1,173 words
Just in the last week, we’ve seen two major incidents of “faked” hate crimes make their way into the national media. First, police confirmed that the woman who claimed to have been attacked and to have had her hijab torn off and wallet stolen by white men wearing Trump hats invented the whole account. Second, a Jewish and “white Hispanic” student duo were confirmed to have been behind the spray-painting of racist and homophobic slurs along with the word “Trump” inside their campus chapel.
The mainstream response to incidents like these is to think, at first: “Oh no! Someone spray-painted swastikas on a church? This is a hate crime!” But then, once the culprits are proven to be leftist kids trying to pin the blame for their actions on neo-Nazi Trump supporters rather than actual neo-Nazi Trump supporters, that becomes: “Oh, it’s a good thing we figured that out. So there wasn’t any hate crime here after all! Just an act of vandalism. Time to punish the vandals for committing vandalism, then.”
But the fact is that, even though our multi-culture isn’t ready or willing to admit it, these “fake” hate crimes are still real hate crimes.
As a society, we have a classification for something called “hate crimes”—and we consider a “hate crime” to be worse than the regular instance of that same crime—because it represents an emotional disposition towards individuals who were not present within the crime itself—an emotional disposition which, if allowed to express itself freely without penalty, would inspire others to commit similar acts against those other individuals. We don’t consider it a “hate crime” for a white person to assault a person who happens to be black over (say) a traffic dispute, and we don’t necessarily think that this crime was worse just because its victim happened to have been black. But if a white person assaults a black person simply because he is black, then the fear that this will inspire similar acts of violence leads us to add extra deterrence against that possibility.
Whether one is a minority or not has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of this underlying logic. In fact, while it is true that a majority group actually faces a smaller number of possible assailants from outside, it also represents an even greater number of possible. The average white person in the United States encounters fewer black people per day than the number of white people encountered by the average black person. As a result, there are actually more opportunities for whites to fall victims to hate crimes.
Yet, when the victim of an act of hatred is a Republican white male, this reasoning immediately goes straight out the window. (It should be noted that people who meet all of these criteria represent somewhere loosely within the range of 15 to 25% of the U.S. population; whites are about 63% of the U.S. population, approximately half of them identify as conservative, and approximately half of those are male.)
“Fake” hate crimes are real hate crimes against whites. They are literally meant to inspire hatred against a whole group of people.
They do so by crafting the deceptive impression that whites themselves are hateful enough to have committed fake hate crime. But the fact that a hate crimes is faked doesn’t make it a “fake” hate crime. It is still a real hate crime. “Faking” an act of hatred is merely the means by which this particular subset of hate crime is designed to inspire hatred against a whole group of people.
Filing a false criminal accusation is something that the American legal system classifies as a felony—the highest category of crime possible against the federal government itself. This exists to eliminate incentives to destroy someone’s life without penalty by making a false accusation which is taken seriously, and to punish supposed victims for misappropriating the resources of the justice system.
It matters not that the “fake” hate crime fails to accuse any particular person (be they white, Republican, male, straight, or whatever else) of having committed the action—no more than it matters that a “hate crime” rarely if ever entails that a future threat was made towards any specific person (be they gay, black, or whatever else). What qualifies a “hate crime” as a “hate crime” is the hatred it expresses, and which we fear it could help inspire more of, towards a whole group of people—people who specifically were not involved in, or victimized by, or even verbally threatened during the commission of the “hate crime” itself, which on its face only caused harm to a single individual.
Incentives matter. If we look at the trends in occurrence of these “fake” hate crime, it is clear that our lax treatment of “fake” hate crimes has fueled their growth.
In 2007, there were two incidents—a student at George Washington University targeted herself with swastika graffiti, and an Assistant Professor at Case Western Reserve University made a false report of racist hate mail to the FBI.
