Nothing in this really surprises me, just how do such talentless people get so far?...
You must log in or register to see media
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yes, and looking at many of her traits the same applies to Jezza, only he went from nonentity to leader in one go...
are there no young people in american politics
hillary must be getting on too
Why it’s cool to be hated
The Jussie Smollett hoax is what happens when society valorises victimhood.
Brendan O'Neill
Editor
21st February 2019
Here’s the thing about the Jussie Smollett case: it feels both strange and familiar. Strange because, as observers have pointed out, Smollett has a successful music and acting career, most notably in the Fox hip-hop soap opera Empire, and yet here he is risking it all by inventing a mad tale about having been semi-lynched by a couple of MAGA racists. And yet it also feels familiar, creepily familiar. After all, we live in a society in which it is positively cool to suffer from ‘structural oppression’. In which campaigners actively covet hatred, constantly trawling for evidence that their group, their identity, their tribe is more loathed and wronged than any other. Hell, we live in a society in which young people cut themselves with knives and boastfully post photos of their wounds on social media. In such a climate, Smollett’s possible self-administering of a cut to his cheek and his phoney claim that he was violently insulted by modern-day white supremacists starts to make sense as a snapshot of our sick society.
Smollett’s story has gripped the US media. He claimed that in January he was subjected to a racist and homophobic attack by two men (he is gay). He said the men jumped him, bombarded him with racist and anti-gay insults, poured some kind of chemical substance on him, tied a rope around his neck, and said: ‘This is MAGA country.’ Not only was his story instantly believed by much of the media and by many ‘progressive’ politicians and celebs – it was also weaved into a broader narrative about how horrific life has become for minority groups in Trump’s America. This is what happens, observers claimed, when a prejudiced oaf ascends to the White House, courtesy of the thoughtless voting habits of the redneck throng. This assault proves our theory, they insisted, that white supremacy still stalks the American Republic. Actress Ellen Page blubbed on TV and basically held VP Mike Pence responsible for Smollett’s near lynching: prejudiced speech triggers violent behaviour, she said.
Some people started to raise doubts. Smollett’s story doesn’t add up, they said. They were shouted down as alt-right and uncaring. Yet now we know that these doubters, these sceptics, these people who refused to do what we are all expected to do in this witch-hunty era – instantly believe every accusation of racist or sexual violence – were right. Smollett’s story has fallen apart. The Chicago Police denied for weeks that they had any suspicions about his tale. Perhaps they didn’t want to be seen to be questioning the claims of a gay, black man, or casting doubt on an accusation of hate crime – such is the self-silencing induced by the censorious, racially charged, racially guarded culture of identitarianism. Yet now the cops have charged Smollett with filing a false report. It is now widely thought that he encouraged two Nigerian brothers, acquaintances of his, to carry out the ‘attack’. There is video evidence of the brothers buying things that were used in the attack. There is phone evidence that Smollett told them what to buy. This case tells us a broader story all right – not about Trump’s America but about the more pathological elements of political correctness.
What we have here is a man orchestrating an attack on himself. A self-hate crime, if you will. It sounds alarming yet, as the journalist Andy Ngo recently documented, there have been many cases in recent years where ‘hate attacks’ on property or people that were thought to have been carried out by white racists were in fact executed by members of minority groups and sometimes simply made up. And yet any questioning of alleged hate crimes, or of accusations of sexual harassment, or even of the claim that ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are serious problems is instantly shouted down.
Indeed, it is striking how swiftly Smollett was believed and how swiftly his story was held up as proof of something rotten in the states of America. Celebrity socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this attack was not ‘possibly’ racist and homophobic, as some media outlets had said. ‘It was a racist and homophobic attack’, she decreed, getting close to 150,000 retweets. To her list of achievements we must now add ‘key facilitator of one of the great hoaxes of the decade’. Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris almost instantly said the attack was ‘an attempted modern-day lynching’. This kind of stuff was repeated everywhere. The dark irony was that in rushing to judgement – not only the judgement that Smollett was telling the truth but also the judgement that America is packed with hateful, violent people – these people exposed their own prejudices.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what leading politicians and observers said about the Smollett claims, not simply to say to them ‘Ha, you were wrong!’, but more importantly because these kinds of responses are a key driver of the new cult of self-victimhood. These people are the feeders of the fashion for victimhood. It is the social response to claims of victimhood, and more broadly the social narrative surrounding victimhood, that encourages everything from activists’ incessant trawling for proof of widespread racial or homophobic hatred to the hoaxes executed by Smollett and others who crave the brand of ‘victim’.
