The Nurturing Of Race Hate And The News Media’s Complicity, Part One: The False Lessons of Nick Kristof


When it was reported that Vester Lee Flanagan II had accused one of his victims, Alison Parker, of making racist statements,  Baltimore BlackLivesMatter activist Kwame Rose tweeted that he hoped the accusation would be investigated, because it is white racism that causes blacks like Flanagan to turn against society. Now we have Rose’s answer (not that he’ll accept it, being a professional race-baiter): the shooter had been offended when the white reporter had talked about “going out into the field,” taking it as a reference to cotton fields. When a watermelon was bought by a TV station exec for the staff to share on a summer day, Flanagan thought it was a racist gesture aimed at him.The race hate that many in the black and progressive community have been working overtime to embed in the nation—brings out the base to vote, you know—bore deadly fruit in Vester Lee Flanagan. And he will not be the last.

A man with a successful and famous father who could never find success, Flanagan had absorbed the false assertion being aggressively pushed by political leaders and activists in the black community that the United States is so hostile to African Americans that none of his failures were due o his own choices, problems or conduct. His expanding racial paranoia made it impossible for him to keep a job, and ultimately led to murder and suicide.

Well done

The news media is, disgracefully, in full denial. No, what this incident tells us is that it’s time to ban guns, that’s all. Nicholas Kristof, the New York Time columnist, wrote an angry and bizarre column about the “lessons” of the Virginia shooting, without mentioning race at all. Isn’t that fascinating? A black man writes a manifesto citing the racist killing of eight African Americans by a white supremacist as the trigger for his rampage. He cites the “racist” comments of his victim. He talks about wanting to start a race war. Yet there are no race-related issues in the killing! The words black, white, race, racist and African American don’t appear in Kristof’s op-ed about Vester Lee Flanagan, a furious, hate-filled and race-obsessed black man, and his killing of two innocent white journalists. Race, and the escalation of race tensions to, at least in Flanagan’s case, the breaking point, has nothing to do with this story!

To Kristof, and almost all of the news media, it’s just a “lesson” about guns. There are too many of them, and they are too many crazy, dangerous people who our porous gun laws allow to get weapons. That’s the lesson. This despite the fact, as Kristof later himself conceded in an interview, that none of the measures he discusses or alludes to would have stopped this shooting at all. Flanagan had no record of mental illness. He would have passed a background check. There was a waiting period. He didn’t use an assault weapon, just a pistol.

Am I clear? The serious implications of a black man killing whites after the race-hate machine running non-stop during the Obama administration elude the media entirely as a matter worthy of comment and analysis. Is this blatant bias, incompetence, or willful blindness by pundits like Kristoff? Or are these pundits intentionally refusing to acknowledge what the years-long racist assaults on whites, white police officers and white society by the news media, black activists, Al Sharpton, his colleagues at MSNBC, Jamelle Bouie, Eric Holder, the Justice Department, #Blacklivesmatter, #handsupdontshoot and President Obama have done to race relations and African American trust in their own nation?

Meanwhile, the lesson they do see—it’s safe for them to see it, because the “good people,” like the President, support it—is that this tragedy was caused by the NRA, as Parker’s father, also oblivious to the fact that his daughter was the victim of anti-white race hate, told CNN.

The only way, the only way, the NRA shares any hindsight bias blame for the deaths of Flanagan, Alison Parker and Adam Ward, is that it has been fending off efforts to obliterate the Second Amendment exactly as the ACLU has fought to protect the first, but more effectively.

Here’s Kristoff:

The lesson from the ongoing carnage is not that we need a modern prohibition (that would raise constitutional issues and be impossible politically), but that we should address gun deaths as a public health crisis….?Australia is a model. In 1996, after a mass shooting there, the country united behind tougher firearm restrictions. The Journal of Public Health Policy notes that the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.

Australia’s gun policy is a ban in everything but name. Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are banned; handguns can be purchased, but licensing requirements are onerous. Large caliber handguns are illegal, and handguns that hold more than 10 rounds are prohibited. To put this in perspective, the government took over a million privately-owned guns by edict. It’s so nice that Australians meekly put up with this: I’m proud that United States citizens would not. The Second Amendment makes the vital statement that in this culture, every citizen has access to power to protect life and property, and it is the citizen, not the government, that the Bill of Rights protects…from the government.