But fast forward to 2012, and a gay man in Montana who injured himself attempting a backflip claim the injuries resulted from a homophobic attack; a black woman in Louisiana claimed the KKK “set her on fire” for wearing an Obama t-shirt—and police later found her own fingerprints on the lighter; a black woman wrote racist death threats on a whiteboard outside her own dorm room; a lesbian in Nebraska made false claims to the police after faking an assault on herself; the owner of a gay bar in Chicago admitted to torching his own establishment and writing anti-gay slurs on the walls; yet another college sophomore wrote homophobic death threats to herself in the dorm; students at Montclair State University faked yet more racist graffiti; a student at Michigan State University claimed he had his mouth stapled shut by neo-Nazis; and a gay Republican activist even falsely claimed he was assaulted by a man yelling homophobic slurs inside his home.
We go from a mere 13 incidents from 2007–2011 to 47 from 2012–2016: the numbers more than triple.
You can keep up with further developments in these trends at www.fakehatecrimes.org. And buckle in for an era of even more black men leaving racist messages outside of black churches, gays carving “DIE QUEER” into their own skin, and Jews posting swastikas on Jewish bulletin boards. Whatever criticisms one might make of milquetoast conservatives and the rest of the mainstream Right in the United States, and whatever silly or alarmist or inaccurate memes you may have seen on your conservative friends’ walls in the wake of the 2008 election, you never found them lying about getting kicked in the balls by angry feminists while walking down dark alleyways at night, using knives to carve the words “BLACK POWER” into their own limbs, or shitting in their own hallways to try to support their claims to social victimhood.
And that one fact alone tells you a lot about the respective psychologies of the Left and Right in the United States.
13 comments
The referenced incident with the Hispanic and Jewish duo actually happened in March, not in this past week. You can see the date on the article you linked.
Hoaxing a hate crime is the same motivation as an actual hate crime.
They should carry the SAME penalty.
As if on cue, we see this:
FAKE HATE: Leftist (((Jewish))) Students Painted Swastika and “Trump” on Campus Church
“Hate crimes” are a moronic leftist fabrication intended to cause additional suffering to whites and leave is too afraid to question our masters. I would avoid using such a term just as I don’t do DR3.
There should be no classification of hate crimes. They are creating a special class of victims and suggesting one motive for a delinquent act is more meaningful than another. The motive only matters to obtain a conviction. A motive should not be the crime itself. When hate crimes are made law, there is the potential for violating the double jeopardy standard. In reality, it is just an increase in the power of prosecutors to strengthen their plea bargaining leverage. Everything about it is what true civil libertarians should be against.
Stigmatize yourself and accuse others. There are tremendous proofs of concept. I allow myself to re-blog an excellent article:
https://karleduardskanal.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/haensel-und-gretel-gab-es-wirklich/
Indeed a great article. Our various nations will have to reach again an intellectual level at which articles like the one you provided will be understood by everyone. As it is, I can easily see many teetering nearly on the edge of an apoplexy after reading it. It is a disturbing revelation that humans are capable of having their faculties of reasoning untrained. That has led to the scourge of political correctness, the belief in such a nonsense category as a hate crime, and the acceptance of criminal court proceedings in many countries. Hence, in Austria one can be sent to jail for up to twenty years for the spurious and undefined charge of “reactivation of the National Socialist ideology”, for example by casting doubt on some of the remarkably fantastic tall tales which are presented as factual, or by founding a group that calls itself Home Guard. On the other hand, beating up his woman is ok for a Moroccan because this is common in his culture, or the rape of a ten year old boy by a gang of four recent newcomers is no big deal because the boy didn’t object; three of the four people involved got away with community service. The last two stories originate in Germany and are from adjudications in two courts. (Both went into revision after public uproar, but only after that).
It is no wonder that the lowest character traits come out in such an atmosphere where one can fan hatred with the help of the law and where degeneracy, amorality and plain criminality enjoy the support of the privileged ruling classes.
Dear Walter,
assuming that we share the same mother tongue, I would usually call it one symptom of the German disease having two German native speakers communicating in English with each other (indeed, e.g. whithin EU institutions, German representatives are famous for being the only ones apologizing for having said a word in their own language), but we exchange our thoughts on an American website that is so kind to publish them, so for the reason of politeness alone, answering in English is courtesy. Bleiben wir also beim Englischen.