The more that our society valorises the victim, the more it attaches social capital to the experiences of pain and trauma, the more it validates weakness over autonomy, then the more it incites people to play up their victim status and even to invent victim status. Witness those uber-privileged students at Oxford claiming to feel hurt by statues of old colonialists, or the feminists behind Everyday Sexism who see every single encounter with men as proof of patriarchal oppression, or Muslim community activists who collate every mean tweet about the Koran as proof of a tidal wave of ‘Islamophobia’, or Smollett and many others harming themselves in order to appear hated and wounded – these are the consequences of our identitarian era in which you can win social praise, media affirmation and state resources on the basis of how victimised you are.
The twisted thing about all this is that it fractures society and generates real tension, and real hatred, far more than two MAGA-shouting racists ever could (especially when those two people didn’t exist in the first place). Because what this cult of the victim encourages is a misanthropic view of society as full of hate. It goads activists and others to view ordinary people as horrible creatures, liable to insult and harm. It green-lights the search for, or more accurately the invention of, proof that our fellow citizens are backward and prejudiced and in need of control or re-education. Because you cannot have exalted victims, celebrated survivors of hate, without also creating the impression that most ordinary people are potential purveyors of hate, that society is a dangerous place for certain identity groups. What a terrible price the new PC lobby is willing to pay for its enjoyment of victim status – the price of fraying society even more, and writing off the masses as a threat to public order, common decency, and minority groups. It is Smollett’s own claims that increasingly look like a genuine and unforgivable act of hatred.
The Jussie Smollett hoax is what happens when society valorises victimhood.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Brendan O'Neill
Editor
21st February 2019
You must log in or register to see images
Here’s the thing about the Jussie Smollett case: it feels both strange and familiar. Strange because, as observers have pointed out, Smollett has a successful music and acting career, most notably in the Fox hip-hop soap opera Empire, and yet here he is risking it all by inventing a mad tale about having been semi-lynched by a couple of MAGA racists. And yet it also feels familiar, creepily familiar. After all, we live in a society in which it is positively cool to suffer from ‘structural oppression’. In which campaigners actively covet hatred, constantly trawling for evidence that their group, their identity, their tribe is more loathed and wronged than any other. Hell, we live in a society in which young people cut themselves with knives and boastfully post photos of their wounds on social media. In such a climate, Smollett’s possible self-administering of a cut to his cheek and his phoney claim that he was violently insulted by modern-day white supremacists starts to make sense as a snapshot of our sick society.
Smollett’s story has gripped the US media. He claimed that in January he was subjected to a racist and homophobic attack by two men (he is gay). He said the men jumped him, bombarded him with racist and anti-gay insults, poured some kind of chemical substance on him, tied a rope around his neck, and said: ‘This is MAGA country.’ Not only was his story instantly believed by much of the media and by many ‘progressive’ politicians and celebs – it was also weaved into a broader narrative about how horrific life has become for minority groups in Trump’s America. This is what happens, observers claimed, when a prejudiced oaf ascends to the White House, courtesy of the thoughtless voting habits of the redneck throng. This assault proves our theory, they insisted, that white supremacy still stalks the American Republic. Actress Ellen Page blubbed on TV and basically held VP Mike Pence responsible for Smollett’s near lynching: prejudiced speech triggers violent behaviour, she said.
