Not long after the initial attack on his son, Jonathan Lewis Sr. set up a fundraising page which included the following message:
“The human race is calling screaming for us to see our unity calling us to break the cycle of the imprisonment of violence and apathy… Begging us to see that when we gather great power of change is possible great power of awareness will be directed to the mob so the mob can demand change can cry out to humanity and scream the pain of the children.
“This is a humanity thing beloved people of the United States. Not a race thing!”
You may also remember the case of Andy Probst, back in September, a former police chief who was run off his bike and killed by two boys, one black, one Hispanic, on a joyride in a stolen car. One of them filmed the incident and posted it online. You can hear the two boys laughing throughout. As they approach Probst from behind, one asks the other if he’s ready.
“Yeah, yeah, hit his ass!”
“Alright, go, go, go, go. PIT manoeuvre!”
A PIT manoeuvre, if you didn’t know, is used by law enforcement to stop drivers during high-speed chases.
The police took five weeks to arrest Jesus Ayala and Jzamir Keys. They’re accused of ramming another car and stealing four cars on the day they murdered Andy Probst.
After Ayala and Keys were finally apprehended, the victim’s daughter read out a statement on behalf of the family at a press conference.
“We believe that Andy’s murder is a direct result of society’s decayed family values and the strong effects that social media has on our youth. We as a family in no way feel that Andy’s murder was based on race or profession, and was a random act of violence. We ask you to not politicise or use Andy’s murder to fuel political agendas or to create cultural wars.”
In both cases, it’s entirely possible that the family really do believe race wasn’t an issue. They may believe this sincerely, or it may be a product of confused thinking in the midst of grief. I know that grief makes people do and say strange things. Very strange things. For what it’s worth, I’ve seen a father laughing and smiling, not shedding a single tear, at the funeral of his beloved teenage daughter. I found it hard to believe at the time, and I still do.
It would probably be insensitive to ask the families of Jonathan Lewis and Andy Probst: What if the tables were turned? What if ten white boys had beaten a lone black boy to death after school, or two white teens had run down a black man on his bike and filmed it? Would we be talking about racism then? I think we all know the answers to these questions anyway.
The rush to deny a potential racial motive under such circumstances would be odd enough were we just dealing with two isolated cases. But we’re not. This is becoming a common spectacle, and the similarities between these regular calls for harmony in the face of clear racial animus are impossible to ignore, at least if you’re a certified noticer like me.
It’s almost as if there’s a script.
And maybe there is. You’ve probably never heard of the Department of Justice’s “Community Relations Service,” but if you or a loved one has been the victim of a serious crime with a racial element, the Community Relations Service has probably heard of you. It’s probably on its way to your home right now. Assuming you’re white, of course.
According to the Service’s website, “CRS serves as ‘America’s peacemaker’ for communities facing conflict based on actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.”
The CRS provides its services free of charge, “on a voluntary basis” and “is not an investigatory or prosecutorial agency”. As soon as a relevant “conflict” arises, CRS goes to work “providing facilitated dialogue, mediation, training, and consultation” to help communities “come together, develop solutions to the conflict, and enhance their capacity to independently prevent and resolve future conflict.” Its aim, we are assured, is simply to be “the neutral party.”
The language is thick bureaucratic slop, but the real meaning is clear when you look at what the CRS actually does when it gets involved in a case. There seem to be two essential aspects to how the CRS operates: 1) telling white victims and the loved ones of white victims not to say anything inflammatory about the race or motivations of the perpetrators; and 2) helping the perpetrators get off with as light a sentence as possible.
That’s certainly what happened in 2018 when Donald Giusti was hit in the head with a rock and then kicked to death by Somali immigrants in a park in Lewiston, Maine. According to the CRS website, which lists its intervention in Lewiston as an exemplary case study of its work, “conflict [had] been on the rise between the immigrant population and the white community” for “several weeks” before the day of the fatal attack. It was the city’s police chief who “requested CRS services to help ease racial tensions and strengthen community relations.”
What the request for CRS involvement meant, in practical terms, was that the man held responsible for the killing was able to plead “no contest” to a lesser charge of criminal negligence, for which he was sentenced to just nine months in prison.
