. Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940. NY: Pantheon: 201).

In the aftermath of slavery, the Freedman’s Bureau recorded the circumstances surrounding lynchings in the south, noting that among the “reasons” given for such extra-judicial executions were a desire to “see (the victim) kick,” or because the black person in question had failed to take his hat off in deference to a white man (Clarke, James W. 2001. The Lineaments of Wrath: Race, Violent Crime, and American Culture. Transaction Books: 78). In fact, lynchings for exhibiting “disrespect” were just as prevalent as those preceded by a charge of rape (with or without supporting evidence), and lynchings for alleged non-violent offenses were the most common of all (ibid: 146).

Lynching and mob violence against blacks in the wake of emancipation resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of African Americans between 1866 and the turn of the century (Clarke, 2001: 94, 113). Well into the 1900s such atrocities were common, and became even more depraved, with the instruments of death “progressing” from ropes and burning pyres, to blowtorches and boiling tar (ibid, 175, fn 38). In the aftermath of lynchings it was not uncommon for spectators to purchase the amputated body parts of the victim as souvenirs (ibid, 140). How any of this is consistent with white civilizational superiority remains a mystery.

Of course, this white violence against African peoples was hardly limited to the United States. European exploitation of African nations and peoples led to mass death as well, aside from the slave trade. Belgians, for example, turned their colonial outpost in the Congo into a virtual graveyard, in which King Leopold’s forces extinguished the lives of as many as ten million persons, or about half of the territory’s population (Cone, James H. 2000. “Whose Earth is it Anyway?” Cross Currents. Spring-Summer.)

And carried on in the present day by Latino and black urban gangs like the nuestra familia (http://www.elandar.com/online_stories/12_03/story_gangs.html), the crips and the bloods, where such crimes are de rigueur for gang-member wannabees.

Fascinating. I followed the link above, expecting to see some evidence of how Nuestra Familia engages in ritual gang rape of white women…surprise, the articles supported by the link (there are three in an investigative series) say nothing even remotely like that. Nice try John…Once again, making a claim without evidence and throwing in a link, which you know your readers won’t check, which doesn’t support the claim at all. In fact, if you read the pieces they paint a very clear picture that the gang in question almost exclusively targets rival gang members, and other Latinos in particular, for the crimes they commit (robbing border crossers from Mexico, for example).

Maybe John got confused by the usage of the word “gangbangers” in the articles. maybe he assumed this meant what porn addicts like himself assume it means–namely orgiastic fuck-fests. of course, it doesn’t mean that. Gangbanging is the word for the act of being in a gang, and engaging in whatever activities the gang engages in: drug sales, prostitution, etc. And of course, where he got the idea that the “gangbanging” was not only sexual, but directed at white women, is anyone’s guess.

Of course, anyone who studies gangs or has ever met former gang members and discussed the issue with them knows how gang members get initiated in almost all cases. it is not by killing someone typically (though sure, sometimes this happens), and certainly not by raping anyone, but by being jumped in–that is to say, getting the shit beat out of you by current members of the gang. A fucked up ritual, to be sure, but not one that even remotely comes close to that implied by Bryant, sans evidence, of course.

I have met and had conversations with probably three dozen ex-gangmembers: some in prison, and some who are long since out of the lifestyle and very productive citizens. Every one of them got jumped in, except for one guy, whose initiation did indeed involve killing someone. He’s in prison for that, actually. But, I should note, he was not directed to go kill a white person (he is black, by the way), but rather, a former gang member who had left the gang previously, without “permission.” Fucked up, without a doubt, but not some anti-white rapefest.

Even the kkk at its height never did anything anywhere approaching the acts of these groups, which are carried out for fun, as opposed to the kkk, whose motive was simply to keep blacks from becoming what they now are — a scourge on whites; and the fact that blacks have now indeed become a scourge on whites, as indicated by crime statistics, quite plainly shows that the kkk was basically right and their actions were basically justified.

I needn’t even reply to that, given the information provided previously regarding the “fun” of lynching in the eyes of sick-ass white people, some klan, some not, whose motive was to dominate and control people (and to provide entertainment at their picnics). Anyone who would say the Klan’s actions were justified is not someone who a) is capable of rational thought; b) the kind of human being who should be taken seriously; and c) is the kind of person who I am really not worried about persuading very many people, other than those who already think it is ok to physically assault or even kill people of color.

