Hate crimes—whether real or fake—are an overlooked but increasingly popular component of the “Resist Trump” movement.
You need to be only a casual observer of the news and social media to notice that large numbers of progressives have been pushed to emotional breaking point over the horror of Donald Trump’s election victory and the fact that he still hasn’t been impeached.
Social justice warriors out in full force leading “the resistance” have been encouraged by so much of the media being ready to report anything that will further vilify anything related to conservatives, Republicans, or Trump.
It helps the progressive cause, furthers their hatred for all things dissonant of the status quo of leftism and keeps alive their belief that“racist”, “nazi”, “hate-filled” conservatives are now busy achieving their long-held dreams of destroying the world.
What connects all these liberals frothing at the mouth with the perpetrators of these hoax hate crimes? The fact they actually believe they are do-gooders. In their minds, these crimes are going on every day… except that they actually aren’t.
In order for the resistance to continue at this pace and at the fever pitch preached to them by their echo chamber of friends and their trusted media, more and more often they see nothing wrong in creating a hate crime or two for the “greater good.”
In today’s society it is the victim who is exalted. And for these misguided and narcissistic souls, to be the hero (helping to show the world how awful the other side really is) and the victim at the same time…well, that is just too enticing to pass up. Never mind about honesty or integrity, it’s all for a “good” cause.
These hoax hate crimes may seem new, but according to Park Dietz, a noted forensic psychiatrist, “dozens or hundreds a year have been going on for at least the past thirty years.”
What is new is that the left-leaning media is more eager than ever to report these crimes nearly without investigation, simply because they too desperately want them to be true as it suits their world view.
Of course when some of these cases prove to be hoaxes perpetrated by the so-called victim, it’s interesting to note not only the reluctance of certain media to report the whole truth as it is later discovered, but the way in which the subsequent truth was worded.
Take for example The Washington Post report just after last November’s Presidential election about hate graffiti in an Indiana Church.
The story was that “Heil Trump,” a swastika, and “Fag Church” had been spray painted on the church’s walls. The problem with the story is that it turned out after an investigation that the organ player himself vandalized his own church—and yep, he was anti-Trump, gay, and an activist.
He wrote: “I suppose I wanted to give local people a reason to fight for good, even if it was a false flag.” Ah yes, the noble criminal…
Yet the original Washington Post headline for the article still exists today with little indication that this news article is no longer valid, nor a true hate crime.
I will give the Post credit for at least putting the update at the top of the article. But, they did predictably confirm my low expectations in how they vaguely reported the truth: “Update May 8, 2017: The Brown County Prosecutor’s Office charged George Nathaniel Stang with institutional criminal mischief, following a lengthy investigation. Stang, 26, was the organist at St. David’s Episcopal Church, according to a news release. “Stang stated that he wanted to mobilize a movement after being disappointed in and fearful of the outcome of the national election,” the release stated.”
Notice that the Post wrote he was “charged with institutional criminal mischief” “according to a news release”—the inference being: “We don’t know if it’s true, but it says so on this news release so we have to report it.”
Note also that there is no mention of why or what kind of “institutional criminal mischief” he committed. Did he vandalize the church himself? Hire someone to do it? Hold the perp’s jacket while someone else did it?
The hoaxer’s “noble” intentions are reinforced in the update: “Stang stated that he wanted to mobilize a movement after being disappointed in and fearful of the outcome of the national election.” He’s clearly got some way to go!
There are many more right-wing hate crimes now known to be hoaxes or unsubstantiated crimes that the press picked up on immediately when they were first reported, before being discredited. You might have read about some of them in Heat Street whether they occurred in Chicago colleges, the University of Louisiana or on the New York subway. There have been TWO alone at the University of Michigan.
Yasmin Seweid, who falsely said she was the victim of a hate crime by Trump supporters in New York city
Laird Wilcox, author of Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America, says that as much as 80% of all incidents that happen on a campus have turned out to be hoaxes or fake (such as one of the incidents at the University of Michigan where a student claimed that a Trump supporter told her to remove her hijab or she would be set on fire; totally fabricated.)
Again The Washington Post rushed to report it and then clarified only to still leave the original heading in place and places the update under it: “A Muslim student in Michigan claimed a man threatened to set her on fire. Police say it’s a hoax.”
Note the inference: “Police say it’s a hoax” (we know we can’t often trust the police in these matters is the inference). Sigh.
For the Post and other publications and news agencies that report in this vein, the truth still doesn’t really matter. It’s the movement of resistance that matters.
These publications word things just right so that they can continue feeding the hungry progressives with exactly what they want to hear.
“We have a population less prepared to critically evaluate information they receive,” says psychiatrist Deitz. “There was a time in which the institutions that dominated and provided social control were the church and the law and educational systems. But I think that has shifted. All [new media platforms tend to] provide the kind of information that aren’t subject to scrutiny, that aren’t fact checked and that builds on emotion rather than reason. This results in the dumbing down of the consumer.”
The journalists that report these hoax hate crimes need to fully understand that future hoaxers are their current consumers. One feeds the other and back again. It’s not the lying victims that are solely to blame but the society that is creating them.
When it comes to the hoaxers themselves, penalties might well need to be stiffened to reduce their frequency. Presently when caught the hoaxers are merely slapped with a misdemeanor charge.
But since so much of our society has lost it’s moral way, maybe upgrading the sentence to a felony charge would be more apt to stop this flow of hoaxes.
We have to do something to get back on the road of real news, decency and integrity. The epidemic of misguided hoax crimes are certainly taking us in the wrong direction.