A-Hoaxing We Will Go

A Litany of Ersatz Racist Incidents

by Kevin Alfred Strom (pictured)

FOR THE INFORMATION contained in this article I am indebted to the many correspondents who have sent me news items through the mail and on the Internet, to Laird Wilcox’s published work The Hoaxer Project, to fellow broadcaster Jim Floyd, to the Aryan News Agency, and to many others who have contributed to my “hoax archive.”

Before I begin, let me make a comment or two about fires in Black churches. If there is — and I doubt that there is — but if there is anyone out there who thinks that he is on my side who is setting fire to the places of worship of churchgoing Blacks, such a person does more to hurt the cause of White separatism than ten Simon Wiesenthals. Such a person is not on my side. The fact that these arsons serve so splendidly the “anti-racist” cause should give one pause to think “cui bono?” — who benefits?

Let’s examine a few specific cases while we keep that important question in mind.

In November, 1990, 150 University of Washington students joined in an “anti-racism” rally. Chanting, “Hey ho, hey ho, racism has got to go,” carrying banners and marching on the office of the university’s president, they demanded that “justice be done” in the case of a racially motivated attack by Whites on an Asian student named Darres Park.

According to Park, he and two White friends had been minding their own business one day in October, when Park had been set upon by three Whites wielding tire irons and baseball bats. The White attackers held off Park’s friends, while a crowd of racist Whites gathered and cheered the attackers on, some chanting, “Brain the gook!” According to Park, if it weren’t for his knowledge of the martial arts, the “racists” might have been successful in killing him.

Darres Park became a national hero in the “anti-racist” crusade, attracting media attention around the nation and even getting a mention in the International Herald Examiner.

Then his story started to unravel, as did his reputation.

Seattle police were stunned by the ferocity of accusations by Park and his “anti-racist” cheering section that police had bungled the investigation of this “hate crime.” So law enforcement officials stepped up their investigation of all the personalities and circumstances surrounding this alleged incident. They discovered that a friend of Park’s, who supposedly had been with him when the initial report of the attack was made, now claimed that no such report was ever given to police. Secondly, it was discovered that Park’s wrist had never been broken as he had claimed. Inquiries among Park’s fellow students revealed that very few of them believed Park’s story, and most had doubted it from the very beginning.

Further investigation revealed that Park may have been trying to create “victim status” for himself to get public sympathy. He was going to need all the public sympathy he could get, since the Seattle police subsequently discovered evidence leading them, on December 13, to charge Darres Park with three armed bank robberies in Seattle and Battle Ground, Washington. Charged along with Park, as accomplice in the bank robberies, was Joseph Fritz, one of Park’s “White friends” who supposedly “witnessed” the attack and supported Park’s claims in statements to police.

Perhaps the wildest statement to emerge from the Park affair was one by Darres Park’s defense lawyer in the bank robbery case, Robert Leen, who said that Park may have robbed the banks because of brain damage sustained in the “racial assault.”

Cui bono? Who benefits?

In the predominantly Jewish neighborhoods of Borough Park and Flatbush in Brooklyn, New York, rocks were thrown through windows of eight Jewish-owned shops. News media across the nation reacted with alarm, comparing the incidents to “Nazi atrocities” and calling for increased vigilance against “anti-Semitism.” Jewish pressure groups demanded and got increased police patrols in their neighborhoods. The Jewish mayor of New York City at the time, Ed Koch, offered a $10,000 reward for the perpetrator. The Jewish Community Relations Council offered a $5,000 reward. Finally, the police made an arrest in the case, and charged the suspect with 14 counts of felonies and misdemeanors relating to this supposed “hate crime.”

The arrestee was a 38-year-old Jew named Gary Dworkin. As in most such cases, it was alleged by the Jewish community that Dworkin was mentally ill and deserved more sympathy than punishment.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

In Hartford, Connecticut, suspicious fires occurred at two synagogues and at the homes of Rabbi Solomon Krupka and Jewish State Representative Joan Kemler. Again comparisons were made in the media to “Nazi” terrorism against Jews in Germany.

All across the nation, legislatures were lobbied for passage of “hate crime” laws, with the supposedly “anti-Semitic” fires in Hartford being a focus of concern. Armed Jewish Defense League thugs patrolled the streets of West Hartford. Police staked out whole square blocks and waited for another incident to occur.