Continuing on the subject of unique black crimes, another one of these is rioting: where have white mobs torn up cities as blacks did in the 60s (remember ‘burn, baby, burn’?), and as they have continued to do regularly in such urban areas as detroit, los angeles, st petersburg and washington dc, to name just four?

Let’s be clear…black riots are hardly “regular” in the current period. Detroit hasn’t had one in decades, nor DC. L.A. has had two in 40 years, and St Pete, one.

Secondly, whites did indeed tear up cities that way, very regularly in fact, from around 1919 to the mid 30s. Indeed, during that time, there was more than one white riot annually, throughout the country: almost always led by white mobs, attacking black communities, because of rumors of rape of a white woman, or because the black community was becoming too successful and “uppity” (as with Greenwood, in Tulsa). These riots did millions in damage (even in the valuation of the currency at the time, let alone in current dollars), and resulted in hundreds and hundreds of deaths (see, Doug Massey and Nancy Denton, American Apartheid, 1993. Harvard University Press).

In fact, blacks are so well-known for their rioting that race hustlers like al sharpton and jesse jackson use the (unstated but implied) threat of black riots over this or that particular ‘racist’ incident to shake down politicians while greasing their own palms and raising their status among blacks. it is true that wise cites several instances of whites rioting over “crackdowns on underage drinking or the results of a football game”, and perhaps he is correct in his citations; but one thing we can be quite sure of is that the rioting was of very limited seriousness and duration, and certainly did not trash neighborhoods or whole cities, lead to extensive looting or fires

Actually, several of the riots did result in massive property damage, as with the 1999 riot in East Lansing, which did about 10 million in damage, resulted in hundreds of injuries, etc. of course, that isn’t the point. John is, as always, trying to excuse white misbehavior, including rioting for no reason at all, but the inability to get drunk. My point was simply to say that when whites engage in this kind of mindless violence, it is never viewed as a group pathology. The rioters are seen as “pranksters” or “hooligans,” or even misunderstood youth (this was actually said by some folks after East Lansing), but never as a dangerous bunch of predators who should be expelled from school, or whose very admission to the school should be re-thought, given the apparent group propensity of whites to have such lack of respect for the law that they engage in this kind of thing. Meanwhile, if black or latino students at these colleges had engaged in the same kind of rioting, you know damned good and well, Bryant and every one of the people who think like him would have been talking about it as the result of “affirmative action lowering standards” and resulting in the admission of “animals.” In other words, they would racialize the deviance, rather than seeking to excuse it.

involve pulling those of other races from cars and smashing their heads with bricks, or require calling in the national guard, as do most black riots.

Well, the brick to the head reference above, which refers to Reginald Denny, of course, though a typical reference, was hardly a typical event. First off, the act was committed by three guys, not black people generally. Secondly, it was two black guys who rushed in to save Denny, but naturally, their race is seen as irrelevant by white bigots–certainly not viewed as inherent evidence of the humanity and decency of black people–while the race of the three thugs is paramount in their minds. typically inconsistent.

Secondly, the LA riot in 92 was not a black riot at all, if by that we mean a riot in which most of the participants were black. According to the LAPD itself, about 60 percent of the rioters were latino, 25 percent were black, and 13 percent were white, while perhaps 2 percent were asian or unclassified, though the media represented it as nothing more than black deviance. By definition, this was a friggin’ rainbow riot, with all kinds of folks involved. None of this makes it any better, but it is worth pointing out that referring to such an event as a black riot, which seemed to be implied above, is dishonest.

but if the above-cited unique crimes of blacks are not enuf, there is one which particularly deserves to be mentioned here: organized racial assassinations. These, of course, have been covered up by the media as much as possible, but we have seen this kind of behavior enough — and the absence of similar white behavior — to realize that this is yet another unique negro crime. the three examples i know of are the san francisco zebra killings, the florida yahweh ben yahweh cult, and of course the dc shooters, john allen muhammad and lee boyd malvo. there are undoubtedly many other cases, but suppression of news by the liberal media has allowed only these three to have any significant publicity, most likely because they simply could not be covered up.