Kristof’s deceit (or is it ignorance?), as in most of the op-eds like his, is stunning. He compares, repeatedly, the regulations relating to toys, swimming pools and car safety to gun regulations, as if this never occurred to him: Toys are designed to play with, and never are supposed to hurt people. Pools are made to swim and play in, and not to drown people. Cars are made to drive, and should also never hurt people.

Guns are weapons. If you make them so they can’t hurt people when it’s necessary that they be able to do so, then they are useless for the purpose that they exist to complete.

Kristof, like the others, means banning guns when he talks about “regulations,” he just hopes the people who would object don’t notice, and that those who hate guns will understand what he’s doing. If that wasn’t his real objective, he wouldn’t use Flanagan as a “lesson.” The only way Flanagan could have been stopped from getting a gun was if there were no guns. So how is his attack a “lesson” about the need for more gun regulations? It isn’t. If it’s a lesson, the lesson is: “Guns are evil, and we must ban them.” Kristof is not a stupid man. He knows this.

He’s lying.

For example, he says,

“Whether or not Williams was insane, our policies on guns are demented — not least in that we don’t even have universal background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of people waiting to go boom.”

Got that? Not people who have gone “boom” (this is from Flanagan’s suicide note that “I’ve been a human powder keg for a while … just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”), or who have been diagnosed as a threat to go boom, but “background checks” that can determine if a completely law-abiding citizen without a criminal record or a pattern of violence is “waiting” to go boom. Hey, Nick, if I read one more dishonest piece of punditry in the Times, maybe I’ll go “boom.”

How will “they” determine that I’m a danger, if I decide I need a gun? And if someone who hasn’t gone “boom,” after whatever magical, intense, mind-reading, ink-blot testing process that Nick’s law imposes, is determined by officials to be poised and ready to go “boom,” then what? Just say, “Sorry, but this is pre-crime: you can’t have a gun. Now go back, get a knife or a baseball bat and kill them that way”? Don’t we have to lock these baby pre-“boomers” up for safety? Subject them to observations and tests to see if we can make them explode under controlled circumstances? What are you proposing, Nick?

He wants guns banned.

He’s lying.

He also is dishonest when he writes that “firearm homicide rate was almost halved” since Australia enacted Draconian anti-gun measures. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. was more than halved between 1993 and 2013, and occurred substantially while regulations were being reduced. From 1993 to 2013, the estimated firearms-related homicide victim rate per one hundred thousand of the population decreased from 6.62 to 3.10.

Is that still too much? Sure it is. And our leaders, politicians, activists and pundits could do a lot to bring it down more by acknowledging the problem of race and class fear, distrust and hatred, and by stopping trying to make it worse.

That might save the lives of  the next Flanagan, Alison Parker and Adam Ward.

Sources: Daily News, NY Times, Slate


43 thoughts on “The Nurturing Of Race Hate And The News Media’s Complicity, Part One: The False Lessons of Nick Kristof

  1. If only guns were not legally available, it would have been impossible for this large man to kill two people. Clearly that is the takeaway here.

  2. I’m living in Holland. I assume guns are completely banned here. My wife tells me if someone breaks into our apartment and I injure him, I will be held liable for damages by a Dutch court of law.

    We’ve taken the high speed train to Paris and back. The one the radical Islamic terrorist boarded in Brussels with a box cutter, a Luger and an AK-47 (along with nine clips for it each containing thirty rounds).

    So in countries like Holland and Belgium where private gun ownership is effectively banned, a guy can get an AK-47 and a Luger (and a box cutter- how about that) and stroll onto a train intent on murdering entire carloads of people (not box cars these days, Hillary, at least not over here where the Nazis really did use box cars to transport and murder millions of people).

    So while we’re having a (dreaded) conversation about gun violence, can we throw that into the mix please?

    Plus, I suspect this Vester guy was coming down with full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He was about the right age for it, if perhaps toward the older end of the range.

    And by the way Jack, when I see Nick Kristoff”s pieces listed on Real Clear Politics, I pass them by like a dirty shirt. And how about the cheap knee-capping the NYT did of Justice Thomas? What do these lefties want? But I’m sure whatever it is, they want it now.