I share your opinion that a lot of work lies ahead until the majority of readers would immediately understand the article’s message, which gives so much evidence whithout ever using the jinxed key word(s). I very much appreciate Karl Eduards cynism. However, I don’t think it’s a question of intellectual flaw. At least not in terms of capabilities. They all have their brains and they could use them – but they don’t. It’s a phenomenon of a profound and all-encompassing conditioning, going far beyond “political correctness”. It is self-applied thought control: From “bad words” to “bad speech” to “bad thoughts”; it’s a long but coherent way to become a goodthinker. Orwell was so disturbingly right. Orwell – maybe he’s the most misunderstood writer ever. At school, we were taught to understand his pictures of a fully controlled society as an allegory of what would have happened, if National Socialism would have won. Nowadays we can understand more and more that what he described was rather the destiny of “one world, one family” forced into line, once this last line of defense was overcome. So, to come back to the aspect of intellectual deficiencies – If it’s about ordinary, less intellectual people: Keep them stupid, politically apathetic and always distracted! The required instruments are cheap and simple. If it’s about more intellectual people: Make them goodthinkers! This a slightly more complex challenge. Some key instruments are high qualification, combined with permanently uncertain success and the threat of social decline, streamlining them and making them compliant and submissive. Peer pressure and public discrimination of wrong thoughts will do the rest.
How was this possible? Today I’m absolutely convinced it was/is no coincidence, but a well-planned process (which, by the way, not only struck the smashed and devastated Reich, but equally those who believed themselves being on the winning side – starting with the U.K. and France, and though, they do not understand the writing on the wall yet). So, what can be done, if at all? I have another conviction: the crucial element, the decisive pre-condition for implementing such a comprehensive graticule, providing intellectual orientation, control and sanctioning at the same time, is the common acceptance of a tremendous lie. That’s why the only way to shatter this monstrosity can be someone frankly speaking out the truth. Not someone in the playgrounds of alternative media or easy-to discredit conspiracy theorists circles, but someone in the center of public attention and believe. There may be some hopes on Donald Trump, but I do not believe he’s the one. This would be “unthinkable” for me. But maybe I’m wrong.
Werter Neil Armstrong:
Wir haben die gleiche Muttersprache; es ist besonders interessant, daß wir uns in einem englischsprachigen Diskussionsforum begegnen müssen, um uns halbwegs zwang- und risikolos unterhalten zu können. Im heutigen deutschen Lebensraum wird das schon zu einem Risiko, wenn das Thema den Erwartungsvorschriften gewisser Kreise mit Allmachtsallüren nicht entspricht.
The phenomenon Karl Eduard in the article you are referring the reader to is addressing through his funny sarcasm is indeed a very serious one. a great majority is reacting to the stale tales of mayhem in a reflexive manner, but it goes far beyond mere intellectual, emotionless rejection. There is a conditioning that induces physiological reactions such as increase in blood pressure, shallow, tense breathing, contraction of pupils, speeding up of heart beat, etc. This is very unhealthy and very serious; it is also very disturbing that it is possible to literally make human beings crazy by a clever and ceaseless psychological whipping. That it is done, that is evil.
However, the secret to undoing the whole program is to put a stop to the endless repetition and intensification of accusatory tales by all means of communication. To halt it, one needs to hold the reins of power. The general acceptance of the lie you speak is only a forced consent through endless repetition, the social unacceptability to not be a believer, the various incentives to be a believer and defender of the fantastic tale, and the lack of any reward for sticking to one’s inner voice that doesn’t want to debase humanity by volunteering to be believe in its own baseness.
Make it stop three months and there will be a relaxation in everyone for not being badgered without pause. This would not alert the people who are not interested in the fate of their people, but it would alert those who are aware of the terrible plight and danger of annihilation we are in through this assault on our essential being as members of a distinct nation. They would feel the evil pressure dissipate.
When the Treaty of Versailles was formulated by the most short-sighted men, and when the war against Germany in 1939 was prosecuted by Britain, France, the United States, and enthusiastically promoted initially by Poland’s Colonels and the exile Czech politicians, there was no thought of such consequences as we experience now, decades in the future. Darkness is falling everywhere. I can’t tell whether there was a plan or just a skillful response to an opportunity to get a general revolution in all human affairs going, there is certainly a guiding will behind the events we are experiencing. They don’t just happen.