Finally, the police had their suspect and his confession to all four arsons. The perpetrator was none other than Barry Dov Schuss, a 17-year-old Jewish student, who had confessed to Rabbi Krupka days before he told the truth to police. If a real “anti-Semite” had been apprehended and convicted, the total sentence could have amounted to virtually life in prison. But Schuss was a good Jewish boy. Schuss stated to all who would listen that he had been an avid reader of literature on the “Holocaust,” and freely admitted that he had set the fires to awaken the public to the dangers of “anti-Semitism.” Schuss received a suspended sentence, probation, and the ubiquitous — in these cases — psychiatric treatment.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

In New York City there is a large housing cooperative called Co-op City. A few years ago the residents there were shocked to discover the presence of “anti-Semitic” graffiti and swastikas “daubed” on the doors and walls of 51 different apartments.

Once again the “anti-racist” publicity machine went into action, and the spray-painting incident was publicized widely as another incident of “racism” and “hate.” A $3,500 reward was offered for information leading to the apprehension of the “racists.”

Subsequently two Jewish youths were charged with the vandalism, after it had been determined that they lied to police and had also tried to collect the reward money by turning in someone else. According to police, these same Jews are also suspected of several other “racist” and “anti-Semitic” incidents which had been publicly attributed to “racists.”

Cui bono? Who benefits?

In Basel, Switzerland, local Jews were frightened by an ongoing campaign of anti-Jewish graffiti, harassment, and death threats. Police investigation revealed that the sole culprit in these incidents was a 23-year-old Jewish medical student named Philip Gotchel, member of a prominent Jewish family in the area. If Gotchel had not been discovered, who would have been blamed for these incidents?

Cui bono? Who benefits?

You may remember a few years ago the case of the phony populist TV talk host Morton Downey, Jr. Downey, while he is not as far as I know Jewish, is a rabid “anti-racist.” In this incident, Downey, desperate for publicity and to prove his suffering for the “anti-racist” cause, claimed to have been attacked by “racist skinheads” in a San Francisco Airport restroom. Patches of hair were torn from his scalp and a swastika was painted on his face, though some early reports had it that it was “carved” on his face. Later the same day, Downey appeared on television with a much larger swastika painted on his face than when he originally reported the incident. He emotionally detailed his suffering at the hands of the “racists.” Witnesses in the restroom and security personnel stationed near the door reported nothing unusual at the time that Downey claimed he was attacked. The police investigators declared the entire incident to be a fabrication and a hoax. Though Downey never admitted his lies, he later stated that he was “drunk” at the time and no longer remembered the attack.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

A few years ago in San Leandro, California, a Black church, the Manor Baptist Church, was aflame, smoke pouring from its offices and library. Investigators smelled both kerosene and gasoline in the ruins — almost certain signs of arson. When they found “racist” graffiti in the church, they were sure: “What we have here is a hate crime,” stated police Lt. James O’Meara. But what they had there wasn’t anything of the kind, as it turned out. It turns out that a deacon of the church, Brother Shawn Ragan, who was also the former principal of the church school and treasurer, had embezzled some $20,000 from the church and had lit the fire to cover his tracks. When confronted with the truth, Brother Shawn admitted: “I sprayed the graffiti to make them think the arson was racially motivated.”

Cui bono? Who benefits?

The media reverberated with rhetoric like “the specter of Germany’s violent Nazi past haunted its present” when a young German girl in a wheelchair reported that “neo-Nazi skinheads” had attacked her and carved a swastika on her face. The police spoke to the media, believing and quoting the girl’s story, saying that the German skinheads had waited for the girl to come out of a public toilet for the handicapped, and when she appeared threatened her with a knife and ordered her to shout, “Heil Hitler — gas the cripples.” When she refused, the skinheads then carved a swastika in her face with the knife.

The attack was a cause celebre in the media, and the politicians enthusiastically and predictably joined in the chorus. A new law was introduced increasing penalties for such offenses. According to a Reuters news report:

German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said, “In this way the protection of the handicapped and foreign residents against right-wing extremist violence will be considerably improved.”

A crowd of 15,000 jammed the central square of the town where the attack occurred, calling for stronger laws against “hate.” The images of this rally were carried into millions of homes around the world via television and newsprint, and the heart-rending story of the poor, handicapped girl was imprinted on almost everyone’s consciousness. Even the Vatican was induced to make a statement on the incident. Four thousand copies of composite sketches of the skinhead attackers were distributed, and at least 100 police officers were diverted to solving this important case.

But then something happened. The doctors who examined the girl found that the cuts on her face appeared to be self-inflicted. People who were near the public toilet at the time of the alleged attack had seen nothing. The attack occurred on a busy street at a busy time of day, but no other witnesses had come forward to corroborate the girl’s story, despite the extremely heavy publicity. After a full investigation, the state prosecutor was forced to admit that the attack was a hoax and that the girl had mutilated herself. The girl, who was only identified as “Elke J,” was not charged when the truth was revealed. Instead, the provincial Justice Minister appealed to citizens to have “understanding” for the girl.

