To Dispatcher: “Race Hoax in Progress at [Redacted] Ware Street”

Revised on Wednesday, September 3, 2009, at 3:43 a.m.

by Nicholas Stix

Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau - Here at WEJB, we got a call on 21 July of a race hoax in progress.

Crime scenes: The Boston Globe, Washington Post, Harvard University Department of African-American Studies, Harvard Law School, Cambridge Police Department, Cambridge Mayor’s Office, Middlesex District Attorney’s Office and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Current suspects: Henry Louis Gates Jr., alias “Skip”; Charles “Show Me the Money, Whitey” Ogletree; Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas; Boston Globe Editor Martin Baron, and alleged reporters John R. Ellement and Matt Collette; Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, and alleged reporter Krissah Thompson; Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone; Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons; a John Doe currently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” and assorted John and Jane Does, whose number is bound to increase, as the offense escalates and spreads.

Black race hoaxes go back over 40 years, but due to insufficient social infrastructure, prior to the mid-1980s, often failed to “take.”

The fathers of the paranoid black mentality and the black race hoax were W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963), and James Baldwin (1924-1987). DuBois was a brilliant but mercurial scholar and writer. Baldwin was initially a successful novelist, but found publishing as “books” brief broadsides of rabid racial propaganda, seeking to incite American race riots from the safety of his Parisian perch more remunerative and less taxing than writing and re-writing 400-page novels.

One hundred years ago, DuBois, the token black co-founder of the NAACP, decreed that blacks’ problems were entirely the fault of whites.

The pseudo-intellectual foundations for the black race hoax were first provided by Baldwin in the two essays which were published in magazines in 1962, and re-published the following year as the slender pamphlet The Fire Next Time, which has been cited by countless black “scholars” and intellectuals who never read it as presaging the next riots, when in fact Baldwin wrote it before the 1960s’ black race riots, which began in 1964.

(Such towering intellects remind me of, and are often the same blacks who cite W.E.B. DuBois’ phrase “double-consciousness,” as if it merely expressed DuBois’ condemnation of living as a black under white racism, when in fact it expressed equally his embarrassment over black readers, whom he considered—in contrast to whites—unable to appreciate his gifts. My hunch is that many of those approvingly quoting DuBois never read the essay in question.)

Baldwin exerted himself, in particular, in creating what would eventually blossom into the racial profiling hoax, in order to divert attention from, and ultimately cover up a series of organized racial lynchings of whites by blacks in 1963-1964 Harlem. Thus was Baldwin one of the authors of the first successful, modern black race hoax.

The notion that the 1960s’ black race riots were a response to white “racism,” rather than the expression of murderous black racism was a race hoax, but one created largely by white leftist politicians, “scholars,” and “journalists,” though with a big assist from Baldwin.

Though Baldwin helped generate much violent black racism, his success as a race hoaxer was limited. Before outrageous race hoaxes could be successfully perpetrated, assembly line-style, by blacks against whites, a “critical mass” or “tipping point” had to be reached, in which there were sufficient numbers of racist, incompetent, black affirmative action hires in newsrooms, college faculties and “shadow university” offices, local and state agencies, non-profits, police departments, and federal agencies, including the Justice Department.

To my knowledge, the first successful black race hoax of this, the era of the black race hoax, was Howard Beach I in 1986, which was so successful that 22 years later, few people even know that it was a hoax.

Jared Taylor first exposed Howard Beach I in his 1992 book, Paved with Good Intentions. In Carl Horowitz’ new exposé of Al Sharpton and the “civil rights” racket, Mainstreaming Demagoguery: Al Sharpton’s Rise to Respectability, Horowitz subjects Howard Beach I and other race hoaxes to the sort of investigation that the MSM, academia, and the authorities are duty-bound to undertake, but who instead prefer aiding and abetting the hoaxers.

The black race hoax du jour, “Gatesgate,” is much different than those of the first few years of this period.

With the early race hoaxes, the general public was unaware at first that a hoax was afoot, because the hoaxers’ journalist accomplices variously withheld the truth, and lied to the public. By contrast, via a combination of hard-won knowledge which permits us to engage in the early (often immediate, as in the noose hoaxes) identification of likely hoaxes; the medium of the Internet, which (still) permits one to elude the MSM news blockade; and certain courageous individuals, such as Larry Auster and his readers, Johnny Simpson, and my colleagues at VDARE, it is possible for the public to observe a hoax unfold, almost in real time.
 
 
Salient Points in the Genesis of the Gates Hoax

1. Gates had already decided to do what I call “pulling a racial” as soon as he saw the white policeman standing on Harvard’s property (the home does not belong to him). At that moment or only seconds later, Gates had decided to extort money out of the City of Cambridge, and called someone on his cell phone, telling the person on the other end get a hold of the Cambridge police commissioner;

2. Consistent with his racist history, Gates was incredibly abusive towards Crowley. The abuse was entirely racial in character, even going to the point of responding to Crowley’s request that he speak with the sergeant outside, "I'll speak with your mama outside." As Gates and Crowley fully well knew, blacks consider any putdown containing “Your mama” (“Yo mama!”) the gravest of insults. (Of course, as with Moslems, blacks consider anything and everything “the gravest of insults,” and a justified provocation to riot.);