I think the hole European Man has dug himself into is a very deep one and it will be difficult to get out again. I think that Donald Trump might halt the further descent into it, but to get out, it would need a revolution in all affairs of society. One strategy of the left overthrow of society is to keep everything in breathless haste, there is no time to think and rest, hence the senseless but endless reforms, renewals, changes, criticisms, etc., the half psychotic chaos they create to always be on top of events. A stop in this destructive mishandling of our reality is the necessary beginning for a reversal of the trend and Trump might provide this as his first act in his presidency.
Dear Walter,
What an interesting coincidence in deed that led us both to Counter Currents for having us share our thouhgts! Let’s call it a fortunate coincidence, as I really appreciate very much our conversation. Unfortunately, my first and foremost constraint is available time, that’s why my replies may be intermittent and late, but I’d really like to continue, given Greg and his team are patient enough.
There is not a single statement in your last post, which I wouldn’t share and support. I’d like to quote some of them and give a few direct comments:
“The general acceptance of the lie you speak is only a forced consent through endless repetition, the social unacceptability to not be a believer, the various incentives to be a believer and defender of the fantastic tale, and the lack of any reward for sticking to one’s inner voice that doesn’t want to debase humanity by volunteering to be believe in its own baseness.”
It must have been a forced consent among those, who knew, based on their personal experience, that it was a lie. But those who didn’t share the respective experiences? Honest men need the feeling of conviction that what they did and do was right. There was a recent study about the feelings of British war veterans in light of Britain’s political and social evolution of the last decades. Said in a nutshell, the main conclusion was that “this is not what we’ve been fighting for!” Numerous identical statements were to be read in the context of Brexit. “We saved Europe once and now we can do it again by voting Leave,” veterans say. “We served the country on land, sea and air to ensure that future generations could be free and independent”. This is what I meant when saying they still don’t understand the writing on the wall (which doesn’t mean I’m against Brexit, but they don’t see the coherencies). With a view to the loosers of the battle’s side, you need indeed endless repetition of how bad we were, but – with a view to the winner’s side – you equally need an endless repetition of how right they were doing, saving the world. “Make it stop three months and there will be a relaxation in everyone for not being badgered without pause” – even when ignoring the risk this would “alert those who are aware of the terrible plight and danger of annihilation we are in through this assault on our essential being as members of a distinct nation” – could really allow the first group to take breathe during the break of the psychological drumfiring, but would this have any effect on the second group? If yes, would it be allowed to happen? Having said that the only way to shatter the monstrosity could be someone frankly speaking out the truth sounds simple, but it would be the most impossible mission ever, as it would require to speak out the truth on both sides! Confessing group number one weren’t the proverbial monsters they use to be depicted as, whithout turning the medal in order to have look at the other side would immediately create a paradox: How can the heroes remain heroes, if the monsters were no monsters? How can the dragonslayers remain heroes, if the dragons were men, women and children? Men, women and children of the same culture, of the same level of social development, and – yes – even of the same people (if we think in the scope of a family of “civilized” European nations)? I have a fear: the biggest challenge in (the not very probable) case of an emerging honest will to reset and put an end to the delirious self-destruction of once civilized nations wouldn’t be to acknowledge that the monsters were no monsters, but that bombing women and children to ashes did not contribute to “saving Europe and to ensure that future generations could be free and independent”. That the heroes were no heroes. Individually, as the case may be, yes, they were, for sure. As misused executors of a planned genocide – definitely not. So, who shall tell this to honest men and their descendants, who were so terribly wrong, when doing, what they did? They couldn’t live with it, that’s why things cannot have been like that, that’s why the lie must remain the truth.
To be continued.
Fortsetzung:
“When the Treaty of Versailles was formulated by the most short-sighted men, and when the war against Germany in 1939 was prosecuted by Britain, France, the United States, and enthusiastically promoted initially by Poland’s Colonels and the exile Czech politicians, there was no thought of such consequences as we experience now, decades in the future.”
I totally agree. There was not the slightest thought of such consequences among the protagonists of all of these belligerent or war promoting nations. It’s particularly for this reason that I am declined to assume there was a planned action, going beyond a guiding will. The evolution (i.e. rather the decline) of the societies of mostly all European nations after WW II. virtually made a mockery of their hopes to take advantage of the supposed victory. After the decay of the Soviet Union, for quite a while we thought there was only one actual winner after all, who managed to sweep all competitors out of its way: the United States. Apparently, even this assessment needs to be qualified, at the latetst in the light of the reasons that have led to Donald Trump’s overwhelming electoral victory.
