Originally published as Birdman's Weekly Letter #326 - May 24, 2005
Note: For sake of clarity, we have reproduced Wise's article in full, with comments interleaved in the text and marked appropriately. Wise can be reached at email@example.com.
The Color of Deception By Tim Wise October 19, 2004
"A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots." Although this truism was penned long before the Internet, there is little doubt but that in the modern era, it has become more prescient than its author could ever have imagined. When it comes to fast-moving lies, few can top one that has been distributed by white supremacists for the past several years. It is probably the most popular piece of racist propaganda in existence today, and because it relies on official government data, it comes across as sober, intelligent social science, rather than as the compendium of nonsense it happens to be. The screed to which I refer is "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. Taylor is the publisher of the racist magazine, American Renaissance, and host of an annual conference, which attracts open neo-Nazis as well as a gaggle of academicians who proclaim black genetic inferiority. According to Taylor, there are several "facts" about crime that have been hidden from view by the civil rights community. Among them: --Blacks are much more dangerous than whites as evidenced by higher crime rates; --Black criminals usually choose white victims and are far more likely to victimize whites than whites are to victimize blacks (both for regular violent crimes and hate crimes); --Black crime rates justify racial profiling, since it only makes sense to focus law enforcement attention on those who commit a disproportionate share of crime; and finally, --The interracial crime data makes white fear of African Americans perfectly rational. But a close examination of these arguments proves that Taylor and his followers are either statistically illiterate, or knowingly deceive for political effect. First, as for the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks, economic conditions explain the difference with white crime rates. According to several studies, when community and personal economic status is comparable between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime differences (1). In other words, the implicit message of Taylor's report--that blacks are dangerous because they are black--is insupportable.
[Birdman responds:] This is bizarre. First, Wise attributes black VIOLENCE to economic conditions, whereas what one might expect Wise to argue is that black CRIME is related to economic conditions, the idea being that, because blacks are poor, they have to steal to make ends meet. This I call the Les Miserables argument, after the Victor Hugo novel, where the main character must do exactly this; but this simply does not apply to blacks -- or to anyone in the US. There is a little thing called 'de welfare' that blacks are quite capable of utilizing. Of course if they take 'de welfare check' and spend it all on alcohol or crack the first day or so, then, yes, they might need to steal to eat, but that is not quite the same as saying -- as Wise is evidently attempting to say -- that blacks are JUSTIFIED in stealing (or in their higher crime rates) because of their poverty. "Explanation is not justification", as one might say. But here we run headlong into a rather tender point: Why are blacks mired in poverty? The standard liberal answer, of course, is 'white racism', but then how do we explain how all the other races, religions and ethnicities -- Chinese, Irish, Poles, Italians, Mormons, Jews, even hispanics -- in spite of heavy discrimination, have all survived and prospered after a generation or two, whereas blacks have been free for 150 years, and had discrimination IN THEIR FAVOR for 25 years, yet are still 'economically disadvantaged'? I would say it is a lot more reasonable to explain this as a matter of black incompetence than it is white evil. But if this is not sufficiently fatal for Wise's argument, we observe that he is trying to explain black VIOLENCE as a product of poverty, which could be a sort of reincarnation of the Les Miserables argument in the sense that robbery may sometimes involve violence; but even if there is more violence among the 'economically disadvantaged', this is not a JUSTIFICATION for violence, as we already pointed out. However, what may be happening is that Wise is attempting a sotto voce argument that blacks are 'justified' in violence against 'rich whites' because they are 'rich', since -- as every Leftist 'knows' -- anyone who is 'rich' has achieved his status only because he has 'stolen from the poor', or some such ("Property is theft" as Proudhon was famous for saying). Wise's stupidity does not end here, however. Specifically, he tells us that a study he cites 'proves' that there are no significant crime differences between blacks and whites when there is economic equality, with the implied conclusion that, if blacks can just be 'raised up economically' then black crime will become equal to white crime. Now supposing for the moment that all this were true, under what conditions would whites and blacks be equal economically? The answer -- barring affirmative action -- is the condition that blacks who are members of the study have equal or greater IQs than whites who are members of the study -- a condition which does not often occur in the real world. But IQ, as has often been noted, is most likely at the root of behavior: When it is low, as in blacks, people do not foresee the consequences of their actions as well, and thus are more likely to be criminals. Thus economic equality implies equality of intelligence which implies behavioral equality, and this I can accept. But since blacks have IQs which, on average, are 15 points lower than whites, this still means that, on average, blacks will be much more prone to criminality. What all this means, then, is that Wise's implied conclusion that 'raising up blacks economically' -- presumably by giving them more welfare or more affirmative action, since you can't raise their IQs -- will make them less crime-prone is cast into outer darkness, with wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth. In concluding this discussion, it should be pointed out that the Les Miserables argument -- that there is a direct relation between reduced economic status and crime -- is not necessarily the case. An outstanding refutation of this is the Depression -- this was a time when everyone was poor, and yet crime actually WENT DOWN. Naturally, it was also a time when blacks were under much firmer control of whites, so it was a time when black crime could not flower and bloom as it has in the present 'liberated' day. But the point here is that poverty does not stimulate crime in whites, and thus to attempt to excuse black crime by citing poverty is merely to acknowledge that blacks are morally inferior to whites.
[Wise continues:] Secondly, to claim that blacks are more dangerous than whites because of official crime rates, is to ignore that when it comes to everyday threats to personal well-being, whites far and away lead the pack in all kinds of destructive behaviors: corporate pollution, consumer fraud, violations of health and safety standards on the job, and launching wars on the basis of deceptive evidence, to name a few. Each year, far more people die because of corporate malfeasance, occupational health violations and pollution than all the street crime combined, let alone street crime committed by African Americans (2).
[Birdman responds:] While Wise is perfectly right to point out that whites sometimes (and in fact all too often) do wrong things when they have the power to do so does not prove that blacks would not do the same -- or perhaps much worse -- if THEY had the power.
[Wise continues:] [Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime - A Look at How Nazis Do Math] Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims. To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latino/as tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino/a, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
[Birdman responds:] While this is a bit off-topic, there is nothing so silly as the liberal attempt to use politically-correct names for standard ones. The worst and most widespread is of course s/he, but here is another which Wise uses, Latino/a. These peculiar formations of course ignore the fact that language must be speakable as well as writeable, and I have yet to hear someone tell me how you are supposed to pronounce these conflatulisms. I always think 'shhhhhh-heee' for the first, and I suppose I would have to say 'Latinoa' for the second, but I just cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind could tolerate such linguistic ugliness. Or to put it another way, it is clear that liberals are out of their frigging minds.
[Wise continues:] But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of "black crime," his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
[Birdman responds:] Wise's logic here can only be called bizarre. What he apparently wants you to believe is that 81.5% of black crimes 'ought' to be perpetrated on whites, because the latter are 81.5% of the population; but since only 51% of black crimes are perpetrated on whites, blacks are less of a threat than 'expected'. Now the problem with this argument is that it tacitly assumes that blacks and whites are equally and evenly mixed thruout society, but of course they are not. This is important because many crimes are due to momentary opportunity or passion, and such crimes will then necessarily be perpetrated on those who are nearby. But since blacks tend to cluster with other blacks, such crimes will be perpetrated on other blacks, not 'randomly'; and this then accounts for why black crime hits whites only 51% of the time when they are 81.5% of the population. Furthermore, this cannot be used to bolster the notion that blacks are 'less of a threat to whites than expected', as Wise attempts to do, because blacks are not mixed equally among whites. But there is more to the matter than this. For let us ask, What does it mean to say that a given group is a threat to whites in the matter of crime? The answer is that the group is a threat if the rate of crimes against whites increases as a result of the group's being introduced into the white community. And when we introduce a group into the white community whose crime rate is 9 times that of whites, chances are excellent that the crime rate against whites will indeed increase. (It will not NECESSARILY increase, however: It is conceivable, if extremely unlikely, that the group would perpetrate crime only on itself.)
[Wise continues:] As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor's position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group's members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime. As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect.