    • As long as Thomas is a conservative and black, he will always be persecuted by the Times and the other liberal media. His opinions are so much more original, thoughtful, well-reasoned and clear than almost any opinion Thurgood Marshall wrote in his life—good lawyer, uninspiring justice, mediocre scholar—that it’s really outrageous that he is challenged on the basis of competence. No one dared challenge Marshall’s jurisprudence….he was untouchable. Per se racism to do it.

  3. I’m always a bit flummoxed that the group who is so quick to roundly mock Republicans with the sheer impossibility of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants can simply shrug their shoulders and state that we’ll just pass a law to be rid of the approximately 300 million guns – each significantly easier to hide than a migrant worker and family – in the US today.

    • That’s not a bad comparison, and one I hadn’t thought of. Yes, its equally impossible. The attempt to argue “if they did it in Australia (or Sweden, BERNIE), why not here?” shows such ignorance of American history, character, hierarchy of values and tradition that it should instantly disqualify anyone from being taken seriously on a matter of public policy ever again.

      • They didn’t do it in Australia in fact.

        Firearms homicides, and all homicides, have been falling in Australia for decades and the rate didn’t change significantly – detectably ? – after the gun buy back. Overall violence is up by about 50% in the period 1996 to 2007 according to the Australian Institute of Criminology.

        This site: incorrectly claims the following:

        “That Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns – it’s certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.
        “I suspect that the country has also experienced a cultural shift between the shock of the Port Arthur massacre and the removal of guns from every day life as they are no longer available for self-defense (sic) and they are simply less present throughout the country.”

        Recently the spokesman for the twenty people who are members of Gun Control Australia – they consistently refuse to reveal how many members they actually have – complained about the fact that there are now far more guns and far more licensed firearms owners in Australia than before the gun buyback – which is absolutely correct. He was at a bit of a loss to explain why, if that is the case and availability of guns is the problem, homicides continue to decrease at the same steady rate .

  4. Flanagan was a black racist and a militant homosexual who had a history of finding “bigotry” in every phrase or action of his co-workers, no matter how innocent. Yet, this station in Roanoke hired him after he’d been booted out of two others previously. Why? For the sake of diversity or political correctness? There’s evidence to suggest that. If so, then the station management has a complicity factor to deal with.

    This man had a chip on his shoulder the size of a California redwood. He was plainly erratic and unstable… even if his background hadn’t already made that evident. Didn’t that management ever consider the possibility that he might seek revenge after this, his third firing? Didn’t they even think that adding a little security for their reporters “in the field” might be a good idea for a while?

    Alison Parker and Adam Ward had gone out to interview a local entrepreneur at an outlying shopping area in the early morning. Just them and the female interviewee would be there and no one else nearby. Flanagan knew their operating procedures and knew that there would be nobody armed within miles. No other witnesses, either. So he walked right up and shot Ward in the back, as he was the most formidable potential opponent. Then he attempted to kill the lady being interviewed (whom he didn’t even know) with three shots, one of which connected. Then, thinking her dead, he spent the rest of his rounds on the one he hated the most: Alison Parker, who was white, female and non-deviant.

    One armed man or woman- or even one who might possibly have been armed in Flanagan’s mind- could have stopped this yellow butcher from his intent. But there were none. That’s how these tragedies happen. It’s the common factor in virtually every one. Even in the best of times, good people need to stay alert and stay armed. That’s how you stop crime. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is FOR.

      • I think he did fire at the girl first, then quickly took out the cameraman. He spent some time shooting the woman being interviewed. Then, with infinite malice, he finished off Alison Parker.

    • Plus, and correct me if I am wrong, he was fired in 2013. Even if the station provided security for field reporters (which is easy to claim, now, would’ve been smart but who’s to say he wouldn’t have attacked them at home, in the store, or any other place where they wouldn’t be protected?), how long would you expect that security to last? After 2 years, you figure that he’s gotten over the firing.

      • Depending on which source you get your info from (since there’s no universal registration–thankfully–any number is only an estimate), there are anywhere from about 80 million gun owners to 110 million.