So, if none of the parties, visibly involved in what some people call the new Hundred Years’ War, took advantage at all, this doesn’t make sense. Consequently, it is worth to have a closer look at driving forces, which weren’t that visibly involved (as combattants). There is one particular driving force, which calls itself a victim of the events, its stigmata continously being paraded like a monstrance.
“Darkness is falling everywhere. I can’t tell whether there was a plan or just a skillful response to an opportunity to get a general revolution in all human affairs going, there is certainly a guiding will behind the events we are experiencing. They don’t just happen.”
I’d like to append: such an opportunity doesn’t emerge by pure coincidence synchronously in nearly all states of the northern hemisphere. Having such an opportunity alone requires meticulous planning. Who again has invited the splendid Left-Right-pattern?
Neil Armstrong:
Thank you for your reply. You have also lent this perplexing question extensive thought. The question in short: How did our world end up in this mess?
A second question that is even more important now is: How do we get out of this mess?
The first question always leads to the First War. Evil forces were unbound in that war with the employment of the Lie as a weapon. This proved to be much deadlier than any projectile weapon, explosive or fighting spirit. It poisoned the faith of humans in themselves, i.e., the common man.
The people who actually conducted the war as highest commanders knew that they were only telling lies as a strategic expedient. They never any of it, since they knew who had invented the stories and where. But they thought they could somehow stay in control of this evil.They knew that they were only using untruth as a weapon and they thought that it could be just called off when not needed anymore. They needed it to win the war, to bring America under Wilson into the war, and to formulate the document known as Treaty of Versailles. The most central paragraph there is the War Guilt Clause 231: Germany is solely responsible for the War.
Upon this the whole edifice of history after Nov. 11, 1918 is erected.
A few people are ultimately responsible for this, perhaps 5 in total, but it was the propelling motor of the machinery of the Treaty of Versailles, without Article 231, it would have stalled very soon through the many absurd consequences following from it. However, it was not dared to say: “Halt! We solemnly cancel Article 231 and consider the War a great misfortune for everyone, but in the interest of our future, we forbid, as after the end of the 30 years war, any accusation, persecution, restitution stemming from any events during the war, or even inciting sentiments concerning the war.”
Instead, the untruth was perpetuated in the Treaty of Versailles.
There is much written about this. I read recently, e.g., the booklet The Myth of a Guilty Nation by Albert Jay Nock or the Poison That Destroys by E.D.Morel, or Facing Europe by Frederick Bausman, or Hate, The Enemy of Peace by Francis Neilson, all very interesting and from the early 1920s, all dealing with the insidious effects of bearing false witness against whole nations.
Hence, in my opinion, a first step would be for all European countries to formally withdraw Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles with an adequate explanation.
This would set the injured spirit on a course of recovery.
Today’s politics is strongly based on articles of enforced dogma concerning past events: We are not supposed to discuss the plausibility of various claims of victimhood, or the logic of action and response, but are forced to always weave into our statements expressions of condemnation of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler, and with avery large distance, Italian Fascism and Benito Mussolini; only tolken recognition is given to the various other European fascisms, but neither Mussolini nor Codreanu or Mosley are really required and not mentioning them will readily not be noticed. The enforcement of untrue articles of faith distorts peoples intellects and characters, and the ensuing climate of political correctness is serving, whether intended or not, a destructive goal. It is difficult, risky or, as in many European countries, downright dangerous to speak out against the enforced dogma. In the Unites States, one does not yet risk up to 20 years of prison for disagreeing what the Central Council has declared to be the latest Truth, but there are mechanisms of causing trouble nonetheless. Everywhere a climate of restriction has been created. You suggest that by simply speaking out the system could be overcome. That would only be possible with the corresponding power to disseminate one’s point of view. If you remember the more recent stories with which the war in 1991 was justified, and the war in Iraq in 2003, it was obvious that the atrocity stories were untrue, and the tales of weapons of mass destruction were preposterous (e.g., the “mobile bioweapons labs, or Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear tests underground” with the bombs on a suspension system so as to avoid a seismic signal-which was indeed not deteted, but the very absence became the proof of Hussein’s cunning-sounds familiar, dosen’t it). Nonetheless, you could find any number of people who would with serious mien repeat these widely circulated stories. The press was in the hands of the people who wanted these stories to be in circulation-and they were.