[Birdman responds:] The picture which Wise is painting here is that crime is purely a matter of probability, rather than a matter of choice. That is, Wise seems to be saying that because blacks encounter more whites than blacks, black-on-white crime will be more prevalent, because crime occurs randomly, rather than by choice. But while some crime does indeed occur randomly (earlier we mentioned crimes of passion and opportunity, which might fit the description of randomness), much crime is a matter of choice. And if blacks, like Willie Horton, want to go to 'where the money is', they are more likely to choose whites, or white-owned businesses, as victims, rather than blacks, who are typically poorer, and who are their racial 'bruthas' against the 'white devils'. Thus it is illegitimate for Wise to try to explain away the greater frequency of black-on-white crime as a mere epiphenomenon of uneven racial mixing -- a tactic, incidentally, which is precisely contrary to his earlier trick of trying to make the case that blacks are not a threat to whites because 'randomness' shows that whites should have been victims of blacks 81.5% of the time when it was only 51%.
[Wise continues:] In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9). Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.
[Birdman responds:] Here again Wise is using the equal mix/random encounter theory to 'prove' that black crime is 'better' and white crime 'worse' than it 'should' be. Since we have already exploded this reasoning, we shall not comment further. We do need to say, however, that the above reasoning exhibits a clear case of Wise's absurd liberal blindness. In particular, if blacks commit 1.2 million violent crimes when they are 13% of the population, while whites commit less than three times as many when they are 85% of the population this means that blacks are committing almost eight times as many violent crimes as whites per capita. That's 800% more. And that's a hell of a testament to the fact that blacks are a violent, dangerous, crime- prone bunch of muthafukkas.
[Wise continues:] [Lies About Hate Crimes - More Fun With Nazi Math] Taylor's claims regarding hate crimes are even more ridiculous. The Color of Crime asserts that blacks commit a disproportionate share of racial and ethnic hate crimes against whites, while white-on-black hate crimes are far less frequent. But the data simply doesn't support such a claim. From 1995-2000, blacks were 65 percent of racial and ethnic hate-crime victims, while whites were 21 percent of such victims (10). 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. In 2001, there were approximately 4.6 times more white-on-black than black-on-white hate crimes (11), despite the fact that whites were between six and seven times more available in the population to become victims.
[Birdman responds:] The statistics I have heard are not the same as the ones Wise quoted, but from the fact we have already established that blacks are a virtual criminal class, committing crimes at a rate 9 (or more likely, 14) times the rate of whites, it is clear that whites are fully justified in their hatred of blacks, and the only real question is why whites have been so restrained as to not forcibly deport all blacks back to Wonderful Africa.
[Wise continues:] Considering that blacks are much more likely to encounter whites than vice-versa, this last statistic is especially alarming. After all, if blacks are nineteen times more likely to encounter whites than whites are to encounter blacks, any given black person would have nineteen times more opportunities to commit an anti-white hate crime than a white person would have to commit an anti-black hate crime. Since blacks are roughly one-sixth the size of the non-Hispanic white population, in order to determine the expected ratio of black-on-white hate crimes relative to white-on-black hate crimes given random chance, one must multiply the 19:1 black-on-white encounter ratio by one-sixth. Once this computation is made, 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. That in truth there are nearly five times more white-on-black hate crimes than the reverse suggests that blacks are much less likely to commit an anti-white hate crime than would be expected and whites are far more likely to commit an anti-black hate crime than would be expected.
[Birdman responds:] Here is yet another instance of Wise yammering on about the probability of black-white encounters, which we have already explained is largely irrelevant to the discussion of criminal behavior, since such behavior does not generally occur 'by chance', but rather by choice made in advance.
[Wise continues:] [White Fear of Blacks - The Height of Irrationality] Of course, above and beyond the mere statistical chicanery at the heart of Taylor's report, the larger point is that for Taylor and other racists to claim that black-on-white crime data justifies white fear of African Americans, or racial profiling by police is sheer ignorance.
[Birdman responds:] I think you could safely bet the farm that Wise does not live in a black area; and even if he did, not many liberals can be found who follow his example. In any event, by establishing that blacks commit crimes at 9 (or 14) times the rate of whites, nothing else really needs debate. Blacks are bad news for everybody, both black and white. For this reason, we shall have no further detailed comments on Wise's statistics, as his arguments are simply irrelevant in view of what we have just said.