A newspaper columnist speculated that Elke may have been given the idea by a recent “anti-racist” television series on German television called “The Ticking Bomb,” which featured a scene in which “neo-Nazis” carve a swastika into a woman’s cheek.

In the wake of these revelations, police in Germany admitted that some other, less publicized cases of “hate crimes” were also hoaxes committed by persons seeking attention and/or insurance money.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Not long after the case of Elke J, a Black girl living in Bavaria described how she had been attacked by neo-Nazis who stabbed her with a knife while chanting, “This is what we do to foreigners.” After the police investigated, it was revealed that the girl had sliced herself with a razor and that she and about twenty of her friends and associates had plotted to fake “hate crimes” after hearing about the case of Elke J.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

At about the same time, a 20-year-old woman, whose name and ethnicity have not been revealed, reported that she had been attacked by “neo-Nazis” on the Berlin subway. She stated that the “neo-Nazis” had cut her on the neck with a razor blade, which they also used to carve a swastika on her body.

When police investigated her story, they found several contradictions. When confronted with these discrepancies, the woman admitted she had faked the assault.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Last January in the German city of Lübeck, arsonists burned a hostel for mostly non-White asylum seekers. The media worldwide decried the “racist and fascist massacre” caused by “right-wing extremists.” Marches and vigils were held by self-righteous Germans demanding an end to “anti-foreigner violence.” The German police investigated, zeroed in on their suspect, and made an arrest — not of a White “racist,” but of a Lebanese man who himself lived in the hostel with his family.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

German police, charged with enforcing laws against forbidden opinions and points of view, are sometimes taken in by hoaxers, as when recently they began an investigation to discover a German organization of “racists” using the robes and imagery of the American Ku Klux Klan.

They were clued into this group by a television documentary showing alleged hidden camera footage of the group, wearing robes and burning a cross. The program was produced by well-known filmmaker Michael Born, who, the investigation eventually revealed, had paid some of his friends to dress up in Klan robes and stage a cross-burning. The investigators say Born did this because he knew that broadcast executives were eager to denounce racism, and he gladly made phony news films to satisfy their demand.

According to prosecutors, Born has made at least 22 supposed documentaries and sold them to German television in the last five years. Born did not deny that he had fictionalized, faked, and baldly lied in his “documentaries,” but excused himself with the claim that “Many others do it, too,” and that the network bosses encouraged him to do so.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Who benefits, indeed? The fight to stamp out “racism” shares many characteristics with the fight to stamp out witchcraft of three hundred years ago. The image in the popular mind of the “evil ones” is almost entirely fictional. The crimes the evil ones are accused of committing are often found to be nonexistent, or fantastic inventions, or incredible inversions of reality. If you are accused of being an evil one, a fair trial is impossible no matter what the actual charge. Accusations of being an evil one are a sure way to destroy business or political rivals.

The ruling elites embrace the hysteria with open arms, for it harnesses the fears and ignorance of the mob to destroy any and all whom the elites want to destroy, without the necessity for messy things like proof or an appearance of fairness. The passions of the boobs can of course be manipulated with much more precision in our age of all-embracing media than they could three centuries ago. Joe Sixpack will, without too much prompting, call for or at least acquiesce in the lynching of whomever his television set declares a “racist.”

So a-hoaxing they will go. The elites will go a-hoaxing since they want to destroy and demonize their political opposition.

The neo-Marxists and non-White racial activists will go a-hoaxing whenever they think it is to their advantage, because they know that the power structure will seldom call them on the carpet. Plus they can always count on their community’s support no matter how outlandish their claims and demands are. And since the whole “equality” and multiracialism swindle is based on lies and fabrications to begin with, hoaxing of one kind or another is standard operating procedure for them.

And, of course, there are many whiners and losers and pathological anti-White misfits and attention-starved morons who are bright enough to figure out that one sure way to get sympathy and attention and even possibly celebrity and money is to become the latest victim of big, bad “White racism.” They will certainly go a-hoaxing many, many times before the fall of the empire.

People such as myself, people who care about the future of our race, have virtually no influence in the halls of power in this country. We can’t stop the hoaxers, and most of the time we can’t expose them by ourselves either. All we have is a few honest police officers and reporters to do the exposing, and there are damned few of them around anymore. But thank God there are a few! In some cases, exposers of these hoaxes have been accused of “racism,” and considering what such accusations can do to a career in the media or public service, it is a near miracle that any get exposed at all. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that there are many hoaxes as yet unexposed.

* * *

Source: Free Speech magazine, July 1996