Laird Wilcox and hate hoaxing part 2

This is part two of a two-part series. If you have not read the first part it can be found (here).

Now the question that needs to be asked – particularly by those with sympathetic ears, Pollyanna naiveté and wallets that are readily siphoned via Patreon – is how many of the above traits can be applied to our SJW victim frequent flyers? To the worst of the worst? Rebecca WatsonAnita SarkeesianChelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn),  John Flynt (aka Brianna Wu), Emma “mattress girl” SulkowiczJackie Coakley / Sabrina ErdelyMelody “PTSD” Hensleyand a never ending list of others. Ask yourselves – for once with a clear and fiercely enquiring mind.

The blunt reality is that the “threats” barfed up by these charlatans rarely, if ever, are anything more than opportunistic, juvenile drive-by trolls that any grown-up with a functional intellect would spot, and dismiss, in a second. And if you go through Wilcox’s checklist, rarely, if ever, do any have corroboration beyond hearsay or friend-of-a-friend anecdote; their timing is often questionable, particularly with Sarkeesian where they tend to coincide with a video release or public engagement; there are never any “one off” events, all turn serial; all are exploited for either self-promotion or e-begging…

And then there’s the really curly question. What of the response, or lack thereof, from law enforcement to the mass of reports that these social justice warriors claim to keep making?

The targets of anti-Semites and racists from the era of Wilcox’s original study would have had to resort to making complaints the old fashioned analogue way: face-to-face and with a fully documented, hand written physical paper trail. Similarly, communicating these police reports to the greater public was also constrained by the analogue process, reliant entirely on gaining the attention of journalists once reports were made, the journalists recording statements or hand writing notes and then conveying news of the reports to print, radio or televised media – publicising the hate act is, after all, the name of the game. A slow, manual process – but one that is pretty difficult to falsify. Whether the report is based on fact or imagination doesn’t matter – the existence of the report, assuming it was made, is not something that can be concealed with any degree of ease.

Contrast that with the environment of today’s SJW – a world of social media and instant gratification. Hate acts can go from the instant they are perpetrated / conceived to a broadcast audience of potentially millions in a matter of seconds – entirely bypassing all the interim steps and hurdles that the oppressed in the dismal analogue world had to go through. A process only limited by fibre optics and router switching speed. Fast, automated – and one where verification is not only close to an impossibility, but dismissed as entirely unnecessary, or even damaging to the originator of the complaint. Just listen and believe

So, the situation is this – after nearly a decade of psychodramatics from the current generation of SJWs there are supposedly thousands of reports made to law enforcement about what are, again supposedly, “genuine” threats. How many have actually been verified and followed up?

That’s right – zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch. There is one partially plausible case, that of Brazilian click-bait blogger Mateus Prado Sousa who tweeted a bunch of threating tweets to Anita Sarkeesian – but the irony here is delicious. He was not exposed by law enforcement or any of Sarkeesian’s hordes of online white knights. He was actually tracked down by the unwashed, neck-bearded basement dwellers of #gamergate… Of course you won’t find any SJWs crowing about that success story.

Conversely, the false reporting and law enforcement blaming by SJWs is more clear cut, most blatantly by the loudest and most deranged of their shrieking harpies, Brianna Wu –

The office of Ron O’Brien, prosecuting attorney for Columbus, Ohio, was deluged with emails and phonecalls that “wasted time and resources” following an online campaign whipped up by Brianna Wu, a controversial video game developer.

Wu published a widely-shared article on The Mary Sue, a feminist news source, attacking the attorney for not taking her concerns about online death threats seriously. But in a tersely-worded email seen byBreitbart, the Attorney’s office said that Wu failed to file a report with their office before publishing her article.

After receiving a threatening, anonymous phone call, Wu took to the pages of The Mary Sue to complain that despite ‘meticulously documenting threats for law enforcement’, the Ohio attorney had yet to take any action. She also confirmed to Ars Technica that she had been in contact with both the attorneys office and the FBI, complaining that it was ‘radio silence from them’. Cory Doctorow, editor of the online blog Boing Boing, also claimed that Wu was trying to ‘shame’ the attorney into action after ‘furnish[ing] the authorities with the graphic death threats she received’.

Again, of course, you won’t find any SJWs ruminating about what was a clear display of neurotic, attention seeking irresponsibility and an epic fail. Nor any of the mainstream media outlets that time and time again gave Wu print space and airplay to hyperventilate from its deluded little fantasy bubble. As always, anything that shows the reality of exactly how fucked up SJW land is gets quietly dropped and swept under the rug.

But otherwise, as far as law enforcement response to “hate” acts goes there are only two real explanations –

The first is that law enforcement is actually derelict in its duty of care to protect the community they are charged with responsibility for. If that is genuinely the case, then it is an issue at least as important as the alleged “hate” acts themselves. If law enforcement is not investigating and prosecuting these cases, then publicising that fact and getting remedial action from government bodies responsible for the justice system should be elevated to the status of absolute highest priority. Why has there not been a single peep on this subject from anywhere in planet SJW? I mean the reports are real aren’t they? The people claiming there has been no response to the hate complaints are telling the truth aren’t theyAren’t they?

