Search Box

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Another hate hoax

I wrote recently about hate hoaxers having Munchausen's Syndrome. (Summary: the people who instigate them are sociopaths.) Tellingly, these hoaxes always seem to be perpetrated by the Left.)

A friend sent this article from the Daily Mail about Albany, Alexis Briggs, Ariel Agudio, and Asha Burwell, students at SUNY Albany who claimed to have been attacked by a group of whites and called racial slurs on a bus. They hadn't taken one thing into account, though: the bus was equipped with surveillance cameras. As per the article:

The women's initial report of the incident led to national outrage, a massive campus rally and even Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton tweeted about it, hitting out against violence on a college campus.

The three students claimed that on January 30, they were on the bus when at about 1 AM when around 12 white classmates called them racial slurs during a verbal argument before a physical altercation broke out.

One of the three students told university police that several male students kicked her after she fell to the floor, according to the Albany Times Union.

Following the alleged attack, Burwell took to Twitter to recount the ordeal that same day writing: 'I just got jumped on a bus while people hit us and called us the 'n' word and NO ONE helped us.'

She then tweeted that she was in disbelief after experiencing 'what it's like to be beaten because of the color of my skin….'

Burwell followed up with a series of other tweets including one claiming she had 'begged for people to help us and instead of help they told us to 'shut he f*ck up' and continuously hit us in the head.'

She also tweeted noting the support that she and the other girls had received meant so much...

On February 1, hundreds of students gathered as Burwell tearfully recounted the alleged attack during a campus rally.

'We are shocked, upset, but we will remain unbroken,' Burwell said at the time.

'We stand here with strength because we value our worth as black women and as human beings in general.'

Burwell's brother, San Diego Chargers lineman Tyreek Burwell, apparently also tweeted a threatening message to a student who he thought hurt his sister, according to

Hillary Clinton also tweeted about the incident writing, 'There's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus.'

However, police said an investigation into the incident showed there was only one victim, the unnamed 19-year-old, who is reportedly white and was allegedly assaulted by the three students.

Police said the three women were never 'targeted in any manner due to their race,' according to the statement, adding 'the only person we heard uttering racial epithets was one of the defendants.'

'We took this incident very seriously and did a thorough and careful investigation,' said UPD Chief J Frank Wiley...

'I especially want to point out that what happened on the bus was not a "hate crime.'

Chief Wiley had it partly wrong: what happened on the bus was a hate crime. Anybody who tries to stir up racial resentment and ill will by perpetrating a hoax is trying to escalate racial conflict in general, and possibly incite violence. And they should be held liable for that.

(In fact, it was the 19-year-old white student who found out "what it's like to be beaten because of the color of my skin.")

One of the most telling details about the story is how Asha Burwell told her story "tearfully." Being able to summon tears upon command is a uniquely sociopathic trait. 

After she was caught, Burwell Tweeted, "Please don't confuse my silence with defeat. I'm still fighting this, like I said I will not give up. The truth will come out soon."

Claiming that you're the victim of an attack, reporting it to the police, giving a tearful speech about it, and then continuing to lie about it even after being caught redhanded all show a level of dishonesty that non-sociopaths would never even consider.


whorefinder said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lucian Lafayette said...

John, I can't remember if you have ever looked at sociopathic behaviour as related to race and / or economic group. I also wonder if the comparatively recently creation of the oppressed entitlement classes has contributed to a racial disparity of sociopathic behaviour, if such a disparity exists.

John Craig said...

Luke --
I don't think the creation of an oppressed entitlement class has contributed to the percentage of blacks or Hispanics who are sociopathic. Sociopathy is something that goes much deeper, and that generally happens because of the lack of a nurturing bond between a parent and child in the first year or two of life. Burwell expressed her sociopathy in an overtly political/racial way, but were the current political/racial climate different, she'd still be a sociopath, simply because that's her nature. She would undoubtedly be expressing her lack of conscience and destructiveness somehow, but probably in a way that wouldn't make the news. Political trends are always shifting, but human nature pretty much remains the same.

As far as whether there are racial differences in the incidence of sociopathy, I'd say, yes. I had read years ago in a book called "The Antisocial Personalities" -- the best book I've ever read on sociopathy -- that the percentage of sociopaths was higher in the feral environment of the inner city. The rates of violent crime would certainly seem to bear that out. But I don't think it's as much higher as the rates of violence would suggest. I'm actually working on a post right now (not sure when I'll post it) on the difference in inhibitions between the races. One of the things I'm going to point out is that when blacks act uninhibitedly, it's not necessarily accompanied by the other sociopathic traits (dishonesty, ill will, etc.) that you often expect when you come across a white who acts utterly without inhibition. I'll explain in more detail in that post.

whorefinder said...

Poor form, John in deleting my comment. You don't want my comments, but prefer a liar like Steven's? Fine; bookmark deleted. Kiss off.

Steven's a lying troll, his posts bespeak that. He deserves to get called out on it and mocked for it. And even if you disagree, you should have let the post stand and the little turd defend himself--unless he's too wussy, and needs to run and hide behind the blog owner.

It'll be just Steven lying and whining that America shouldn't ban Muslims even though their culture supports AND supports mass murder. And also blatantly lying about Muslim terrorism facts and statistics. And your allowing his mendacious troll rant, and punishing opposition to him.

That'll put some butts in the seats.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
You were putting words in Steven's mouth, with that first paragraph. And he's not mendacious, just naive on certain issues. Also, if you end by saying, "That why all liberals should be shot" -- implying Steven should be shot -- then some idiot will say that by approving your comment I'm encouraging violence, and I don't want to be accused of that.

I'm happy to have your comments in general, and as I told you before, I'm closer to your viewpoint than Steven's. But the point of this blog -- apart from allowing me to rant -- is to convince people like Steven -- not just him, but people like him -- to move further to the right, closer to reality. And this blog isn't going to convince anybody if they see I approve comments which recommend shooting people. I know you only meant it metaphorically, but some people will see it and read it wrongly. And given that I already talk about a lot of controversial stuff honestly -- like race and IQ -- it actually means I have to work a little harder to not go past a certain line. For the same reason, I've not posted a couple of comments where the n-word is used; because I'll be held responsible for that.

And I tell you what, I'll put it back up -- if I can -- so people can see what we're talking about.

John Craig said...

Here's Whorefinder's comment that I deleted earlier, for anybody who's curious:

Steven would claim that we just need to "readjust our definition of hate crimes, because these poor folks have just internalized our hate." And we should give them money and prizes and hold them up as heroes.

Remember: according to Steven, keeping a group out of your home because they promote suicide bombing of your family is evil and wrong.

And, also according to Steven, no Muslim since 9/11 came to the U.S. and committed terrorism or supported it.


This is why all leftists should be shot.

Anonymous said...

I have been a commenter for a couple of years (at least). My impression of Steven is that he's smart, logical, and fair-minded. I would nevet conceive of him as being a troll. His comments add in a positive way to this blog. He's expanded my thinking on issues at times.

- Susan

Lucian Lafayette said...

So, while the entitlement culture may not have contributed to the rate of sociopathic behaviour, the modern welfare state might have. My late father used to say that a large percentage of criminal activity, and generally bad, destructive behavior could be attributed to the lack of solid fathers in the home.


John Craig said...

Luke --
Yes, I agree with that. If you don't have two parents in the home, you're more likely to grow up without a strong parental bond. One mother running after (or ignoring) a whole bunch of kids is just not going to have the kind of strong maternal influence that she ought. And the kids will grow up without the full emotional range (including the ability to feel guilt or even embarrassment) later on that a normal person has. Plus, with no father, there's no steady male figure to look up to, or emulate, or to learn discipline from.

Your father was right.

Mitchell said...

Are they sociopaths, or are they just low IQ blacks?

My experience with white and black shoplifters from my Loss Control days at Montgomery Ward's and Sears make me question whether blacks really ever internalize the concept of true and false as objective reality. Black shoplifters would react to being caught red-handed, as it were, very often in a way whites rarely did. They'd just never admit they had stole the merchandise, even when we grabbed them just out the door, hot goods in a bag or up their dresses or in purses or pockets, and we had video camera tape of them stashing it. They'd claim they had no idea of how the merchandise got there or that it wasn't merchandise even if it had our tags on it. When officers picked them up they'd tell us they had nothing to do with it and that they could prove their innocence.

Whites would either admit to it, give a sob story,etc. or they'd clam up and say they wanted their lawyer. Blacks sometimes did that too, but whites would never maintain their innocence given really conclusive proof.

Oftentimes we would not prosecute (even though the signs said that all shoplifters would be) but we would always banish them permanently. Whites generally didn't come back once banished, at least not for several years, by which time no one at the store would remember them or their appearance had changed, but blacks would be back in the store in a couple of weeks. We busted one large black woman, and when we caught her again the next year, she had a Ward's charge card she'd applied for (and received) the week or so after she'd been arrested the first time. We got her records from the card center and she'd made purchases almost immediately at that very store. Neither Sears nor Wards would decline credit applications on the grounds the applicant had been caught or even convicted of stealing from the company.

John Craig said...

Mitchell --
The way you describe it, it is hard to tell. Denying something even after having been caught like that does emit the faint odor of mental retardation. Sorta reminds me of that story about Dennis Rodman -- and I'm not even sure whether it's apocryphal or not -- when he was caught in bed with another woman by his wife. He supposedly said, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

I can't really answer your question. Maybe at the extreme low end of the IQ spectrum behavior sort of resembles sociopathy in some regards. My guess is that the people you caught did not otherwise exhibit the same behaviors one sees with white sociopaths: the wanton destructiveness, the constant brimming over with hostility, the plotting of others' downfalls, the narcissistic posturing, etc. But I just don't know. Anyway, thank you for that description of racial differences, it was interesting.