Some people started to raise doubts. Smollett’s story doesn’t add up, they said. They were shouted down as alt-right and uncaring. Yet now we know that these doubters, these sceptics, these people who refused to do what we are all expected to do in this witch-hunty era – instantly believe every accusation of racist or sexual violence – were right. Smollett’s story has fallen apart. The Chicago Police denied for weeks that they had any suspicions about his tale. Perhaps they didn’t want to be seen to be questioning the claims of a gay, black man, or casting doubt on an accusation of hate crime – such is the self-silencing induced by the censorious, racially charged, racially guarded culture of identitarianism. Yet now the cops have charged Smollett with filing a false report. It is now widely thought that he encouraged two Nigerian brothers, acquaintances of his, to carry out the ‘attack’. There is video evidence of the brothers buying things that were used in the attack. There is phone evidence that Smollett told them what to buy. This case tells us a broader story all right – not about Trump’s America but about the more pathological elements of political correctness.
What we have here is a man orchestrating an attack on himself. A self-hate crime, if you will. It sounds alarming yet, as the journalist Andy Ngo recently documented, there have been many cases in recent years where ‘hate attacks’ on property or people that were thought to have been carried out by white racists were in fact executed by members of minority groups and sometimes simply made up. And yet any questioning of alleged hate crimes, or of accusations of sexual harassment, or even of the claim that ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are serious problems is instantly shouted down.
Indeed, it is striking how swiftly Smollett was believed and how swiftly his story was held up as proof of something rotten in the states of America. Celebrity socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this attack was not ‘possibly’ racist and homophobic, as some media outlets had said. ‘It was a racist and homophobic attack’, she decreed, getting close to 150,000 retweets. To her list of achievements we must now add ‘key facilitator of one of the great hoaxes of the decade’. Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris almost instantly said the attack was ‘an attempted modern-day lynching’. This kind of stuff was repeated everywhere. The dark irony was that in rushing to judgement – not only the judgement that Smollett was telling the truth but also the judgement that America is packed with hateful, violent people – these people exposed their own prejudices.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what leading politicians and observers said about the Smollett claims, not simply to say to them ‘Ha, you were wrong!’, but more importantly because these kinds of responses are a key driver of the new cult of self-victimhood. These people are the feeders of the fashion for victimhood. It is the social response to claims of victimhood, and more broadly the social narrative surrounding victimhood, that encourages everything from activists’ incessant trawling for proof of widespread racial or homophobic hatred to the hoaxes executed by Smollett and others who crave the brand of ‘victim’.
The more that our society valorises the victim, the more it attaches social capital to the experiences of pain and trauma, the more it validates weakness over autonomy, then the more it incites people to play up their victim status and even to invent victim status. Witness those uber-privileged students at Oxford claiming to feel hurt by statues of old colonialists, or the feminists behind Everyday Sexism who see every single encounter with men as proof of patriarchal oppression, or Muslim community activists who collate every mean tweet about the Koran as proof of a tidal wave of ‘Islamophobia’, or Smollett and many others harming themselves in order to appear hated and wounded – these are the consequences of our identitarian era in which you can win social praise, media affirmation and state resources on the basis of how victimised you are.
The twisted thing about all this is that it fractures society and generates real tension, and real hatred, far more than two MAGA-shouting racists ever could (especially when those two people didn’t exist in the first place). Because what this cult of the victim encourages is a misanthropic view of society as full of hate. It goads activists and others to view ordinary people as horrible creatures, liable to insult and harm. It green-lights the search for, or more accurately the invention of, proof that our fellow citizens are backward and prejudiced and in need of control or re-education. Because you cannot have exalted victims, celebrated survivors of hate, without also creating the impression that most ordinary people are potential purveyors of hate, that society is a dangerous place for certain identity groups. What a terrible price the new PC lobby is willing to pay for its enjoyment of victim status – the price of fraying society even more, and writing off the masses as a threat to public order, common decency, and minority groups. It is Smollett’s own claims that increasingly look like a genuine and unforgivable act of hatred.
Hizballah to be banned alongside other terrorist organisations
Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin (JNIM) are set to be banned following their proscription as terrorist organisations.