3. Gates e-mailed everyone in his address book, in order to create the ensuing media maelstrom;

4. Even the statement that Gates’ friend and fellow Harvard affirmative action hire, the law professor, reparationista, and Black Panther Charles Ogletree fashioned for Gates shows that Sgt. James Crowley, the first responding officer, who eventually arrested Gates, had every reason to appear at, and enter the home in which Gates was present;

5. While Gates claims, in Ogletree’s statement, to have been physically unable to yell at Sgt. Crowley, a widely published photograph shows him screaming his head off on the porch;

6. The Boston Globe aided and abetted Gates, by removing the Cambridge Police Department’s official report on the incident. The Globe has since partially restored the Web page, but without Sgt. Crowley’s arrest report, the most important and information-rich document from the original Web page, thus deceiving readers who will assume that they are getting the complete Cambridge PD documents on the case.

Globe alleged reporters John R. Ellement and Matt Collette misrepresented the incident, by asserting that Sgt. Crowley had arrested Gates “after the two had exchanged words,” thereby improperly implying all sorts of equivalences: As if both men had said roughly the same things in the same tone and volume; as if Gates had not just spewed racial insults at the Sergeant, who had not done likewise; and as if they were equals in the situation, the Sergeant had had no legal right to be in control of the situation, and Gates had not repeatedly refused to cooperate with Sgt. Crowley’s lawful orders. The Globe’s suppression of Sgt. Crowley’s report rigs the situation, by making it impossible for readers to compare Crowley’s report with Ellement and Collette’s which, of course is the point of the suppression. The newspaper’s censorship also helps poison the jury pool, should Gates sue the city, by making potential jurors more sympathetic towards Gates’ hoax than they otherwise would be;

7. Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas aided and abetted Gates by refusing to press charges against him; by calling the incident “regrettable,” thus implying that Sgt. Crowley had somehow done something wrong, and that Gates had done nothing wrong, i.e., was somehow a victim; and by suppressing the arrest reports, which had to be leaked, in order that they could be published. Haas then added, “July 16 is a painful moment for all of us. We need to move on. If we focus back on July 16, we are not going to make any progress.”

One thing I can say with certainty, is that July 16 was not a painful moment for all of us. We need to not move on, and instead to stop and focus on July 16. What Commissioner Haas calls “progress” is not worth having;

8. The Washington Post, which is already embroiled in its own “WapoGate” influence-peddling scandal, has likewise aided and abetted Gates, by running stories (including at least one opinion piece that was misleadingly presented as a “news” story) in support of Gates which misrepresent key facts, and at least some of which did not mention the newspaper’s business relationship with him. One “news story,” in particular, by alleged reporter Krissah Thompson, reads like a press release prepared by Charles Ogletree’s publicist. It states all of Ogletree’s dubious claims, as if they were Gospel truth, in its present form states little from the police report (I could have sworn that the original mentioned nothing from the police report), nothing from witnesses or policemen contradicting Ogletree, and adds the “reporter’s” own racial propaganda (“in a country where one in nine young black men are [sic] in prison, where racial profiling is still practiced”);

9. A John Doe presently calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama,” who has stated that he is a friend of Gates’ has, while acknowledging that he is not familiar with the facts of the incident, misrepresented those facts, and then lied about police treatment of black men in Illinois and nationally, in seeking to use the general racial profiling myth as a trump card and a diversion against examination of the facts in this particular incident.
 
 
The Paranoid, Black Supremacist, Jailhouse Philosophy of Law

Whereas, black race hoaxes were once the m.o. of common criminals, they are now seen as respectable forms of extortion by the black elite. Thus, the misconduct of Gates, Obama, and Ogletree exemplify what I call the paranoid, black supremacist, jailhouse philosophy of law, which is supported by all levels of black society in America. That “philosophy” is characterized by the following “principles”:

• No black is obliged to respect or obey the laws of the United States of America, because those are “the white man’s laws”;

• Blacks who break “the white man’s laws” must be left alone by the police;

• Whites who have not broken any laws must be arrested, not in spite of, but because they have not broken any laws, and because they are white (see the Duke Rape Hoax and the Jena Hoax);

• No black is obliged to respect or obey any white police officer enforcing the white man’s laws (or any black police officer, either, because they just work for the white man);

• No black is obliged to tell the truth to any white, or about any interaction with a white;

• No lie is too small or too tall for a black to tell during or regarding any such interaction;

• All black-white interactions must consist of the white showing deference to the black, and/or somehow paying the black as punishment for the latter’s inconvenience at having to deal with a white;

• All black-white non-interactions must consist of the white showing deference to blacks, in absentia, and somehow paying blacks, as punishment for his having avoided them; and

• Blacks have demanded and received their own system of laws and rules—civil rights laws and affirmative action rules—which contradict and trump the laws and rules which whites must obey. This system must be continuously enforced, reinforced, and expanded.

Given their miscalculations, it is understandable that “Obama” and Gates want to “move on”—an old Clintonism—from their little folly. (What is less understandable is why people like Commissioner Haas would want to “move on.”) It is essential, however, that we not move on. Since the 1960s, we have perpetually been “moving on.” It’s time to stop.