WorldNetDaily's Drum Major For Race-Baiting
Colin Flaherty keeps seeing "black mob violence" everywhere he looks, regardless of the actual facts -- and then plays dumb about the fact that he's race-baiting.
By Terry Krepel
Last summer, Colin Flaherty became the drum major for race-baiting at WorldNetDaily, becoming its point man for "what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse," in the words of the boilerplate editor's note that accompanies each of Flaherty's articles.
Of course, Flaherty's efforts at devising the appearance of an epidemic of violence by blacks does not equate to one actually existing -- all he has done is blow up isolated instances of "black mob violence" in a dishonest attempt to portray them as a pattern.
WND has continued to publish Flaherty's race-baiting articles, even as he places less emphasis on facts and more on keeping alive his dubious narrative that all blacks are mob-prone thugs. The fact that Flaherty completely ignores the fact that people of other races commit the very crimes he purports to be outraged about amply demonstrates this is all about race-baiting, not about the truth.
Getting it wrong
In a July 18 WND article, Flaherty yet again operated from the premise that only blacks are violent:
Ready to play the Knockout Game?
You can play anywhere, but “vibrant and culturally mixed” South Grand District is probably best. That is where the victims are: Asians, “gay” people, artists, yuppies people who won’t fight back.
By contrast, the St. Louis Riverfront Times pointed out that the "knockout game" is, in fact, not exclusively a black thing:
But Knockout King does not appear to be bounded by race. Jason, from St. Louis County, says two white friends were part of his punch-out crew. One Dutchtown woman, agreeing to speak on the condition that her name not be published, says police caught her son, who is white, playing Knockout King two years ago, when he was sixteen. He and some friends had been hiding between buildings on Gravois Avenue, and he popped out to club a bicyclist who'd come rolling along.
Nevertheless, Flaherty has continued to promote the false premise that any "knockout game" must originate with "a crowd of black people," most recently on Feb. 14.
That's far from the only misrepresentation Flaherty has peddled. Salon's Alex Pareene documented numerous Flaherty falsehoods:
In addition to having decided to make racial fear-mongering his profession, Flaherty’s also a sloppy aggregator. He gets wrong the simple details of the stories he’s abusing to make his argument, and he also seems to invent facts from thin air. Some examples from his column on a series of random incidents in Minneapolis, which became a chapter of his silly book: A woman who was badly beaten by a group of teenage girls is said to have been attacked by “a gang of 20 black women.” The number of attackers appears nowhere in the linked story. (He also seems to intentionally elide the stated motive for the attack, which wasn’t anti-white animus but a missing pair of sunglasses.) “In September of 2011, a crowd of 1,000 black people rioted through downtown fighting, stealing, destroying property,” he writes. There’s no way of knowing how many people were in the crowd, but it doesn’t look to me like 1,000. In the book he seems to have changed number to 800, though he still has no possible way of counting. (The person who uploaded video of the crowd’s brief marauding wrote of “a few hundred.”) Flaherty says “a group of black people attacked a mobile alcoholic beverage cart in Minneapolis,” but there’s no such thing as “mobile alcoholic beverage carts” in Minneapolis. The thing attacked was a bunch of people on one of those stupid group bicycles with a beer keg. This is all pretty basic stuff, and my folks always taught me that if you’re going to use a bunch of random incidents to try to convince people of the existence of a secret nationwide pandemic of racial violence, it’s best to get the details right.
Pareene went on to point out that "If you look for every example of crimes committed by black people in every American city over the last three to five years, you’ll find enough examples to make it sound like a lot of crime, because America is a violent country with a lot of crime, a lot of poverty and a lot of impoverished minority neighborhoods located conveniently close to much wealthier white neighborhoods (and business districts where everything is also owned by white people)."
Well, actually, not so much. Three days before Flaherty's article was published, Ball ran for a career-high 247 yards and scored three touchdowns, in the process setting a the Big Ten record for career TDs. And in November, Ball set an NCAA record by scoring his 79th career touchdown.
But never mind the facts -- Flaherty just wants to fearmonger, declaring that "Black mob violence is a new feature of life at college campuses around the country" with his usual cherry-picked compendium of isolated incidents he's trying to cobble into an "epidemic." He even references a "college black mob violence tour" despite the fact that he identifies no "black mob" roaming from campus to campus across the country beating up people.
In a Jan. 30 article, Flaherty did his usual blaming of "black mob riots" for incidents at a mall in Indianapolis. He writes that "Police and local media attribute the problem to 'unruly teens' which local residents say is politically correct coded speech for black people," but he quoted no "local residents" who say that.
In fact, the local paper did point out that the incidents at the mall are "almost all involving juveniles" -- telling everyone except Flaherty that it's a youth problem, not a black problem.
And on Jan. 19, Flaherty latched onto a case in which the city of Chicago has agreed to pay millions to the family of a white woman who had been taken into custody for causing a disturbance at an airport but later released -- despite exhibiting signs of mental illness -- into a crime-infested black neighborhood, where she was sexually assaulted and fell from a 7th-story window, leaving her incapacitated.
Because the victim is white and her alleged perpetrators are black, Flaherty stopped his investigation right there and declares this "racial violence" even though he offers no evidence that race was a driving factor behind any of the events that occurred.