        80 million is the most commonly cited figure, but taking into account President Obama’s sterling salesmanship over the past few years, I’m more inclined to roll with 100 million.

        So about 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. And since there are at least 330 million firearms in circulation, a lot of people have more than one.

        • Wait hold on though.

          ~310,000,000 of us
          ~100,000,000 firearms

          With the caveat that many gun owners owners than one, and knowing several personally who own 4 or more, I would submit the 1 in 3 ratio is incredibly high.

          I’m willing to bet that the average gun owner owns 2 which puts the ratio closer to 1 in 6.

          As for other commenters assertions of gun owner tenacity? I’d also submit that a huge percentage of the one-gun owners aren’t all that devoted to preservation of the 2A…

          Implying that resistance to universal confiscation wouldn’t be as big as we imply. But don’t take me wrong, resistance would be big enough. But we know there won’t be an outright ban. It will be incremental, like all left wing regimes historically do.

          Carve off a small percentage that no one will bother to defend. Once they are isolated, vilified, ostracized and neutralized, then carve off the next percentage of non conformers.

  5. Here’s Kristoff: … Australia is a model. In 1996, after a mass shooting there, the country united behind tougher firearm restrictions.

    No, it didn’t, which is why the Shooters’ Party sprang up and why Senator Leyjonhelm was elected on a platform resisting such measures (among other things). Also, right after that shooting there were two demonstrations here in Melbourne, one in favour of tougher firearm restrictions and then one against. I went to both, to get nearer the horse’s mouth than the media were likely to present. The second demonstration had far more people there, maybe three times as many, and the numbers were so great that I was trapped in a pub and missed the beginning of a film I wanted to see next. The crowd included a woman who had had her face nearly destroyed in a gun violence incident; the media did show her and tried to get her to condemn the pro-gun protest, but to their evident dismay she wouldn’t. The media never brought out the comparative sizes of those demonstrations, though.

    To put this in perspective, the government took over a million privately-owned guns by edict. It’s so nice that Australians meekly put up with this …

    What makes you think they did, apart from those same media reports? I already told you that there was strenuous but unpublicised opposition, and we have no way of knowing how many unregistered junk guns were turned in in the place of registered working guns, thus removing the latter from view. I certainly heard people speculating about making or importing unregistered junk guns just to be able to trade them in for the cash bounties on them.

    • Pass laws, people figure out ways around them. Mandate all employees working more than thirty five hours a week be insured, presto chango, most employees are reduced to fewer than thirty five hours a week. What a surprise.

    • I hope you’re right. I’d like to think that edict was widely ignored, as in sure it would be here. I wonder if gun grabbers understand that probably 80%, or more, of gun owners here in the U.S. would ignore such an edict? Having nothing to lose at that point, they’d probably declare open season on that ilk too 😄

      • I wasn’t asserting that the forced buyback was ignored (it wasn’t, in that guns were indeed turned in). I was just pointing out that we just don’t know one way or the other whether the objectives of the forced buyback were evaded. It’s certainly more often the Australian way to keep a low profile and work around things (often with the help of those public servants who actually deal with the public) rather than to confront and oppose them directly.

        • Ignored may have been the wrong word. Whether openly defied or just quietly evaded, the net result is good if that’s what happened. I’d bet it’s likely. I can’t imagine a large percentage of people anywhere just meekly going along with this. Comrade Malloy, our governor, decreed one day not long ago that “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” were to be turned in for registration by a certain date. Most werent. To date, no one’s busted down any doors.

  6. “but that we should address gun deaths as a public health crisis….?Australia is a model”
    -this is why Castro nationalized healthcare almost first thing when he “liberated” Cuba. Healthcare becomes the fulcrum of control. pretty much everything the liberals hate becomes a health issue. pretty soon it will be illegal to ski because the mountain uses water or electricity, and after all it is dangerous. it’s also why when they nudge us, we must shove them back so hard that they think twice before nudging again. thanks to a self-centered and cowardly congress our shove-backs lately have been no more than a whimper.
    great piece…

  7. Kristof is a foul, disgusting human being. His daughter’s body wasn’t even cold before he was spinning it into political hay. Typical of that party. Never let a crisis, or even a daughter’s death, go to waste, huh Kristof, you ghoul?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.