[Wise continues:]Criminologists estimate that seventy percent of all crimes are committed by just seven percent of the offenders (12): a small bunch of repeat offenders who commit the vast majority of crimes. Since blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, if seventy percent of these were committed by seven percent of the black offenders, this would mean that at most there were perhaps 390,000 individual black offenders that year (13). In a population of 29.3 million over the age of twelve, this would represent no more than 1.3 percent of the black population that committed a violent crime in 2002. Since fewer than half of these would have chosen a non-Hispanic white victim (as noted previously), this means that less no more than seven-tenths of one percent of the black population would have victimized a white person in 2002: hardly the kind of fact that would warrant white fear of blacks as a group. Furthermore, since whites were victimized 2.9 million times by other whites in 2002 (compared to roughly 614,000 times by blacks), this means that whites are 4.7 times more likely to be victimized by another white person than by a black person (14). Thus, if crime data can justify white fear of blacks, it would also require whites to be terrified of white neighbors, co-workers, family and white strangers, for these are the folks most likely to victimize us. [The Absurdity of Profiling] As for profiling, Taylor insists that because of higher black crime rates, it only makes good sense to focus police efforts on the black community. But this is demonstrably ludicrous. If, as the Justice Department data suggests, blacks commit somewhere between 25-30 percent of violent crime in most years (23 percent in 2002), to profile blacks for crime will result in police being wrong, between 70-75 percent of the time (15). And of course, profiling is not the typical method for uncovering serious already-committed crimes anyway, since solving such crimes logically involves using incident-specific information. Profiling is, instead, too often done as a way to uncover crimes, such as drug possession, that have yet to come to police attention. As for drugs, there can be no doubt that profiling is irrational. According to federal data, blacks are only 13.5 percent of drug users, while non-Hispanic whites are over 70 percent of users (16). So to profile blacks for drugs is to guarantee little success in actually uncovering drug crimes. [Conclusion - Why Bother Responding to Nazis?] Some may wonder whether it makes sense to spend so much time and energy responding to the claims of someone who openly consorts with neo-Nazis, and whose agenda is so blatantly racist in nature. Though it would be nice not to have to respond to such silliness, the fact is, Taylor and his report have been cited approvingly by conservative columnists and talking heads, from Walter Williams, to David Horowitz, to the folks at the National Review, to Vanderbilt Law professor, Carol Swain.
[Birdman continues:] Nothing is so certain about liberals as that their arguments will always attempt to smear their opponents with various hate-words such as 'racist', 'nazi', 'bigot', 'hater' and the like. As we have often pointed out, however, insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Of course Wise does not use his smear-terms in great profusion, but that has less to do with his basic unfairness and liberal nastiness than it does with his erroneous belief that he has out-argued all the 'racists'. But more to the point here is that racism is not wrong -- instead it is a LAW OF NATURE, whose most familiar statement is, "Birds of a feather flock together." But then what liberal ever paid any attention to the laws of nature?
[Wise continues:] What's more, with studies suggesting that white perceptions of black criminality play a prominent role in furthering racism, both attitudinally and institutionally (in terms of support for racially disparate and draconian crime policies), refuting this kind of foolishness carries with it important personal and policy implications as well. However unappealing it may be to have to answer the racist claims of bigots and fascists, the fact remains that given the appeal of racist logic to so many, and given the strength of institutional racism as a defining force in American life, we can hardly afford the luxury of ignoring such positions, so as to "not give them legitimacy." The sad fact is that racism already enjoys plenty of legitimacy, with or without a rebuttal. Ignoring this reality isn't likely to diminish its strength, but responding to it forcefully might, at the very least, dissuade impressionable minds from accepting the twisted logic offered by the racist right. __________________
[Birdman responds:] There is one genuine way that the sad pattern of black criminality might be made to look better, tho Wise did not explore it. What I mean is that drug crimes are not real crimes, but just artificial prohibitions that the nanny state has imposed, supposedly to 'help' people such as blacks who are not very good at controlling themselves, but in actuality to keep a monopoly on the drug trade, which is currently held by the CIA and its friends. Thus if we could subtract out the drug crimes, along with the crimes associated with them, such as turf murders -- a matter which in a rational society would be controlled by the police -- then a significant portion of black crime could conceivably be wiped clean. I say this particularly because some 40% of all incarcerations in the present day are for drugs, which means that prosecutions are frequent and severe; and while Prof Michael Levin, a severe critic of blacks, confided in me that he thought that drug crime was only a small portion of black crime, I would like to see the relevant stats before offering judgment. Perhaps if Wise really wants to gussy up black stats, he will do some investigations on this topic.
[Wise continues/End of Birdman commentary:] Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, activist and father. His upcoming books, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge Falmer, 2005) are available for pre-ordering at Amazon.com, and will be published in January. Tim can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Hate mail, while neither desired not appreciated, will be graded for form, content, grammar and originality. NOTES: 1. L.J. Krivo and R.D. Peterson, "Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime," Social Forces 75(2) (December 1996); Barbara Chasin. Inequality and Violence in the United States. (NJ: Humanities Press International, 1997). 2. Jeffrey Reiman. ...And the Poor Get Prison: Economic Bias in American Criminal Justice. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996); Lisa Cullen. A Job to Die For: Why So Many Americans are Killed, Injured or Made Ill at Work, and What to Do About It. (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2002). 3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2003. Table No. 14: 16. 4. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author. 5. Ibid. 6. Robert O'Brian. "The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes: A Reexamination." American Journal of Sociology 92(6) (1987). 7. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, "Hate Crime Statistics," (various years, 1995-2000), and calculations by the author. 11. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2001." 12. Peter Greenwood and Alan Abrahamse. Selective Incapacitation (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982); Todd Clear, "Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime," Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Center, at: www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc7.htm. (1996). 13. If blacks committed 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, and 70 percent of these were committed by 7 percent of the offenders, then 30 percent were committed by the remaining 93 percent of offenders. 30 percent of 1.2 million offenses is 360,000 offenses. 360,000 represents 93 percent of 387,000. If the remaining 70 percent of offenses (840,000) were committed by 7 percent of the population, this means that these crimes were committed by 27,000 hardcore offenders (7 percent of 387,000). 14. U.S. Department of Justice, 2004. 15. U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, various years, 1993-2004. 16. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003. Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Office of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
This week's Hell's Lettres: Correspondence with Tim Wise
[Tim Wise responds to receipt of new Birdman essay critiquing one of his own, Race to Our Credit:]
I'll respond to this one too, in time, though because it is mostly a compendium of overt ad hominems, i [sic] feel no need to do it anytime soon.
By that I mean you're [sic] constant repetition of "he's a JEW" (as if that naturally explains everything, and maybe to your audience it does, though only because they are not geneticists or biologists and thus still believe there is a specific jewish genotype, which genotype can trump the white one, even when the person being discussed (me) is only one-fourth jewish [sic] by lineage).
Whatever...the other critiques, though also insanely hateful in places, at least present a modicum of fact-based argument, however wrong I consider them to be. Thus, I think them worthy of rebuttal, and am working on that now, inbetween [sic] other obligations, and more rewarding work--like changing the shit-filled diapers on my two year old.
As for this piece (the latest), I will repsond [sic] to parts of it in time, but will reserve most of my response for my upcoming comprehensive rebuttal to white nationalism, Great White Hoax. Therein, I will deal with the race and IQ stuff, and the evil Jew stuff, among other aspects of your argument here. GWH, which will be finished this summer, will be available online, thereby easily accessible for you and your ideological kin to examine, bitch about, whatever. It will be regularly updated, being online and all, is as of now about 300 pages long printed out, and has about 1200 footnotes, all of which should keep you plenty busy.
Let me ask one thing though...are the versions you sent of those first two critiques, the final versions, or did you change them too? I only ask because I know you sent me something the other day, which I inadvertantly deleted, and I want to make sure I am responding to the real last version
It is so hilarious to hear you wax on and on about how I am 'insanely hateful' and then let out with such beauties as
am working on that >now, inbetween other obligations, and more rewarding work--like changing >the >shit-filled diapers on my two year old.
You are like most liberals and lefties -- you make a better argument against yourself than I can.
As to your question, you have received the latest versions of all my responses -- there was but a single version of the first 2, and the 3rd, as sent to you just a few moments ago, should be the final version of that.