In short, we are in a psychological trap.
The left is currently in a panic over Trump’s winning of the Presidency. It does potentially imperil all their entrenched positions in the machinery of control. To what degree the victims of leftist dictates have won will become visible as time goes on, but the panic of the left indicates that it is feared there that this trap might be destroyed by delegitimizing political correctness its ensuing consequences. That would be a step towards freedom from the manipulations of the press and from the fear to have an opinion.
Dear Walter,
one more excellent analysis!
“How do we get out of this mess? … Hence, in my opinion, a first step would be for all European countries to formally withdraw Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles with an adequate explanation.”
Well, maybe this could work as first step. However – and that is my concern – there is no motivation for such a first step, whatever it would be. The simple (but fatal) reason is the trinity of “Monsters, heroes and victims”, which constitues a control circuit. I could well imagine that, nearly hundred years after the end of WW I, all involved parties are inclined to “adjust” Germany’s official role, according to article 231, if – well, if there wasn’t this automatism of the control circuit. Once you modify the characteristics of one of the three included elements, this would have an immediate impact on the characteristics of the other two elements, and hence on their claims! That’s why this will be hampered as long as possible. It’s not only about a possible rehabilitation of Germany, but such a first step would set off an avalanche with (from some people’s point of view) devastating side effects. It wouldn’t only trigger reflections on moral hazards, but on retroactive adjustments to be made regarding the bills, paid over these last hundred years plus missed bargains or amounts/claims still to be recovered in the future. Even if Germany would swear a holy oath never ever to touch at this aspect, the profiteers would not bank on that. That’s why I’m so pessimistic about a way to get out of this mess. The trinity of “Monsters, heroes and victims” is the Gordian knot, and we all will never get out of the mess, as long as no one dares to break it up completely. The attempt to unhinge a single rope will not work.
Dear Neil ArmstronG;
Thank you for your response. I am very glad that you also think that reaching as far back as the official beginning of the programmatic destruction of the European World by forcing the signature under the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919 could be an event uniting all people who reject the catastrophic results of this one event. Since a closer look at this document and all its insane provisions opens up a gate to the understanding of what follows, including the Super-Versailles at Potsdam and its uncountable tentacles, does provide an understanding of the unending World War Atrocity Propaganda, the background and motivations of the major profiteers and the need to maintain the events, once set in motion, if the shift in power is to be maintained.
Thus, what becomes more and more the mantra of “obviousness” in European courts, and probably sometime in American courts, should become “unobvious” by understanding the basis of the system of forced fantasyland beliefs in the present world.
For American readers in particular it would be instructive to get an idea of how a German judge can completely ignore facts by arguing with “obviousness” and pronounce a prison term of a few years for statement about an event nearly a hundred years ago. It is a purely childish, but with deadly consequences.
When I am thinking about the dismal state and future of our world I oftentimes think of the booklet “The Poison that Destroys”, by E.D.Morel, written at about 1920. People with foresight could already then see the consequences of building a world upon systematic untruth in order to shape the future. Such a shaping can only be a distortion. A mind, forced to life a lie becomes sick and distorted, and the communal spirit of nations, or races becomes distorted, sick and ready for any assault to be not repelled.
The guiding power of today’s world has put itself in a position to intensify its propaganda continuously in order to maintain the constant state of outrage, fear and menace. That requires a constant increase in expenditure and the construction of an evermore unrealistic world. The end of that can only be a catastrophe. In this regard Orwell’s 1984 might have had an ending. In his novel, people were still basically sane and he could avoid the catastrophic self-destruction and gone on with his nightmare of senselessness. In today’s world, people, common people are made more and more insane by infusing them with patently unnatural behaviors and self-destructive opinions. Hence, the post-War World is heading towards a low point.
I will not be able to access a computer for about 2 weeks.
Greetings to you!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.