And just like in the cases of Jonathan Lewis and Andy Probst, public statements by the victim’s family were an essential part of concealing the fact a brutal racial killing had just occurred. Donald Giusti’s body was barely cold when both his uncle and sister came forward to make a public call for “peace.”
“We want to see the violence stop," said the uncle. "We want to see things come to an end, we want people to be able to come to the park and be happy. Walk through the park and not be afraid.” The sister expressed her hope that her brother’s death would not be in vain and that it would “give this community a voice to say something needs to give.”
Earlier this year I wrote a piece for Human Events about the endemic lawlessness gripping Western nations and how it benefits the ruling regime in various different ways, not least of all by “scaring straight” the white middle classes so they keep paying their taxes. Sam Francis called such a system “anarcho-tyranny”, and he noted that it was enforced by everything from bureaucratic regulations and multicultural curricula in schools to gun-control laws and sensitivity training.
We can safely add the Community Relations Service to the institutions of anarcho-tyranny in the US, I think. By dissuading ordinary people from addressing the truth – that in 2023, white men, women and children are being killed in America because they are white, and that this is racism, pure and simple – the CRS is helping to normalise and excuse a very particular kind of racial terror. This normalisation and excuse-making is part of a broader agenda for the left, which is to refound America as a nation built on the principle of racial redistribution. The dwindling white population of America is marked by the original sin of slavery, and only the transfer of its wealth and power to historically marginalised “people of colour” will serve to expiate that sin.
This isn’t some fantasy I’ve dreamed up, by the way. It’s the New York Times-sponsored 1619 Project. And believe me, this is the sanitised version of what so-called “decolonisation” would look like in the US. Zimbabwe and South Africa are two very possible futures for the nation.
The sinister activities of organisations like CRS fit into a wider pattern of manipulation of public opinion in the West, especially in response to the more violent negative effects of mass migration and demographic change. Back in 2019, the website Middle East Eye reported on a form of government planning dubbed “controlled spontaneity” in the UK, which had been devised specifically in preparation for terrorist attacks. The basic idea behind “controlled spontaneity” is for the government to shape and direct public opinion and emotion in ways that prevent disorder when an atrocity occurs. This includes everything from pre-selecting hashtags and images to circulate on social media, to encouraging members of the victims’ families to make public statements disavowing hatred and staging “apparently unprompted gestures of love and support” at the site of the incident, such as people handing out flowers or posters with saccharine messages on them.
Planning for “controlled spontaneity” appears to date back to 2011, when the social-media-driven Arab Spring was convulsing the Middle East and riots erupted in towns and cities across the UK. According to one senior government figure, the UK government was “absolutely terrified” about further large-scale social unrest, particularly if terrorists attacked the London 2012 Olympics. Although the Olympics passed off without incident, variants of the government’s planning for that event were deployed in every terrorist incident that has taken place on UK soil since, including 2017’s London Bridge attack and the Manchester Arena bombing.
Once you know what to look for, it’s hard not to see the hallmarks of “controlled spontaneity” in the events that follow so many major incidents across the West in recent years, from the Christchurch shootings to the Bataclan massacre.
That includes the protests of the past few weeks in the UK, as hundreds of thousands took to the streets to march in support of Palestine against Israel. Such protests would have been unthinkable – in fact they would have been impossible – a few decades ago, before the era of mass immigration. For the first time perhaps ever, the true scale of the problem that has been imported to Britain was clear for all to see. Public opinion was as hostile as it had ever been to mass immigration, and to the current Conservative government for allowing it to continue and get worse for the last 13 years, despite repeated manifesto pledges to bring it to an end.
But thanks to the sudden reappearance of Tommy Robinson and some pathetic scuffles and arrests at a “counter-protest” he organised in the capital, the only thing the mainstream media and politicians want to talk about now is the threat from the “far right”. The issue of mass immigration, and the government’s appalling record of lies and deception, has been defused – for now.
I’m not here to speculate on whether Robinson’s appearance was another instance of “controlled spontaneity.” Ultimately, it doesn’t matter; whether one clown is part of the circus doesn’t change the fact that the circus exists. And it does. Our governments, as a matter of course, manipulate us to prevent us from grasping the reality of the problems we face. They have their script, and they want us to keep reading from it. If we do that, our fate is assured.