Oh John, the comment about my daughter's diapers was hardly hateful...it was playful sarcasm...lighten up a bit, ok? Compared to ad hominem Jew bashing and claims that lynching taught black people manners, it should be pretty obvious, especially to a Mensa-ite, who is engaging in more hateful rhetoric, should it not?
Oh well, the reason I asked was that in the Birdman's daily [sic] letter, all I was able to find was the response to the one article (not the one about Jared Taylor's report, but the first one). Did you send out both rebuttals to folks, or just the one? The letter from me that you posted referenced both of your critiques, though I only saw the one on the site...maybe I just missed it. It's hard to concentrate sometimes when you're busy baking matzo made of gentile children's blood, as I naturally am...but I figure you knew that already.
I would guess that I will be able to get the reponse to your first two critiques to you by mid week at the latest. I appreciate your patience.
Now tell me, Tim, what would you say if the KKK burned a cross on somebody's lawn and then told the Judge, "Heey, us good ole boys wuz jes' havin' a little fun, wuzzint we, Boys?" I don't think anybody would buy that, which is approximately the same reason I don't buy your explanation about the dirty diapers. Instead I take it as TJB (that's 'typical Jewish behavior') -- brimming with hate almost to the point of foaming at the mouth. To which I might add that the Jews never stop accusing others of 'hate', but are actually the world's biggest haters. I have seen LOTS AND LOTS of this kind of behavior, all directed at myself personally, and I have posted much of it on my website -- see especially the letters from Mensans. It is actually useful to me, because it helps point up the civilized and rational way I behave, in contrast to that of my enemies, or should I say, those who MAKE THEMSELVES my enemies.
To answer your question, the second critique will be posted next week (Tue) as Birdman's WEEKLY letter; the third the following week, unless something comes up that necessitates a change. I have been reading the essays on your website, and I may have other responses, tho I am inclined to doubt it at this point.
This is the problem with guys like you John...you can't differentiate context nor put things in perspective very well. To analogize what I said (essentially that changing shit filled diapers was a better use of my time than busting my ass to read and respond to your critiques of me), to burning a cross on someone's lawn is nothing short of crazy. The analogy, Mensa boy, would be if I were to excuse, say, a leftist burning a cross on your lawn (or some such symbol, say a Star of David or Hammer and Sickle, if we're being creative), while condeming it when a Klansman did it to a black person or Jew. THEN you would be fair in accusing me of some kind of inconsistency. Of course, I would indeed condemn anyone doing such a thing to you...what I did is totally different. A burning cross is a threat, it involves trespass, implied violence, etc...what I said did not. Surely you can see the difference. If not, you should turn in the MENSA membership or at least admit that someone gave you a crib sheet before you took the test that got you in...
...or maybe you really were once of MENSA-level IQ, but excessive contact with all the pigeon shit dulled your critical thinking ability, I dunno...(again, a joke...having a little fun, but I guess you consider Hystoplasmosis [sic] humor also to be TJB, right?)
>> Instead I take it as TJB (that's 'typical Jewish behavior') -- brimming >>with hate almost to the point of foaming at the mouth. To which I might >>add that the Jews never stop accusing others of 'hate', but are actually >>the world's biggest haters.
Funny, I've never accused a Gentile of "typical Gentile Behavior," or anything like it...that kind of generalizing sounds pretty hateful to me.
>>I have seen LOTS AND LOTS of this kind of behavior, all directed at myself >>personally, and I have posted much of it on my website -- see especially >>the letters from Mensans. It is actually useful to me, because it helps >>point up the civilized and rational way I behave, in contrast to that of >>my enemies, or should I say, those who MAKE THEMSELVES my enemies.
But the Jewish community, which you slam almost in toto (with a few exceptions), hasn't done anything to you John, so when you say you only disparage those who have made themselves your enemies, you are either lying, or seeing provocation from Jews where it doesn't exist. The people that write you hate mail are one thing. Jews writ large haven't done that however, and I'd guess you haven't actually met more than a few hundred Jews in your entire life...yet you feel comfortable judging the community, even though most of us have done nothing to you, and frankly, don't care much about you at all.