Once again, lack of any evidence of other examples, is, to Bryant’s mind, proof of evidence. This is about as convincing as Rumsfeld saying that lack of WMD in Iraq proves there were WMD in Iraq, but that it merely got moved.

Secondly, in what statistical model does having three examples of a phenomenon make it unique to the group that perpetrated the phenomenon in those three cases? How is that a large enuf sample to say, “this is a unique black crime?” That is called sampling error John…perhaps they skipped that in math classes at Antioch. (Antioch College is where Bryant went to college in the late 60s)

Of course, in truth, one of the three examples isn’t valid at all: namely the DC snipings. These were hardly organized racial assassinations, seeing as how there were 5 people of color among those shot. Mohammed was angry at his ex-wife over a custody dispute and went on a shooting spree, apparently to create a diversion, so that he could then track down his ex, who lived in the area, and kill her. Thankfully, he was stopped, but there is no evidence at all that this was a racial vendetta.

As for whites not ever engaging in this kind of organized killing, what the hell are you talking about? What is david lane in jail for right now? What are other Order members in jail for right now (hint: it ‘aint just the armored car robberies boys). Not to mention there are several National Alliance and Aryan Nations members (and hangers on) who have been arrested for plotting killing sprees too…luckily, white supremacists are some stupid ass sum’bitches, and tend to get caught before carrying out their plans. That hardly absolves them from being accused of having the same murderous intent though.

And of course, there’s oklahoma city, which although Mcveigh never denied committing the act, folks like Bryant naturally think was done by Jews, or the government or whatever. Of course, of course, i am interacting with mental cases, who have sadly gone off their meds.

Now while it may seem somewhat anticlimactic, we should at least give a brief discussion to wise’s disingenuous statistics in the second half of his article relating to drinking, drug-taking and other misbehaviors. he begins by his usual tactic of avoiding actual comparative statistics, and instead simply cites a raft of cases of various horendous crimes by whites which, as we have already noted, prove nothing beyond the fact of anti-white bias in reportage. having spent over half a column on this exercise in silliness, he then leaps to actual comparative statistics, which do not take into account per-capita comparisons, but only raw numbers, and therefore constitute simple bald-faced lies. (well of course there are going to be fewer drunk black drivers, mr wise, because only 13% of the population is black. duuuuhhhhhhhhh!!!!)

Oh Johnny, can ye not read? Go back and look at the article again, my dear, dear Antioch College math major. The data was not, indeed, raw number data…it was per capita rate data. I did not merely say there were more white drunk drivers, but that whites are actually more likely to drive drunk–a fundamentally different claim.

The data is clear, however much you ignore it. Whites not only drive drunk more often than blacks, they just straight up drink more…lots more in fact. here is the data:

Overall, whites are nearly 40 percent more likely than blacks to drink, 10 percent more likely to binge drink (meaning to drink at least five drinks at one sitting), and 70 percent more likely than blacks to binge drink on a regular basis (the definition of a heavy drinker) (see, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003. Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Summary of Findings from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD., Table h.17). White youth between the ages of 12-17 are nearly twice as likely as blacks that age to ever consume alcohol, 2.5 times more likely to have engaged in binge drinking, and six times more likely to binge drink on a regular basis (ibid, h.18) among young adults (ages 18-25), whites are nearly 80 percent more likely to binge drink than blacks and more than three times as likely to do so on a regular basis (ibid, h.19).

According to the most recent federal data, whites are 70 percent more likely than blacks to drink underage (ibid. table h.21), more than twice as likely to binge drink underage, and four times as likely to binge drink regularly (ibid). In fact, whereas 23 percent of whites between the ages of 12-20 occasionally binge drink, only 19 percent of blacks that age ever consume alcohol, let alone five or more drinks at once (ibid.). In other words, whites are more likely to binge drink underage than blacks are to drink underage at all.

