Whiting Out Black Crime:
The Liberal Trickery of Tim Wise

By John 'Birdman' Bryant

Comments on "Color Conscious, White Blind/Race, Crime, and Pathology in America" at 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
This essay was originally posted as Birdman's Weekly Letter #325 (17 May 2005)

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

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

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

(For a collection of articles on black crime stats, see http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Blacks/Doc-Blacks-Crime&HateCrime/Doc-Blacks-Crime&HateCrime.htm)

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. 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.' 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.

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.

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.) 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; 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. Here are some links:

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

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

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

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'.

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. 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

Beyond this, Wise somehow 'fails to mention' that hate crimes are actually committed in greater number by blacks than by whites, 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, 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'.

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. 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. 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.

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; 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. Slavery may perhaps not be practiced in America, except in the case of white women whom black men manage to get their hooks into; 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'.

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, 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. 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.

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? 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, 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.

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.

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!!!!) 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. 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.

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, 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. 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', but one also does not see many liberals living in 'equal' black neighborhoods, 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.

Oh, and one other thing -- watch this article be rejected for publication by the website that published the article by Tim Wise. And then be sure to tell me how unbiased the liberal media is.

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.


This week's Hell's Lettres: Correspondence with Tim Wise

[Birdman writes to Tim Wise timjwise@msn.com]

I have written responses to two of your articles, and I have submitted them for publication in the respective journals where they were published. I have attached copies to this letter. These essays will also be published shortly in my Birdman's Weekly Letter. If you care to respond, I will post your comments along with the article, plus any subsequent comments by you or me. I have a popular webpage, so it might be worth your while to bestir yourself. But then liberals are much too good to talk to 'bigots' and 'racists', are they not?


[Tim replies:]


I will be happy to respond to these critiques of my articles, especially since you seem to have missed the point of both, and (as regards the second) utterly failed to understand the importance of the encounter rate disaggregation in skewering Taylor's Color of Crime report. I will explain it

s l o w l y

for you and your readership so they'll be sure to follow along

Having said that, it isn't going to happen in the next few days. Not because I'm too "good" to talk to folks like yourself (though frankly, yes, I am quite a bit better than someone who suggests blacks should be sent back to Africa and that whites should indeed hate blacks...yes indeed, I am come to think of it), but rather because I am more relevant, and thus have more important business to which I must attend.

In the meantime, feel free to post this response, sarcasm and all to your site, alerting people to the fact that I will indeed be responding. I will also post your critiques, along with my rebuttals, to my own site once they are completed.

As for your submissions to the two mags that ran my original pieces, be aware that they won't be published, for the same reason Stormfront doesn't run my stuff, nor American Renaissance, nor Jew Watch, nor the David Duke report, nor, for that matter, National Review even. Namely, the mags are openly leftist organs (as those above are on the right or far right), and are under no obligation to be a forum for all perspectives. It's not censorship; rather, it's editorial policy and ideology, about which those mags are quite clear.

And one more thing, call me whatever you like, but please know that I am far from a liberal. If you can't tell the difference between various elements of the left, then you are even a sorrier case than I imagined.

Love and Kisses,

Tim Wise


[Birdman responds:]


I am delighted to hear from you. My expectation is that your letter is in lieu of a genuine response, because it is my belief that you cannot genuinely overcome the criticisms I have made, but of course I will have to wait and see. How long will that be? A year, perhaps? Maybe a decade... (I am sure you will forgive the sarcasm, will you not?)

Now speaking of missing the point, kindly allow me to respond to your assertion that

As for your submissions to the two mags that ran my original pieces, be aware that they won't be published, for the same reason Stormfront doesn't run my stuff, nor American Renaissance, nor Jew Watch, nor the David Duke report, nor, for that matter, National Review even. Namely, the mags are openly leftist organs (as those above are on the right or far right), and are under no obligation to be a forum for all perspectives. It's not censorship; rather, it's editorial policy and ideology, about which those mags are quite clear.

The point you miss is that openness to criticism and willingness to respond to it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. But it has a hell of a lot to do with putting truth first. That is, one may be an x-ist or a y-er ideologically speaking, but that does not preclude one from being receptive to criticism, and from accepting the challenge -- indeed, the moral obligation, if it has a stout appearance -- of answering it. Which is to say that you -- and most of the folks on the Left (to say nothing of those on the Right) "just don't get it" (note sarcasm). For me, however, tho I have an ideology of sorts, my first commitment is to finding the truth. Theoretically, that is everyone's commitment, but in reality it rarely is -- or should I say that most folks think they already HAVE the truth -- or The Truth -- so they don't have to be bothered with answering critics. But a genuine commitment to truth -- and thus to answering critics -- always makes ideology stronger -- if you get criticized and discover you are wrong, you can change, and no one can fault you, while your new beliefs are now stronger than your old ones; but if you are right, then you can crow on your enemy's grave, because HE will never admit that HE is wrong, altho everyone else can pretty well see that he is.

Get the point, Tim? (And the sarcasm?)

Love of the f-word-you and anal kind (note additional sarcasm, along with the sarcasm of pointing out the sarcasm),


[Tim has not yet responded]


Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *