Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit likes to joke that the demand for hate incidents far exceeds the supply.

This is obviously the case since so many so-called “hate” incidents are hoaxes. If there were enough incidents of hate crimes and “hate speech” to make the political point that the Left wanted to make, such hoaxes wouldn’t be necessary.

Lefties will insist that the hoaxes are rare and isolated incidents, which is a joke for many reasons. First of all, the same applies to hate crimes and incidents of hate speech. If something being rare and isolated makes it unworthy of making a big deal of it, then the whole subject should go away.

You can find an example of almost anything in a population of 330 million. We generally don’t make a cause célèbre out of isolated incidents.

Secondly, there is the cause célèbre element. The Left doesn’t just tut-tut about hate crimes and hate speech. They lionize “victims” of hate crimes, and use every instance of insults or crimes as proof that our society is fundamentally flawed. They need hate crimes to justify their critique of American society and their efforts to remake it, so the manufacture of hate incidents isn’t actually isolated at all, but rather part of a political strategy and even a tool for social advancement for the fake victims.

Jussie Smollet anyone? Or the Lincoln Project’s attack on Glenn Youngkin, where they tried to tie him to White Supremacists with a hoax? That stunt was literally bought and paid for by the Left. You can’t call that an isolated incident. It was literally part of an electoral strategy.

"When Lauren Windsor, a DEMOCRATIC operative working with the Lincoln Project, sent five young people dressed in khakis, white shirts, and sunglasses to hold tiki torches in front of Glenn Youngkin’s campaign bus"…https://t.co/KzzMe6nMmC

— DAWGmatist (@DAWGmatist) February 26, 2023

The obviousness of the hoaxes is no impediment to using them. In almost every case of a high-profile “hate” incident that gets splashed in the media for weeks or months everybody decrying the hate knows full well that these are hoaxes. They are in on the fraud and assist in perpetrating it. Falsehood is no barrier to using an incident to promote a narrative.

By now it is obvious that almost every hate crime you read about is a fraud, which brings me to yet another example that encapsulates the movement to demonize free speech.

You may have read about how some professors at MIT have actually decided to take a stand for free speech. In the wake of their defense of the obvious, hate messages directed at LGBT students started popping up on campus.

Normally this would make one wonder about the obvious: why would people inclined to anonymously threaten LGBT students wait to do so until some professors decided to defend freedom? Were they, anonymous haters with a penchant for using chalk and posting flyers, held back by a desire not to offend professors?

Seems odd. And it was.

It was, as you can guess, all a hoax. A hoax that the students involved used to make a political point. The political point itself is absurd since the only hate incidents they were protesting by their actions were committed by themselves. They were the enemy they were demonizing.

‘The point they seem to be making was that they should not have the right to say it’

Massachusetts Institute of Technology students behind flyers and chalkings recently found at the school that included slurs against LGBTQ people were protesting the university’s emerging policies in support of free speech.

The incident came in the wake of a two-month-old MIT faculty resolution that defends freedom of speech and expression — even speech some find “offensive or injurious.”

A Feb. 23 memo from MIT administrators stated flyers posted across campus and some chalking outside a school entrance “contained slurs directly targeting the LBGTQ+ community.”

MIT’s bias response team investigated, the memo added, and determined “the messages were put up by students choosing to use extreme speech to call attention to and protest what they see as the implications of” several new pro-free speech policies and efforts at the school.

“The chalking and flyers that carried slurs were put up as part of a much larger set of flyers, expressing a wide range of views, many framed in provocative terms. We have been told that these flyers were intended to probe the boundaries of MIT’s commitment to freedom of expression and to determine how this commitment comports with MIT policies, including those on harassment,” stated the memo, written by Dean for Student Life Suzy Nelson and Institute Community and Equity Officer John Dozier.

This brings up an interesting point for me. Given that these students clearly believe that the expression of the views they abhor should be prohibited and punished, shouldn’t these students suffer the consequences of the punishments they assert are necessary?

They committed “hate” incidents. Shouldn’t they be punished for that? After all, that is their assertion. That saying certain “hateful” things causes such harm that it must be punished. They said those things. They caused damage by doing so. They should be ashamed for harming others, and should suffer the consequences that they believe are deserved.

The free speech defenders wouldn’t impose those consequences upon them, so perhaps they should “expel” themselves?

It’s a logic I think is flawed, but I don’t mind holding the students to their own standards. Further, I think these students should have attached to their records and potential employers informed that they committed hate crimes. Their actions intentionally inflicted pain on a protected class.

Such acts, by their own logic, are unforgivable. So let’s not forgive them.

Or, perhaps, they can give up the charade that the acts themselves are the problem, and admit that they only want to suppress the speech of anybody they disagree with. It is not what is said and done that bothers them–they after all said and did the things they claim to abhor–but rather who is saying and doing them.

Perhaps it’s time to hold the Left to its own standards. When a Lefty student draws a swastika in excrement on a dorm wall, they should be labeled a racist and be haunted for their lifetime by the shame of it. Fake nooses? Same thing. Each and every incident faked should be punished as if it were real and we should be using the punishments dictated by the Left.

They want those punishments; they least we could do is employ them on these particular students who argue they are just.

MIT, of course, will not punish the students. And to be honest the administration shouldn’t. Because free speech should be protected, including so-called “bias” incidents. But that shouldn’t prevent the shaming and ridiculing of the students involved. The same kind of shaming and ridicule that these students want to thrust upon others.

Groups like The Lincoln Project should have had their reputations destroyed by their flagrant fraud, but they are still recipients of huge donations, their members are still lionized by the Left, and they are still political players despite being admitted frauds. The Lincoln Project was literally founded by a sexual predator of children, and yet retains political legitimacy on the Left.

We have to fight back. This means, every time they open their mouths, we should call them frauds and liars. Hold them accountable, even if we can only do the most minor damage. Laugh at them. Send them tiki torches, copies of their own fliers, or similar social punishments.

I would love to see every student involved in the MIT stunt handed a copy of the flier that they put up every day, several times a day. They should be labeled homophobes, ridiculed as bigots, and subject to the opprobrium they clearly believe is the just reward for posting such fliers.

It is, after all, what they are demanding to be done in such cases.