Published 25 February 2019
From:
Home Office and The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
A draft order, laid in Parliament today, will proscribe Hizballah in its entirety alongside Ansaroul Islam and JNIM who operate in the Sahel region in Africa.
Subject to Parliament’s approval, from Friday when the order comes into effect, being a member, or inviting support for Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and JNIM will be a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid said:
My priority as Home Secretary is to protect the British people. As part of this, we identify and ban any terrorist organisation which threatens our safety and security, whatever their motivations or ideology which is why I am taking action against several organisations today.
Hizballah is continuing in its attempts to destabilase the fragile situation in the Middle East – and we are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party. Because of this, I have taken the decision to proscribe the group in its entirety.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said:
We are staunch supporters of a stable and prosperous Lebanon. We cannot however be complacent when it comes to terrorism – it is clear the distinction between Hizballah’s military and political wings does not exist, and by proscribing Hizballah in all its forms, the government is sending a clear signal that its destabilising activities in the region are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK’s national security.
This does not change our ongoing commitment to Lebanon, with whom we have a broad and strong relationship.
All three groups have been assessed as being currently concerned in terrorism.
Hizballah’s External Security Organisation and its military wing including the Jihad Council were already proscribed in 2001 and 2008 respectively.
The government has taken the decision to proscribe Hizballah in its entirety on the basis that it is no longer tenable to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hizballah.
Hizballah was established during the Lebanese civil war and is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel. It continues to amass weapons in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolutions, putting the security of the region at risk. Its involvement in the Syrian war since 2012 continues to prolong the conflict and the regime’s brutal and violent repression of the Syrian people.
Ansaroul Islam seeks to impose its own strict Salafist Sharia law in northern Burkina Faso and are known to target other ethnic groups in the region leading to substantial internal displacement of people. In December 2016, the group claimed responsibility for an attack on an army outpost in Burkina Faso which killed at least 12 soldiers.
JNIM was established in March 2017 as a federation of Al Qa’ida aligned groups in Mali and aims to impose a strict Salafist interpretation of Sharia law in the Sahel region and has claimed responsibility for several attacks in the region in which people were killed.
Furthermore, a separate order laid in Parliament today will proscribe:
Decisions about proscribing or extending the proscription of a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information.
There are currently 74 international terrorist organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, alongside 14 organisations connected to Northern Ireland proscribed under separate legislation.
Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin (JNIM) are set to be banned following their proscription as terrorist organisations.
Published 25 February 2019
From:
Home Office and The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
You must log in or register to see images
A draft order, laid in Parliament today, will proscribe Hizballah in its entirety alongside Ansaroul Islam and JNIM who operate in the Sahel region in Africa.
Subject to Parliament’s approval, from Friday when the order comes into effect, being a member, or inviting support for Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and JNIM will be a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid said:
My priority as Home Secretary is to protect the British people. As part of this, we identify and ban any terrorist organisation which threatens our safety and security, whatever their motivations or ideology which is why I am taking action against several organisations today.
Hizballah is continuing in its attempts to destabilase the fragile situation in the Middle East – and we are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party. Because of this, I have taken the decision to proscribe the group in its entirety.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said:
We are staunch supporters of a stable and prosperous Lebanon. We cannot however be complacent when it comes to terrorism – it is clear the distinction between Hizballah’s military and political wings does not exist, and by proscribing Hizballah in all its forms, the government is sending a clear signal that its destabilising activities in the region are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK’s national security.
This does not change our ongoing commitment to Lebanon, with whom we have a broad and strong relationship.
All three groups have been assessed as being currently concerned in terrorism.
Hizballah’s External Security Organisation and its military wing including the Jihad Council were already proscribed in 2001 and 2008 respectively.
The government has taken the decision to proscribe Hizballah in its entirety on the basis that it is no longer tenable to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hizballah.
Hizballah was established during the Lebanese civil war and is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel. It continues to amass weapons in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolutions, putting the security of the region at risk. Its involvement in the Syrian war since 2012 continues to prolong the conflict and the regime’s brutal and violent repression of the Syrian people.
Ansaroul Islam seeks to impose its own strict Salafist Sharia law in northern Burkina Faso and are known to target other ethnic groups in the region leading to substantial internal displacement of people. In December 2016, the group claimed responsibility for an attack on an army outpost in Burkina Faso which killed at least 12 soldiers.
JNIM was established in March 2017 as a federation of Al Qa’ida aligned groups in Mali and aims to impose a strict Salafist interpretation of Sharia law in the Sahel region and has claimed responsibility for several attacks in the region in which people were killed.
Furthermore, a separate order laid in Parliament today will proscribe:
- the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKC), the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party (DHKP) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front/Armed Propaganda Units (DHKC/SPB) as aliases of the Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party—Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi) (DHKP-C) which is already proscribed
- Jaysh Khalid Bin Walid (JKbW) (JKW), Jaysh Khalid bin al-Walid (KBW) and Khalid ibn-Walid Army (KBWA) as aliases of Daesh
Decisions about proscribing or extending the proscription of a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information.
There are currently 74 international terrorist organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, alongside 14 organisations connected to Northern Ireland proscribed under separate legislation.
You must log in or register to see media
A pathetic and counter productive act.
But just for balance nearly 70% of hoax race crime reports in the US are made by white people. Your homework is to rewrite this article from that perspective.
Which probably just about follows the white/black population mix in the US. Most shocking was Susan Smith who drove her car into a lake with her two young sons in the back - then blamed a black carjacker
this group dont believe your figures stan
Hate Hoax Map
Click on markers in the map above to see summary details of each hoax.
For more detailed information, including a sortable spreadsheet view, click here.
* * *
Hate crimes are considered a serious problem. There are increased penalties for crimes motivated even “in part” by prejudice, and the FBI issues an annual report on hate crimes. Hate crimes—which are also known as “bias crimes”—are reportedly on the rise since the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump. However, a number of high-profile alleged hate crimes have proven to be hoaxes that were staged by the victim.
How many hate crimes are hoaxes? How often does a black person send himself racist hate mail or a Muslim woman falsely claim that whites tore off her hijab? No government agency counts these incidents, but now we can answer these questions.
We have done an analysis of recent hate-crime hoaxes with a particular concentration on the period beginning June 2015—the month Donald Trump announced his candidacy—and ending December 2017. We believe there were enough hoaxes in that two-and-a-half year period to provide what we believe are representative data.
We have attempted to include every case of every instance of every kind of bias hoax. The only exceptions are fake bias crimes against people with mental or physical handicaps. These cases are extremely rare, and it is possible that there was not a single reported hoax of this kind during the period beginning in June 2015.
Otherwise, we believe our data, based on an extensive media searches and on existing compilations, are exhaustive. We will also update our database as future hoaxes are reported. If readers know of cases since June 2015 that we have missed, please contact us here.
Findings
It is clear from the map that hoaxes occur in virtually every state, and are most common in population centers. It is also clear from the fine-grained sorting of data that is possible using filters, that of the 101 people who perpetrated hoaxes from June 2015 to December 2017, by far the largest number (44) fabricated acts of bias against blacks. The next most common “victim” categories of fake bias crimes were Middle Easterners/Muslims (17), non-whites in general (13), and LGBT people (10). Sixty-four percent of the hoaxers are male.
In the FBI’s latest hate crimes report, blacks are overrepresented as offenders. They account for 26.1 percent of those cases in which the race of the perpetrator was known, meaning that they were 2.4 times more likely than non-blacks to commit hate crimes. It is not possible to make a direct comparison to whites because—and this is a long-standing defect in a report that is supposed to highlight race and ethnicity—the report does not clearly distinguish between whites and Hispanics.
In the case of hate-crime hoaxes, black overrepresentation is much greater. As indicated in the graph below, over the last two-and-a-half years, on a per capita basis, blacks were 13.3 times more likely than whites to commit hate-crime hoaxes, and Middle Easterners were 34.7 times more likely. In our data, Hispanics and whites are clearly distinguished, and Hispanics were as likely as whites to perpetrate hate hoaxes. The few cases in which the race of the hoaxer is not known are not included in the graphs that follow.