Furthermore, while nearly one in ten white eighth graders has been drunk in the past month, less than five percent of similar blacks have been–a two-to-one difference. In tenth grade, one in four whites has been drunk, while fewer than one in ten blacks that age have been: a difference of 2.6 to 1. Among twelfth graders, whites are three times more likely than blacks to have been drunk, with nearly 40 percent of all white twelfth graders, but only 12 percent of comparable blacks having been drunk (Johnston, L.D., P.M. O’Malley and J.G. Bachman, 2002. “Demographic subgroup trends for various licit and illicit drugs, 1975-2001,” Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper no. 57. [on-line]. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, tables d-42, d-43). Whereas 1 in 12 whites between 12 and 20 years of age is a heavy drinker who consumes five or more drinks at a time at least five times per month, only one in 50 black youth fit this description (SAMHSA, 2003, table h.21), and black high school seniors are less likely to binge drink than whites who are only in eighth grade (Johnston, O’Malley and Bachman, 2002: tables d-44, d-45). Among college students, in 2001, whites were 2.3 times more likely than blacks to binge drink (Wechsler, Henry, et.al., 2002. “Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts,” Journal of American College Health. 50, March: 207, table 2, and 208), and as of 1999 they were four times more likely to do so regularly (Wechsler, Henry, 2000. “College binge drinking in the 1990’s: a continuing problem,” Journal of American College Health, 48: 203, 204).

As for drunk driving:

Whites are also 73 percent more likely than blacks (on a per capita basis) to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002. National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 50, no. 5, feb 12, also, CDC, 2002, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, “Unintentional Injuries/Violence, 2001, United States,” Youth 2001 Online): a behavior that is directly implicated in the deaths of some 17,000 people per year (Glassner, 1999: 8).

back to bryant:

in particular, wise’s assertion that blacks use drugs less than whites is ludicrous — i have never heard of a crack house in a white neighborhood.

This gets the award for the greatest non-sequitur ever devised. the presence or absence of crack houses is now the key to determining relative rates of drug use among blacks and whites? Where is the logic in that?

First, crack is not the only drug, therefore the presence or absence of crackhouses in black or white communities has nothing to do with overall drug use.

Secondly, crack houses are almost always in abandoned housing, which means they will be found in poor neighborhoods, by definition. but this does not mean there will greater usage in such areas. Usage could be–and is–higher among whites, whose use of drugs takes place not in crack houses, but in their own homes, offices, dorm rooms, frat houses, etc.

By this logic, I could argue that I have never heard of a meth lab in the inner city (or very, very rarely), thus black drug use and latino drug use is less by definition. That would also be an absurd “proof.” The proof or lack thereof is in the data provided by those whose job it is to compile the data. and they are very clear:

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, whites and blacks are equally likely to be current drug users: in some years, whites have a slightly higher rate of use; in other years, blacks have a slightly higher rate; while in other years, the rates are identical (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003. Results From the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, also, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999. Summary of Findings from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD).

Consistently, irrespective of year, the white rate of drug use is higher than the latino rate, despite common misperceptions that hispanic drug use is inordinately high (ibid). Interestingly, although black youth and young adults are more likely than whites to have been approached by a drug dealer in the past month, they are less likely to have used drugs in the past thirty days (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (SAMHSA), 2000. 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.

In fact, according to the above source, black youth, 12-17 are 9% more likely than white youth that age to be approached by a drug dealer or offered drugs in any given month, but they are less likely to actually use drugs than the white youth. Black young adults (18-25) are 15% more likely than white young adults to be approached by a dealer or offered drugs, but white young adults are 13% more likely to use drugs than black young adults. And although black adults over the age of 26 are slightly more likely than white adults to use drugs (20% more likely), they are 2.75 times (175%) more likely to be approached by a dealer or offered drugs than their white counterparts. In other words, given the greater availability of drugs and pressure to use exerted upon blacks, their use of drugs compared to whites is far lower than one would expect: either lower altogether (for kids and young adults) or only marginally higher for adults.

Likewise, although latino youth (12-17) use drugs at roughly the same rate as whites that age, they are twice as likely to be approached by a dealer and offered drugs. For latino young adults, they are 40% more likely than comparable whites to be approached by a dealer or offered drugs, but white young adults are 30% more likely than comparable latinos to use drugs; and although latino/a adults are less likely to use drugs than white adults, they are twice as likely to be offered drugs in a given month that their white counterparts.

Also interesting, white youth 12-17 are about one-fourth more likely than black youth that age to have received anti-drug information at school or at home, but they are still more likely to use than comparable blacks

In each of the past five years, white rates of current drug use for youth ages 12-17 and 18-26 have been considerably higher than for blacks or latinos (SAMHSA, various years, 1999-2003).

Regardless of the source consulted, disproportionate drug use and abuse is particularly a problem for young whites, relative to their counterparts of color. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Centers for Disease Control, white high school students have higher rates of drug use for all drug categories than blacks (CDC, 2002, Youth 2001 Online). Indeed, black seniors have the lowest rates of use when compared with whites and latinos (Johnston, O’Malley and Bachman, 2003: 134-136). In fact, black students from the poorest neighborhoods, in schools where most students live in public housing, show lower levels of drug use than whites of the same age and grade (Lipsitz, George. 1998. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University: 10). Overall, whites between 8th and 12th grade are 46 percent more likely than similar blacks to be current drug users (Johnston, O’Malley and Bachman, 2003, 134-136).

White high school students are nearly five times more likely per capita (this is not a raw number claim but a rate claim), than black students to have used cocaine, and three times more likely to be current cocaine users (CDC, 2002, Youth 2001 Online). White students are nearly five-and-a-half times more likely than blacks to have used methamphetamine, and twice as likely to have used heroin (ibid). From 1992-2001, white high school seniors were, on average, 41 percent more likely than black seniors to have used any type of illegal narcotic, 37 percent more likely to have smoked pot, nearly 700 percent more likely to have used inhalants like glue or paint fumes to get high, 650 percent more likely to have used lsd, 540 percent more likely to have used ecstasy, 400 percent more likely to have used cocaine, and 240 percent more likely than black seniors to have smoked crack (Johnston, L.D., P.M. O’Malley and J.G. Bachman, 2002. “Demographic subgroup trends for various licit and illicit drugs, 1975-2001,” Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper no. 57. [on-line]. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, tables d-2, d-6, d-8, d-12, d-16, d-18, d-20, d-24, d-33).

The figures for current use (as opposed to lifetime use) are similar: whites between 8th and 12th grade are four times more likely, on average, to have used cocaine or hallucinogens in the past month, and 38 percent more likely to smoke pot. Indeed, white high school seniors are 73 percent more likely than black seniors to smoke pot daily (Johnston, O’Mallley and Bachman, 2003: 134-136).

back to john…

but even if it were true that whites used more drugs per capita than blacks, that really isn’t the point — the point is, do they use drugs responsibly? the answer is, whites usually do; blacks usually don’t, as a brief tour of any inner-city area should tell you.

Once again, John excuses white criminality and deviant behavior, while he would never do that if blacks used drugs and booze more often, no matter how responsibly they did so (and since when is drunk driving responsible? It kills more people than street murder each year, actually, and many times more than black murderers kill each year.

And of course, if it weren’t for white demand there would be no drug trade worthy of the name. when the majority of the trade is sold to whites, then the trade is being driven by white conduct, not black…

Getting close to the end now…thankfully…back to the birdman…

in closing, there is yet another fact — or rather, series of facts — besides crime statistics which indicate that wise’s attempt to prove ‘equality’ between white and black crime is mendacious. we can see this by contrasting the reputations of two minorities, both of which are said to be ‘discriminated against’, yet whose supposed faults are of an entirely different nature — blacks and jews. for example, jews are often said to be unfair in commercial dealings

Yes, by bigots who essentialize dishonesty as Jewish when engaged in by a Jew, but who don’t when the same behavior is evinced by a non-jew…

but no one ever claims that they are a problem because of robbery, rape or riots. my point here is that different accusations — and indeed the much-maligned ‘prejudice’ — arise from the observation of different facts, and the reason the accusations are different is because the facts are different, and indeed that ‘prejudice’, so called, is nothing more than wisdom acquired over generations of long and painful experience.

John, like all racists seeks to justify selective memory and selective application of stereotypes in this preceding paragraph. So, my point is that although most anyone who is white has had plenty of bad experiences with other white people, we tend not to then generalize about whites as a result. But if we have a bad experience or experiences with a black person, or whatever (or a gentile with a jew), we do indeed generalize and hold that against the group as a whole, even though those latter bad experiences are far less frequent in our lives.

So, for example, most of us who are white (I know, John and his fans don’t think I am, cuz of that Jew thing, despite an inability to demonstrate the unique genomic traits that render Jews non-white, or whites non-Jewish, and provide a bright line division between the two, but just play along for a second), have had plenty of bad experiences with other white folks: bosses who were white and treated us like shit, screwed us out of overtime pay, etc; or landlords who cheated us out of deposit money; or neighbors who really pissed us off for some reason; or teachers who treated us badly; or parents or other relatives who physically abused us (or for some folks, even sexually abused them); or any number of other examples i’m sure you can think of. Perhaps we’ve even been victimized criminally by a white person (I know I have, a couple of times). Yet, we don’t take away from that experience the idea that we now have “facts” which would justify a generalized prejudice towards whites. In fact, that generalized prejudice would be the height of stupidity. On the other hand, if we have had a person of color treat us like shit, or victimize us criminally (I’ve had that happen too), then we are (according to the logic of the birdman) justified in generalizing about the group, holding prejudices based on “rational” experience. But just as it is unfair for me to generalize about Christians on the basis of being treated pretty shitty by some of them growing up (and thank God I didn’t develop a generalized hostility towards Christians, because my mom, wife, daughters, and best friends are all gentiles), but so too is it absurd to generalize about Jews, even on the basis of isolated, unrepresentative experience; so too with blacks, latinos, etc.

back to john:

even more important is that liberals are essentially as prejudiced as ‘white bigots’; for not only do they advocate reverse discrimination (quotas, bussing, set-asides, etc), thereby acknowledging their belief that blacks must be given a leg up on whites in order to be ‘equal’,

This, of course, is not the argument of the left in favor of affirmative action. We do not claim that it is needed to give blacks a leg up, because absent such policies they would be incapable on their own; rather, the argument (and one is free to disagree with it, to be sure) is that absent AA, black folks would continue to be locked out of opportunity, irrespective of ability and qualifications thanks to racial bias–both overt and more subtle. Though I’d be willing to get into a discussion about AA with folks, I think the proof of what I just said is demonstrated by the very attitudes towards black folks held by people like John. Are we really to believe that such people could fairly evaluate a job applicant, and actually make a valid judgment of merit, while holding such admittedly anti-black views? Of course not. To even suggest such a thing would be absurd on the face of it. It is for that reason that AA is necessary–or at least this is our argument, so please represent it accurately–not to compensate for inferiority.

but one also does not see many liberals living in ‘equal’ black neighborhoods,

True enough, white liberals are often hypocrites…no shit. Just so you’ll know: I do live in a racially mixed neighborhood and my wife and I are looking to move into an even more racially mixed neighborhood within the next year. Our daughters will be attending schools that are about 45% white, 45% black, and 10% latino/asian combined. I previously lived in New Orleans, in mixed neighborhoods (most there are), and worked in public housing projects, that were pretty much 100% black.

or doing their shopping on ‘equal’ streets named for martin luther king, or letting their daughters date ‘equal’ black men other than ones who are enrolled at harvard, yale or columbia. all of which is to say that the only real difference between white liberals and white ‘bigots’ is that liberals either have very little experience in the real world, or else they are simply hypocrites up the wazoo.

Again, the fact of common white liberal hypocrisy is not an argument against my articles, my positions, or me, since I have not run away from the city, nor the public schools, nor would I do so. As for dating one’s daughter…I would only hope that my daughters date people who treat them well (white, black or otherwise), and given how many white men I know who treat women like shit, I cannot afford to assume that they would necessarily be treated better by a white man.

note: documentation for most of the undocumented statements in this essay can be found on the birdman’s website at www.thebirdman.org, or with a google search.

Ah, now there’s a nice move: telling folks to look it all up themselves, rather than providing them with the data references and citations oneself. classssssic.

till next time…

love and kisses,

shalom y’all

tim