>To answer your question, the second critique will be posted next week (Tue) >as Birdman's WEEKLY letter; the third the following week, unless something >comes up that necessitates a change. I have been reading the essays on >your website, and I may have other responses, tho I am inclined to doubt it >at this point.
Fine, just wanted clarification.
I will respond to the two, together, in one large response (since there's a lot of thematic and subject-matter overlap).
To answer you, I will merely say the following:
* If you bother to read my site, you will find plenty of outrageous things that Jews and their shabby goys have done to me.
* Besides that, I can only respond: Many words, but not much point.
One further thing: In a separate email is yet a 4th essay. Respond as thou wilt, said the flower.
ok, so it is definitely the pigeon shit...you are going to get taken to school John. When is this silly diatribe going to run? I will be glad, as in deliriously so, to respond to this...you're slipping brother, slippin badly.
let me know. I'm gonna post all this psychotic shit on my website too...this is going to be fun for all involved.
[Tim writes a second letter:]
there are several million jews in this country john, much to your chagrin (but you and your friends haven't the balls to do anything about it of course)...having said that, once a representative sample has done something to you, such to [sic] justify your contempt for Jews as a group, let me know. Do you know what constitutes a representative sample, John? Did they teach you that in the math department at Antioch? Apparently not...
by the way, it's not shabby goys, it's shabbos goys...haven't you learned anything in the nazis r us meetings? Damn...y'all need to keep your shit straight, ya know?
Laughing at you John, really...and waiting for any of your readership to really start some shit with us Jews, rather than just flapping your gums...waiting John...waiting. Meanwhile, keep feeding the foul little birds and looking at those daily pics of naked women you couldn't get to fuck you if you paid them...you are a psychologist's wet dream, really.
Now, here's the real question...are you going to post the entire repsonses to your critiques, once I send them? Because if you edit them even by one word, one syllable or one letter, I will sue your ass with a quickness my friend. It is all or nothing. My Jewish lawyers (ain't it sweet?) will take you out without breaking a sweat. Shall I send you the statute which requires accurate reproduction of internet correspondance? I'll be happy to do so, if so...likewise, when I post this craziness on my site, I will absolutely accurately reproduce your words, without changing a thing.
Of course, I figure we will both get the last words on our respective sites. I don't intend to go round by round with you indefinitely, nor (I assume) do you really intend to do so with me. After my initial response to your critiques, I am done, so far as your site is concerned. I may post responses on my own, but I am not going to be locked into an ongoing debate with you. It simply isn't important enough. My larger crit of white nationalism, mentioned earlier, (Great White Hoax) will serve as my final word on your unique brand of insanity. Once it is finished this summer, you can then spend several months responding to it, if you choose...or you can fold, which is what I suspect you'll do...so much easier to just yell JEW or nigger, dontch'a [sic] think? Of course it is, although neither you or any of your pathetic readership would have the stones to say nigger to an actual black person, to their face, nor do you have the necessary fortitude to show up to [sic] any of my speeches around the country and start shit with me. Typical...weak ass white nats...projecting their own inferiority and insecurities on to others...
Sleep tight sweetie,
I am responding to your two recent letters in this single email. Both letters are reproduced below. My remarks are in the starred paragraphs below:
* I find it interesting that you KEEP SAYING that you are going to respond, that I am going to 'get taken to school' etc etc, etc but, somehow, you never quite seem to get around to all this responding. Sure sounds like you have met your match, and that you are just throwing up clouds of dust to disguise it.
* You say 'it isn't shabby goy' -- but it is. You just missed the joke -- and the point. Perhaps that was because you were so eager to 'correct' stupid little ole me, huh? Unfortunately, that seems to have shown up stupid big ole YOU. Tsk, tch, tut.
* Ah, yes, I am a 'psychologist's dream'. (I think you meant 'psychiatrist', but subtleties such as these seem to escape you.) But what are we to make of the threats to sue, the offensive language, the invitation to violence, the insults? As I often tell people like you, insult is the last refuge of the out-argued, tho we might have to change that in your case to make it 'violence' rather than 'insult'. And now that I have apparently out-argued you in 4 different essays, I guess the insults (or whatever) will be getting thicker than a New Yawk accent, no? (That's a joke, not that you will see it as such.)