For the most part, it is correct to assume that bias-crime hoaxes are committed by a member of the group that was falsely targeted: gays commit anti-gay hate hoaxes, and blacks commit anti-black hate hoaxes.
Of cases with whites perpetrators, only 3 of the 18 committed hoaxes in which whites, as a race, were the targets of fake hate; the rest meant to draw sympathy to LGBT people, other non-white groups, or women. A few “progressives,” for example, have drawn swastikas or written racial slurs in the hope of evoking sympathy for non-whites or to justify increased anti-racist activity.
Whites were therefore more likely to perpetrate hoaxes designed to evoke sympathy for non-whites or Muslims than for whites. We found no case of a non-white committing a false hate crime meant to promote sympathy for whites as a group.
Eighty-nine percent of hoaxers tried to convey the false appearance of racial or—in the case of Muslims and Jews—a religious/ethnic bias. If we restrict our analysis to these hoaxes—that is to say, if we exclude cases in which the fake targets of the hate crimes were LGBT people or women—whites are the group least likely group to be hoaxers, and the multiples for other groups rise accordingly.
Middle Easterners, at 69 times the white rate, were the group most likely to fabricate hoaxes of this kind, and Hispanics were almost twice as likely as whites to be hoaxers.
Many incidents officially reported to the FBI as hate crimes are never solved because the perpetrator is never identified. A certain number of unsolved hate crimes are likely to be hoaxes like the incidents described in detail in our interactive map. In the absence of confirmation there is always the possibility that a bias crime is a fabrication intended to evoke sympathy for the group of which the “victim” is a member.
We will update our data as new hoaxes come to light.
Again, we urge readers to keep us informed about hoaxes—or even suspected hoaxes—of which they are aware by sending us press or police reports.
Hate Hoax Map
Click on markers in the map above to see summary details of each hoax.
For more detailed information, including a sortable spreadsheet view, click here.
* * *
Hate crimes are considered a serious problem. There are increased penalties for crimes motivated even “in part” by prejudice, and the FBI issues an annual report on hate crimes. Hate crimes—which are also known as “bias crimes”—are reportedly on the rise since the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump. However, a number of high-profile alleged hate crimes have proven to be hoaxes that were staged by the victim.
How many hate crimes are hoaxes? How often does a black person send himself racist hate mail or a Muslim woman falsely claim that whites tore off her hijab? No government agency counts these incidents, but now we can answer these questions.
We have done an analysis of recent hate-crime hoaxes with a particular concentration on the period beginning June 2015—the month Donald Trump announced his candidacy—and ending December 2017. We believe there were enough hoaxes in that two-and-a-half year period to provide what we believe are representative data.
We have attempted to include every case of every instance of every kind of bias hoax. The only exceptions are fake bias crimes against people with mental or physical handicaps. These cases are extremely rare, and it is possible that there was not a single reported hoax of this kind during the period beginning in June 2015.
Otherwise, we believe our data, based on an extensive media searches and on existing compilations, are exhaustive. We will also update our database as future hoaxes are reported. If readers know of cases since June 2015 that we have missed, please contact us here.
Findings
It is clear from the map that hoaxes occur in virtually every state, and are most common in population centers. It is also clear from the fine-grained sorting of data that is possible using filters, that of the 101 people who perpetrated hoaxes from June 2015 to December 2017, by far the largest number (44) fabricated acts of bias against blacks. The next most common “victim” categories of fake bias crimes were Middle Easterners/Muslims (17), non-whites in general (13), and LGBT people (10). Sixty-four percent of the hoaxers are male.
In the FBI’s latest hate crimes report, blacks are overrepresented as offenders. They account for 26.1 percent of those cases in which the race of the perpetrator was known, meaning that they were 2.4 times more likely than non-blacks to commit hate crimes. It is not possible to make a direct comparison to whites because—and this is a long-standing defect in a report that is supposed to highlight race and ethnicity—the report does not clearly distinguish between whites and Hispanics.