Or… if that’s not the case, then the only other option is that the SJWs are lying through their fucking teeth, if not outright fabricating alleged “hate crimes” purely for the tawdry headline seeking narcissism of what has been the greatest attention whoring exercise on earth.

The tide is slowly turning. The SJWs and the media outlets may believe in their own bullshit, but the general public is slowly waking up and seeing reality for what it is. They are like the sea eroding a cliff face. The process is slow, almost imperceptible. But it is not reversible. Each person that finally realises the counterfeit reality they’ve been fed will never be quite as trusting ever again. They are lost forever.

I’ll let Laird Wilcox offer his own conclusions –


The information I have pulled together in this report is, in my opinion, merely the tip of the iceberg. The hoaxes I have recounted are, with a few exceptions, publicly discovered and publicly reported hoaxes. Countless more hoaxes, undiscovered and unreported, have undoubtedly also occurred.

I see no hard evidence of an organized conspiracy to commit racial and anti-Semitic hoaxes. Everything points to individuals, or small groups of individuals, as the perpetrators of hoaxes. The usefulness of hoaxes is so obvious to potential hoaxers that a conspiracy is not required to explain the large number of hoaxes or their similarities.

On the other hand, there appears to be an effort to discourage media attention to hoaxes, although this is often not successful. It appears that some hoaxes are “spiked” at the outset and others are soft-peddled once their nature is established.

Why do people commit hoaxes? There are three main reasons. The first has to do with the personal payoff for victimization, i.e., attention, sympathy, a sense of importance, feeding persecution fantasies, and material payoffs. The second has to do with advancing a political or social agenda, as in the case of hoaxes intending to create support for regulations or legislation, or to help create a, climate sympathetic to specific interest groups. The third has to do with insurance fraud, with the racial or anti-Semitic element almost an afterthought. Most hoaxes are combinations of the first two types.

Carefully done, the risk of discovery of a hoax is minimal. Most hoaxes simply remain “unsolved” hate crimes. Those that are discovered may not result in criminal action against the hoaxers. When criminal charges are filed they can have wide ranging consequences, from long prison terms in some cases to a slap on the wrist on others, with most cases tending toward the latter.

What can be done about hoaxes? Probably very little as long as victimization claims are so uncritically accepted, and the payoff for alleged victimization is sufficiently tempting and rewarding. “Hate crime” legislation, although well-intentioned, has created a powerful market for the side benefits of alleged hate crimes. When these crimes are not naturally occurring, or are not occurring in sufficient numbers, a motive to commit hoaxes is created. Provisions in hate crime legislation for civil damages also creates a powerful motive to commit hoaxes.

Vigilance in discovering hoaxes and appropriate publicity may discourage some potential hoaxers. Punishment for hoaxes equal to bona fide hate crimes, including sentence enhancement, would probably have a greater deterrent effect, but would also perpetuate the injustices inherent in the hate crime concept itself.

Probably the most effective thing would be for universities, police agencies and the media to entertain a healthy skepticism about hate crime claims, and to establish a category of “not proven” in cases where no perpetrator is identified and charged3. Any unsolved case may be a hoax, including those intuitively thought to be bonas fide.

Finally, on a personal note, I think it’s important to bear in mind that human beings are fallible creatures who make mistakes, often not realizing the consequences of their actions. The older I get the more forgiving I become, and the more aware I am of the harm done by “righteous indignation,” fanaticism and vengefulness in the pursuit of “justice.” A little slack and a little forgiveness all the way around wouldn’t hurt, either. It’s going to take that if we’re all going to get along in this world together.

— Laird Wilcox, July 1994

1 – First real effort to remedy this malfeasance – SPJAirplay

2 – Lest anyone think that what we are witnessing is somehow new, it’s not. This idiocy is something that has always been here – it never fully goes away, only volume just varies. Previously, we’ve had the date rape crisis of the ’80s (which was also the birth of the “1 in 4” codswallop), the feminist porn wars a decade earlier (the 2nd / 3rd wave schism) and, if we go way back, The Prohibition – a morality crusade to prevent vulnerable ladies from blossoming into loose women via the demon drink, driven by the much glorified Suffragettes of the first wave who were also, surprise!, the core of The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.

3 – ::cough:: In fact 20 years later, it is as though universities looked at Wilcox’s advice, then threw together a thinktank to work out whatever could possibly be done in diametric opposition and implement it.

This article was originally published under the title “TRAITS THAT SUGGEST THE COMMISSION OF A HOAX” – Laird Wilcox, ‘Crying Wolf’ (1994)” on grey lining.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar