The American media have an odd way of handling race when they report crime. After receiving so many complaints years ago that their constant refrain of “black male” assailants when reporting local crimes contributed to racist stereotypes, the ever fearless journalists have written some odd reporting rules for themselves. I am not in the media myself, but from watching the news and from reading the papers, I gather that these rules are as follows:
1) If there is a crime anywhere in the country (or the world) where the assailant is white and the victim is brown, the entire media and political establishment must talk about it over and over for months. They bring in soi-disant race relation experts, professors of “African diaspora” studies departments, and the token racial grievance spokesmen to comment day after day about the lingering white racism of Americans. Even in the age of Obama, Americans’ suppressed hate resurfaces again and again. Evidently, our thought control programs have not been as effective as we might have hoped.
2) During the long periods when there are no such crimes, the media, the politicos, or the occasional academic must invent one. When the authorities discover that such was false or a hoax, the establishment dismisses the story quietly. What fake noose story?
3) By contrast, the media and political establishment go to great lengths to ignore or to misinterpret the incessant criminal violence upon whites by the browner denizens of the land. Even though such crimes happen daily in every large city in America, the official word keepers remain quiet, or they euphemize such crimes as random or by “youth.” Of course, they never forget to dismiss such crime as typical urban violence. Poverty and dense living cause crime, you see.
Lawrence Auster makes this odd reporting a regular theme of his blogging; here is a collection of such articles. Unfortunately, Auster, Buchanan, Sailer, Brimelow, or any other public voice who dares to mention the obvious incurs the wrath of all right thinking individuals. It would be racist to acknowledge reality, it seems.
Yesterday, a crazy white supremacist entered the Holocaust Memorial in Washington and killed a security guard. As with the George Tiller murder, the incident proved to be a horror fantasy relished with hysteria by American Leftists. See, Napolitano was right! The threat to America is the radical right, and one elderly Jew hater with a weapon and a history of crime and mental illness proves that the sky is indeed falling.
The last twenty years have shown us a series of Mohammedan “human caused disasters,” Leftist anarchist violence, and hundreds of thousands of brown on white violent crimes, but it will always be Timothy McVeigh and a hand full of abortionist killers who represent the clear and present danger to American society.
Let us not forget that contemporary Nazis are behind all the world’s terrorism, while our peace loving fellow monotheists just want everyone to get along.
Unexpectedly, the Holocaust Memorial shooting offers us another example of how the media selectively mention race. In the Associate Press story on the killing, reporters Syeed and Espo, to their credit, mention the recent killing at the Army recruitment center in Arkansas and note that the killer was a Mohammedan convert. They do not, however, mention his race. Yet, they do mention that the security guard who died at the Holocaust Memorial was black:
The attack was the third in a recent wave of unsettling shootings that appeared to have political or ethnic underpinnings.
A 23-year-old Army private, William Andrew Long, was shot and killed outside a recruiting office this month in Arkansas and a fellow soldier was wounded. The suspect, a Muslim convert, has said he considers the killing justified because of the U.S. military presence in the Middle East.
Late last month, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in his church.
Johns, the security guard killed Wednesday, was black.
What are we to make of this reporting? Perhaps the Mohammedan angle was enough to explain the killing of the soldier, given that the motive involves (in Leftist terms) a man’s rage at American aggression in the Middle East.
But wouldn’t the “anti-Semitic” angle be enough to explain the Jew hating von Brunn who picked the Holocaust Memorial as his target?
I suppose that it was not outrageous enough for a white supremacist to try to kill Jews in the Holocaust Memorial. We must also believe that he sought to kill blacks. Yet, there is nothing newsworthy about the coincidence of militant Islam (or some mutated form of it) and black American violence. Ernest McGee (Khalifa Hamaas Abdul Khaalis), Malcolm Little (Malcolm X), the victims of John Allen Williams (John Allen Muhammad), and the many others killed by Nation of Islam goons and their spiritual allies must have slipped the journalists’ minds. [You may wish to read Daniel Pipe’s article about such violence.]
Of course, if the media consistently mentioned the racial aspect of crimes in reporting, there would be nothing of interest in the story’s reference to the security guard’s ethnicity. However, race is only mentioned when whitey is the bad guy and the poor, long suffering wise black man is the victim. It is just like Hollywood, but on C.N.N.