In the case of hate-crime hoaxes, black overrepresentation is much greater. As indicated in the graph below, over the last two-and-a-half years, on a per capita basis, blacks were 13.3 times more likely than whites to commit hate-crime hoaxes, and Middle Easterners were 34.7 times more likely. In our data, Hispanics and whites are clearly distinguished, and Hispanics were as likely as whites to perpetrate hate hoaxes. The few cases in which the race of the hoaxer is not known are not included in the graphs that follow.
You must log in or register to see images
For the most part, it is correct to assume that bias-crime hoaxes are committed by a member of the group that was falsely targeted: gays commit anti-gay hate hoaxes, and blacks commit anti-black hate hoaxes.
Of cases with whites perpetrators, only 3 of the 18 committed hoaxes in which whites, as a race, were the targets of fake hate; the rest meant to draw sympathy to LGBT people, other non-white groups, or women. A few “progressives,” for example, have drawn swastikas or written racial slurs in the hope of evoking sympathy for non-whites or to justify increased anti-racist activity.
You must log in or register to see images
Whites were therefore more likely to perpetrate hoaxes designed to evoke sympathy for non-whites or Muslims than for whites. We found no case of a non-white committing a false hate crime meant to promote sympathy for whites as a group.
You must log in or register to see images
Eighty-nine percent of hoaxers tried to convey the false appearance of racial or—in the case of Muslims and Jews—a religious/ethnic bias. If we restrict our analysis to these hoaxes—that is to say, if we exclude cases in which the fake targets of the hate crimes were LGBT people or women—whites are the group least likely group to be hoaxers, and the multiples for other groups rise accordingly.
You must log in or register to see images
Middle Easterners, at 69 times the white rate, were the group most likely to fabricate hoaxes of this kind, and Hispanics were almost twice as likely as whites to be hoaxers.
Many incidents officially reported to the FBI as hate crimes are never solved because the perpetrator is never identified. A certain number of unsolved hate crimes are likely to be hoaxes like the incidents described in detail in our interactive map. In the absence of confirmation there is always the possibility that a bias crime is a fabrication intended to evoke sympathy for the group of which the “victim” is a member.
We will update our data as new hoaxes come to light.
Again, we urge readers to keep us informed about hoaxes—or even suspected hoaxes—of which they are aware by sending us press or police reports.
Source? I don’t want to click on anything in any of your posts, it will incriminate my browsing history. My source is The Atlantic magazine. Look it up.
deleted but i will look again
it did look though to be a group that wouldnt find anything bad about white people
though i could be wrong
it did look though to be a group that wouldnt find anything bad about white people
though i could be wrong
here it is
Hate Crime Hoax Map - American Renaissance
https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/hate-crime-hoax-map
American Renaissance News and commentary on interracial crime, race ... details of each hoax. ... of which they are aware by sending us press or police reports.
Hate Crime Hoax Map - American Renaissance
https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/hate-crime-hoax-map
American Renaissance News and commentary on interracial crime, race ... details of each hoax. ... of which they are aware by sending us press or police reports.
“A US white supremacist organisation’ according to wiki. Glad I didn’t click on anything.
UK urged to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, in a non binding UN decision.
This is a shameful episode in our history, Harold Wilson preventing the islands from gaining independence in the sixties, evicting all the inhabitants and then giving the land to the US as a airforce base. Every government since has perpetuated the injustice. The former inhabitants now live in a variety of places - Seychelles, Mauritius and West Sussex for some reason. They do not have a right to British citizenship, and some of their descendants living here have been threatened with deportation.
Come on Theresa, do the right thing for a change.
This is a shameful episode in our history, Harold Wilson preventing the islands from gaining independence in the sixties, evicting all the inhabitants and then giving the land to the US as a airforce base. Every government since has perpetuated the injustice. The former inhabitants now live in a variety of places - Seychelles, Mauritius and West Sussex for some reason. They do not have a right to British citizenship, and some of their descendants living here have been threatened with deportation.
Come on Theresa, do the right thing for a change.
should you have nothing better to do
You must log in or register to see media
he shouts a lot
D
