Monday, 7 April 2014

WHEN IS A "HATE CRIME" NOT A "HATE CRIME"?

These gentlemen may have perfectly legitimate economic grievances.
Try to understand.
by Colin Liddell

Thanks to Leftists and Liberals, we have been blessed with the wonderful, comical, tautological, and Orwellian concept of "The Hate Crime."

Traditionally it has been associated with crimes of violence, but important research, now under way, is looking at the possibility of extending it on a permanent basis into other areas, such as writing, social media, conversation, and even our innermost thoughts. The results of this research still hang in the balance, so for the present it is still largely associated with acts of violence.

The very existence of the concept seems to imply that there can be acts of violence that do not involve hate, and which may even involve other emotions, such as love and affection. Of course, this is certainly possible. Anyone who saw The Three Stooges in their prime was probably in on the secret that it was all just an act and that no actual hatred lay behind the terrible violence that Larry, Curly, and Moe inflicted on each other. It was all for fun.

Violence without hatred/ hatred without violence.

And then there are those other cases where you give some cute girl an over-enthusiastic hug, and she protests that you're hurting her – an unwitting act of violence that clearly stems from love!

So, there is a slender basis for the idea that not all violence has to be motivated by hatred, although punching, lynching, garroting, or torturing someone to death while having feelings of bonhomie and altruism may be quite a stretch for most people, especially the less sophisticated members of society.

But it's even more complicated than that, because "hate crime" does not include all crime involving the emotion of hatred. It only involves crimes where there is hatred directed against some privileged minority, like Blacks, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, or homosexuals.

The protection afforded by the concept of "hate crime" is not direct, but indirect. A crime deemed to be a "hate crime" is given much higher priority and more resources by the police and media, and punishments are guaranteed to be stiffer. The case of Stephen Lawrence in the UK is a good illustration of this. If the vast resources that were expended on this one highly-politicized case had instead been put into general crime prevention, there would probably be a lot more victims of violent crime walking around today instead of in the cemetery.

Seen negatively in this way, "hate crime" legislation and the efforts to enact it give a sort of green light to other kinds of "non-hate" crime. In fact, under a "hate crime" system, good, old-fashioned "normal" crime, like robberies and murders, may even start to take on an ever-so-slight glow of virtue.

What About Crimes Against Whites?


Some people naively think that because some racial groups benefit from "hate crime" legislation, all racial groups should benefit from "hate crime" legislation, including Whites and that everything would be alright if that particular river flowed both ways.

Life hanging by thread because 
Black people love their children.
In a recent case in Detroit, a White man was nearly beaten to death by a Black mob, and may actually still die, all because he stopped to help a Black child whom he had accidentally knocked down with his pickup truck. The fact that he was White and in a Black neighbourhood obviously did him no favours. Why shouldn't this then be a "hate crime"?

Information has also emerged from South Africa that 53% of Whites murdered by Blacks were actually tortured to death. The numbers of Whites being killed by Blacks in South Africa is still much smaller than it could be, mainly because Whites are forced to be forever on their guard and avoid large areas as well as whole segments of the 24-hour day. But what really horrifies are the shocking ways that Whites are brutalized when they do fall into the hands of Black criminals. Some would see the torture inflicted on Whites here as clear evidence of "hate crimes."

There is a certain logic to these positions, and the only way for leftists to "explain" that these are not in fact "hate crimes" is to point out the clear racist double standard that underpins the concept of "hate crimes," which is – sadly for them – to give the game away.

Once this is done, it is a hard position for a racist, anti-White Liberal to maintain, so in cases like this, the racist double standard will be swiftly coupled with the idea of collective historical guilt, even though Liberals, in their quest for the self-defining individual, typically argue against the idea of any kind of community and continuity based on racial groups.
Yes, rather in the same way that the homosexual issue forces Liberals to throw overboard their much-cherished "blank slate" view of ever-improvable human nature, so "hate crimes" and the racial double standard they embody, force Liberals to argue in favour of the collective identity of racial and cultural groups and a strong identification with the past and ancestors – in fact to argue like conservatives.
On both issues – "gay rights" and "hate crimes" – Liberals are effectively sacrificing strategic advantage in favour of temporary tactical gain. In their desire to win the battle, they are harming their ability not just to win the war but to even fight it properly!

But Liberals have no wish to lose either tactically or strategically, so, rather than do either, they try to obfuscate any supposed "hate crime" against Whites by emphasizing all other possible motives.

In the case of the White driver beaten to a pulp in Detroit it was because, well, Blacks love their children so much as we all know. And in the case of South African Whites tortured to death, that was probably done to get them to reveal the whereabouts of their valuables – a perfectly respectable economic motive born out of the "injustice of Apartheid," etc., etc.

The actual killing of White South Africans, after their ability to feel pain had been exhausted, can then simply be explained as either (a) a sensible attempt to get rid of witnesses, or (b) even an act of mercy and compassion, rather in the same way that you would put down a mangled dog. See, nothing to do with race here, now kindly move on.

It is for reasons like this that "mugging gone wrong" and "botched robbery" have become favourite expressions of the Western mainstream media, when what they actually signify is the killing of non-Blacks for reasons of racial hatred. By the same standard, you could say that the Holocaust, was not a "hate crime" at all, but was merely committed to deal with the tragic shortage of lampshades in Germany during WWII.

No comments:

Post a Comment