How to be accused of inspiring a mass murderer

This is not the first time I have been blamed for a mass murder.  That happened a few years ago on Rachel Maddow's show: her guest from the Southern Poverty Law Center said my writings documenting black violence wildly out of proportion actually caused a climate of hate, which led to the Boston Marathon bombing.

For some reason, the FBI never showed up to question me. 

Now it is happening again, this time with the psycho who killed at least eight people in a Pittsburgh synagogue.  Apparently, the psycho – a white supremacist and anti-Semite – said on social media that my videos "opened his eyes."  That was a few months ago.

Over the last five years, in addition to writing two Amazon bestsellers and creating more than a thousand videos that garnered over 120 million views – many on YouTube, others on Facebook, Twitter, and – I know that my work on racial violence and delusion has touched a lot of people with stories of how black victimization is the greatest lie of our generation, no matter how many times we hear the opposite on legacy media.

Anyone who has spent any time with my books or videos or articles knows there is no white supremacy or anti-Semitism there.  But that's not stopping some of the early reporting on this tragedy from dragging me into this nightmare.

There is one area where I have done more writing and reporting about Jewish life than anyone in America, Jew or Gentile: exposing black-on-Jewish violence in New York and Baltimore and many places in between.

It's easy to find. I was among the first to expose New York City councilmember Laurie Cumbo when she talked about black-on-Jewish violence, saying black people are violent because they feel that Jewish people do not "share their success."

I was among the first to expose how Laurie Cumbo became a darling of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates for president shortly after.

The Jew-haters hate those articles.  But I'm happy to continue writing them.

I do not use words like "probably" and "most likely."  We show what happened.  Or not.  Period.  It's called reporting – the same kind of work I did when my story on a how a black man in San Diego was unjustly convicted of trying to kill his white girlfriend resulted in his exoneration and release from state prison.  His name is Kelvin Wiley – look it up.  It was a big deal on Court TV, at NPR, in the Los Angeles Times, and at other places.

It's all about what is true and false.  Or as the wags like to say, the first and only rule of journalism is "if your mother says she loves you, check it out."

That is what I expect of people who write about my work.  If you say I said something, show me.  That's all. 

Reporters at just about every major media company in America have failed that test. From CNN and MSNBC to NPR and the New Yorker (where they said I was filling the heads of Donald Trump and Fox News with made up stories about the ridiculous levels of black violence and media denial in America), they always use the "in other words" gambit – i.e., "here is what I wish you had said, but since you did not, I will make up something you did not.  Something stupid.  Something indefensible.'

Let's see how many people meet that challenge in the coming days.

Of course, I've never heard of this psycho killer, much less met him.  But for anyone watching my videos, the reaction should be a greater understanding that Jewish people are under significant threat all over the country.  As well as the world.  And they should protect themselves.

I'm very clear about the threat of violent anti-Semitism both here and in Europe.  I condemn that without equivocation or hesitation.

But now some liberal news sites are beginning to feast on this discovery of the killer's social media postings and how I appear in them.

My work is plain.  And accessible.  Even the laziest researcher should have no trouble using my own words and work to figure out the truth of what I say – and the delusions of anyone who says different.