Wednesday

October 18th, 2017

Insight

There's a reason we mostly hear about white 'micro-aggressions'

Ann Coulter

By Ann Coulter

Published June 25, 2015

There's a reason we mostly hear about white 'micro-aggressions'

The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it's extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack.


And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is proof that we live in a country packed with marauding racist murderers. It's like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there's that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case.


In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O'Neal blamed the Charleston attack on "white supremacy," claiming that "racial sickness is all around us." (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.)


The media's WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media's other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!


In a country of more than 300 million people, everything will happen eventually. That doesn't make it a trend. Go up to any ordinary, sentient person and ask: Which race assaults the other race more?


Remember the "knockout game" -- or as its devotees called it, "polar bear hunting"? Black teenagers would go looking for white people to knock unconscious with a single punch, videotape the attacks and post them online. The knockout game was a real trend -- which the media denied was a trend.


Just last month, we saw videos of white reporters from the Daily Caller being mugged by black men in Baltimore.


Ask around. You might be surprised at how many whites you know have been physically attacked by a black person at least once in their lives.


Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn't be making this up, so I must be misinformed.

According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on "hate crimes" produced by Eric Holder's Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women.


Holder's DOJ got to the desired outcome by:


(1) Defining "hate crime" only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet.


(Because that's what people fear most: I don't mind getting the crap kicked out of me -- as long as no one calls me a "cracker"!)


(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as "white."


(Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are "Hispanic" when they are victims of crimes, but "white" when they are the perpetrators.)


(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as "hate crimes."


(According to the FBI's detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder's Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as "hate crimes.")


The FBI's crime victimization surveys tell a very different story, one more in line with a normal person's life experience.


In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.


In other words, blacks commit more than 80 percent of all interracial violent crime.


Going for the element of surprise, columnist Brit Bennett recently complained in The New York Times that "white violence is unspoken and unacknowledged" by the media.


Yes, I barely heard a thing about such alleged white-on-black crimes as: Tawana Brawley (hoax), the Duke lacrosse gang rape (hoax), Trayvon Martin (self-defense), Ferguson (hoax) and Eric Garner (justified police arrest). Other than the wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage for months on end, there was barely a peep out of the media about these cases.


The media will pounce on any suspicion of a white-on-black crime, spend a year being hysterical about it, and, if it turns out to be a false alarm, refuse to apologize, before quickly moving on to the next hoax.


The Charleston church shooting is the first case in a very long time in which blacks really were targeted by a white person because of their race (and had the misfortune of being in a gun-free zone). Even Bennett had to reach back to stories her grandmother told her about the Ku Klux Klan (100 percent Democratic) to come up with a previous example of whites terrorizing blacks.


The Charleston attack was a hideous, sickening crime. But that's why we should thank our lucky stars that it was so unusual. White-on-black violence is freakishly rare everywhere in America, except liberal imaginations.


Comment by clicking here.

Columnists

Toons

Lifestyles