But who needs facts when there's race-baiting to be done? Not Colin Flaherty. In one article, he asserted that "People who say racial violence is 'random' either do not know what the word means, or they are not telling the truth." Of course, by portraying random incidents as an "epidemic," Flaherty isn't telling the truth either. Not to mention not knowing what "random"means.
The big list
In the tradition of WND's ongoing obsession with (female) teacher-student sex, which includes a continually updated "Big List" of stories about same, WND's race-baiting obsession has been given the same treatment.
On Sept. 19, Flaherty debuted his own big race-baiting list, with his usual excuse that he's doing the work "the media" won't:
America is the midst of an epidemic of racial mob violence and the media refuses to report it.
Of course, WND claimed that teacher-student sex was an "epidemic" too, using the same desperate cherry-picking tactics to falsely suggest links that don't exist. All Flaherty has done is document instances in which blacks are involved in crimes, ignoring crimes by all other races -- the very epitome of race-baiting.
And some of the stories to which he links don't appear to be racially driven at all. For instance, one story about a fight involving football teams was apparently driven by one coach sending threatening text messages to opposing players. That's "black mob" violence? In Flaherty's world it is.
It's interesting that WND now considers "black mobs" to be the same kind of threat as teacher-student sex.
Dragging Obama in
As befits a website whose pain agenda is bashing President Obama at every possible opportunity, Flaherty even tried to drag Obama in to his race-baiting rhetoric in an Oct. 3 column:
And now for a few words from our commander in chief:
Funny that Flaherty didn't tell his readers about that. That would have contradicted his message that all black people are violent thugs, and he clearly can't have that. Indeed, Flaherty quickly pivoted to keeping up his black-people-are-scary obsession, repeating purported tweets from "black people promising violence if the election does not turn out they way they want it." He concluded: "No matter if you want to explain it, or justify it, or prepare for it, promises of even more racial violence are good to know."
Kill 'em all
In a July 29 article, Flaherty revealed his solution for dealing with all the scary black people he's been fearmongering about: Be prepared to kill them. No, really:
Jeremy Schenkel felt safe right up to the moment he came face to face with one of the dozens of violent black mobs that terrorized Philadelphia last summer.
Remember, Flaherty portrays blacks only as mob-prone thugs who are out to rob and/or kill you. Therefore, he appears to be giving license to shoot any black who looks even vaguely menacing.
Flaherty added: No one knows how often guns are used for self defense. The Cato Institute says anywhere from 100,000 to one million times a year. But of course, the work of author John Lott is the best place to go for more of this kind of information."
In fact, Lott's research methods are suspect, and he has pushed numerous discredited claims.
Flaherty plays dumb
Flaherty's general response to accusations of race-baiting is to play dumb. He wrote a column in response to Salon's Pareene, in which he pretended he's not actually race-baiting:
I also write about 20 black people who beat up a white woman at a park:
Given that pretty much the entire oeuvre of Flaherty's work is about blacks gathering in mobs and committing crimes, most of them against whites -- and ignoring violence caused by those of other races -- the implication that the blacks are anti-white is built in. It's just silly for Flaherty to pretend that's not the point.
And then, later in his column, Flaherty again brought up "racial violence" -- thus reinforcing his point that blacks beating up whites is all about being "anti-white."
Flaherty played even dumber in a Oct. 26 WND column headlined "The psychos from Salon" -- a phrase he repeats in his opening paragraph, thus immediately surrendering any moral high ground to any argument he would go on to make. He claimed that "Salon has ganged up with the Guardians of the Liberal Universe known as the Southern Poverty Law Center to say that I am peddling White Nationalism."
In fact, all Salon did is reprint an SPLC article about Flaherty, which notes that Flaherty went on a "white nationalist" radio show to promote his work and that "Several articles from his WND series have been picked up by American Renaissance, a white nationalist hate group that promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites."
Flaherty again insisted he's not a racist nor a "white nationalist," insisting that "Their only evidence of me peddling 'White Nationalist propaganda' is me saying I was not a White Nationalist." But he didn't explain his obsession with "black mob violence" or express any concern that his work has found an audience in the "white nationalist" circles he purports to abhor. He also didn't why he chose to appear on a "white nationalist" radio show, where he must have known his views would find a receptive audience.
Flaherty also failed to mention that the SPLC debunked his and WND's assertion that so-called "black mob violence" is being ignored by the media (the subtitle of Flaherty's self-published book):
As it happens, the “liberal media” has had much to say about the subject of violent “flash mobs” consisting of mostly black youths particularly after several members of a such a group were arrested for attacking white people at 2011’s Wisconsin State Fair in Milwaukee.
So here I stand. Willing to be judged by what I have written and said. Not who heard it. Not what it appears to mean.
How about being mad at Flaherty for his strategic obtuseness in pretending that his fearmongering about "black mob violence" isn't something that those who hate black people -- like, say, people who listen to a "white nationalist" radio show" -- would find appealing? Or did the prospect of selling copies of his self-published book to a core audience trump any desire not to marginalize himself?
But then, he's already being published by WND, so not only is he already marginalized, it's automatically assumed that he's not telling the truth. Those are big hurdles to clear, no matter how much race-baiting Flaherty engages in.
And that's why it's called race-baiting, folks.