A plausible theory of Nifong’s criminal motives

I have not been following the Duke “rape” case closely over these many months, as the whole thing seemed so patently fraudulent and insane that there didn’t seem to be anything interesting to say about it. I figured the truth would eventually come out. Now it is coming out, and Thomas Sowell has an interesting explanation for District Attorney’s Michael Nifong’s despicable actions. He deserves to go to jail for what he did.

- end of initial entry -

Michael K. writes:

As for Thomas Sowell’s “plausible theory of Nifong’s criminal motives: Once again the old leatherneck, who prides himself on his brutal honesty, is less than honest about the odious behavior of his fellow “African-Americans,” just as he was last year in blaming the violence, criminality, and degeneracy of inner-city blacks on white “redneck” culture.

Turning Nifong into a scapegoat for the “evil and insanity in Durham, North Carolina” (to quote you) obscures and minimizes the culpability of the real forces behind the systemic persecution and attempted lynching of transparently innocent young men: Durham’s black community, “African-Americans” in general and their spokesman and leaders; the administration, faculty (most appallingly the “gang of 88”), and student body (a majority or huge vocal minority) of Duke; and the media from student and city papers in North Carolina to the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, and major TV networks.

Nifong’s “despicable actions” and “criminal motives” are inconceivable apart from this lynch-mob of black demagogues, hate-mongers, liars, fanatics, lunatics, thugs, etc., and their white supporters, lackeys, apologists, and enablers. Given their power to intimidate, threaten, slander, suppress facts, distort reality, create myths, ruin lives, and possibly resort to violence (e.g., the “new black panthers,” the large criminal element of Durham’s black population), how many prosecutors would have acted differently?How many would have refused to charge even one white Lacrosse player on the grounds that a black woman was lying about gang rape and/or there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone? And if they had initially charged one or three or 20 white players, how many prosecutors would have dropped all the charges on similar grounds? Just imagine the reaction! What a pity, from a race-realist perspective, that the District Attorney isn’t black.

The real story behind this outrage and travesty is not the actions of a lone evil “rogue prosecutor” but the anti-white hatred and revanchism of blacks and the suicidal complicity of their guilt-addled, but self-righteous and morally superior, white sycophants.

LA replies:

I sense a racial aspect in your thinking that is making you not see this situation clearly. Sowell himself, as far as I know, does not use the expression “African-American” (he does not use it in this column), so your using it and putting scare quotes around it to suggest that Sowell is using it, suggests an unfair attitude against him.

As for your theory that a white prosecutor would have no choice but to go along with the black mob, nothing was forcing Nifong to proceed with this patently fraudulent case, especially as the expulpatory evidence was getting increasingly wide play in the media.

None of that excuses the blacks and their anti-white mentality. But Nifong was the responsible agent here. This was his baby, all the way. Your notion that Nifong is merely weak and guilt-ridden suggests that you want to remove moral responsibilty from him as a white and place it on the blacks, making the blacks the sole active agents in this affair.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 03, 2007 09:35 AM | Send