* And here we go again with the usual liberal/leftist/Jewish dishonesty. You tell me that after one response you are going to be 'finished'. Yes, indeed, I think you will be finished, if you know what I mean. But the real point of your declaration is that (a) you are going to be 'too good' to continue a conversation, thus 'justifying' why you let your butt get beaten, and (b) you aren't going to allow ME to respond to YOUR posting on YOUR site because, well, it just might look bad for YOU. I, on the other hand, am honest enuf to allow you to reply to anything I post, so all you are doing is just showing your dishonesty in advance, just like you tried to 'justify' why the lefty pubs that carried your stuff won't post a considered response. But hey, I don't mind -- all you do is (1) prove you CAN'T respond, and (2) make my case that the liberals/leftists/Jews are as dishonest as the day is long. Great! Saves me the trouble of arguing the point -- and more effective, too!
* And speaking of the (first and only) response you are going to make to my stuff, let me just guess what it is going to be like. First, if you see any spelling or grammar mistakes, or anything of a similar petty nature, these will definitely be brought up. Second, your response will be filled with broad generalities and warm fuzzy bafflegab about Others, and tons of insults and other ad hominems against me. And third, you will probably not challenge any of the specific points I bring up for the very simple reason that you have nothing to refute them with, tho you may try some highly obfuscated discussion of some airy technical point, which can be placed in the same category as a squid squirting ink to hide its retreat.
* You don't seem to realize it, but you are a perfect example of an Establishment Jew -- you are being paid to sow white guilt and self-hate, ie, you are a hired hit-man against white people and white culture. Furthermore, all your insults, bad language , 'jokes' and the like show what a venomous person you are -- full to bursting with hate just like the Jews accuse whites of being, when in fact whites have FAR TOO LITTLE HATE, which is made plain by what they have allowed Jews and others like you to do to them.
* It is, of course, little wonder that you have showed so much venom to me. In the first place, you can't push my buttons, and that makes you even more furious than you already are. But the main thing is that I have called you on your foolish logic and shoddy thinking -- I have exposed the 'great antiracist' as a nobody -- the little man behind the curtain.
did you ever consider the possibility that the reason it takes me a while to reply to your screeds is because I might (unlike you) have a family to attend to; children to hang out with, etc? All you have to do is self-publish books that no actual publisher would ever publish (even the non Jewish ones), post to your own website, and look at porn, apparently.
I take my time because I see no need to rush when dealing with you. You are irrelevant, like most of your readers. A bunch of underemployed losers, who prattle on about being a master race but have done nothing to justify the title. How's that math degree serving ya John? I see you've really set the math world on fire! And what's with your pal who wrote to me earlier? The one with the new computer programming language that no one has heard of, or ever will hear of? Master race indeed...
You and your readership talk, talk, talk, and do nothing to further the cause for which you say you believe...no one cares what you say. I will respond, only because I get enough bullshit like yours sent my way, so I figure it will save me some time if I respond to you, and then in the future just refer people to the "debate" instead of having to write it all over again.
Trust me, the responses I send to you will not be ad hominem at all...they will be substantive, factual, and unlike your crits of me, include footnotes (imagine!).
I enjoy stringing you along actually...think of how much time and energy you've wasted thinking about me lately...you are obsessing John. I, on the other hand, am toying with you. Go play with your birds John...
And when I am done responding to you, you can say anything you like about me...your side is still LOSING and will continue to LOSE, because you have no stones John. You play with birds John. You clean up bird shit John, for a hobby, John.
You are not someone to be taken particularly seriously...I have a little extra time, so I'll respond to you, on my time frame, not yours. You consider yourself far too important, really... In the marketplace of ideas, you are being out-purchased, daily...get used to it.
I see that you are still frantically trying to push my buttons; still squirting ink and kicking up dust but never making a substantive response; still illustrating that insult is the last refuge of the out-argued; still snapping and hissing like a vicious dog on a chain, still proving that you have no manners and no morals; and above all, still proving that you are a hardcore Jewish hatemonger. Now why did I expect just that?
[No further substantive correspondence as of now]
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."
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *