Hidden Hate Crimes
By Greg Kay
(NOTE: Please read the whole article before complaining; it may not be what you think.)
"Hate Crimes"; it's the latest political catch-phrase, attracting knee-jerk attention from politicians and laymen alike. Laws against hate crime are passed, more are considered, and still more are called for daily, in spite of those few cries raised that the very term is an oxymoron and that EVERY violent crime is, by the very nature of the act, a "hate crime", and that one is no more worthy of special attention and punishment than any other.
What is a hate crime? It is, by the "modern" definition, an illegal act against another individual or group based, in whole or in part, on some particular personal attribute of the person, such as their ethnicity or religion; in other words, a hate crime is an act of bias or discrimination. In the liberal mindset, this motivation makes the act more grievous and more worthy of punishment than violent acts committed for other reasons, such as sexual pleasure or economic gain.
On the surface, the motivations behind the supporters of the concept of "hate crimes" may seem both admirable and practical in this society of revolving-door prisons; yet the underlying purpose and real-world application of this paradigm run into some real problems. Consider the following examples:
Fayetteville, North Carolina: As part of an initiation into a white supremacist gang, two teenaged black girls were kidnapped and shot to death. Six white adults and one juvenile were taken into custody, and police reported finding racist-related material in the suspects' possession, identified as being associated with known race-based criminal organizations.
Flint, Michigan: Three black teenagers (a 15 year old boy, and a 14 year old boy and girl) wandered into a white neighborhood by mistake, and were seeking a pay phone to call for a ride home when they were attacked by a gang of white racists. They robbed the teens, beat them, gang-raped the girl, then shot all three in the head, execution-style.
Witchita, Kansas: In the culmination of a week-long crime spree that has already left one dead and one severely injured, two white brothers broke into an apartment, where they robbed five young black professionals at gun-point, then kidnapped them. They forced them to drive first to a nearby ATM and withdraw money, then took them to a nearby athletic field, where both women were stripped and raped by the brothers as the male victims were forced to watch; then the women were forced to perform homosexual acts on each other, and finally the men were forced to have sex with the women, all for the amusement of the pair of criminals. Tiring of the game, they then shot all five, execution-style. One woman managed to survive, and staggered naked and bleeding through the snow for over a mile to get help.
"EXACTLY!" the hate crimes law supporters exclaim. "These are PERFECT examples of the type of crimes that this type of legislation is designed to address."
Well, not exactly and not so perfect, either. You see, NONE of these examples are hate crimes. Nope; not a one has been or is being prosecuted as such. How can that be? Easy; I lied. Not about the events; no, each and every one of these sordid, savage affairs took place exactly in the ways and places described, with a single exception - I just reversed the races of the victims and their attackers. That's why none of them were adjudged to be hate crimes; ALL of the victims were actually white and ALL of their attackers were black.
Rest assured that, had the races been as I deceptively described them, i.e. white on black, they would have been automaticly presumed to be hate crimes and been shouted from the housetops and screamed from pulpits all across the world. The news media would have done endless repetitive hours of specials and interviews with sobbing relatives, Jesse would be fighting with Al for the microphone, and still more legislation would be desperately rushed through congress to deal with this terrible problem. These victims were white, however, so we don't hear a peep.
Why is that? For many reasons, but here are the four major ones; the status quo, culture, mental illness, and racism. Let's take them in order.
The status quo, or existing order of things is that whites are among the "natural" prey of black criminals, while white criminals do not normally prey on blacks. I can hear the stuttering liberal parrots firing up now, "What about...What about...What about..." Well, I'll tell you what about. Statistics show that, in crimes of violence that involve both blacks and whites (whites in the study included those of European, Middle Eastern and Hispanic origin), blacks were 90% more likely to be committing the crime against whites than vice-versa; in other words, 9 out of 10 times! In fact, black on white crime is so common as to be literally an everyday thing, while white on black crime attracts notice simply the fact that it is so rare makes it remarkable
The difference in white and black culture exacerbates the situation. When a white man commits a crime of extreme violence against anyone, black or white, whites in general are quick to condemn it, and rightly so, as we saw in the dragging death of the black man in Jasper Texas by three whites, and tend to have the attitude of "Take the S.O.B. out and hang him!" Blacks in general, on the other hand, will rally around even the most heinous, violent, deviant and obviously guilty criminals SOLELY BECAUSE OF RACE, holding demonstrations and prayer vigils, not for the victim or the victim's family, but for the criminal. The self-appointed black "leadership" will be flown in to explain that it's not the perpetrator's fault, but it's really society's fault - the white part of society in particular, and even the act of charging him, let alone convicting and punishing him, is racism by it's very nature. Tenured black law professors will tell the black public that they should never vote as a juror to convict any black man of a crime against whites under any circumstances, lest they be a traitor to their race. (I would like to see the result of a white professor trying the same thing.)
This situation is the result of a significant percentage of both societies being mentally ill. Much of "mainstream" black culture is sociopathic and illusionary in nature, transferring guilt for the actions of their members elsewhere (to white society) and developing the paradox of low self esteem coupled with an out-of-control ego, based not on the accomplishments of the successful members of their race (These are rejected, because they don't fit the black self-image.), but on the paranoid fantasies of victimization. White culture, on the other hand, has, through constant liberal conditioning, not only rejected it's own accomplishments, but actually feels guilty for having made them. In fact, "acceptable" white culture is infected with an obsessive guilt complex and such a full-blown phobia about being called "racist" or "insensitive" that it will readily abandon logic, common sense, and even basic survival instincts in it's compulsive desire to be liked.
These two delusional outlooks compliment and feed off each other in a symbiotic relationship, and woe betide the individual from either race who dares to rock the boat by challenging these tightly-held beliefs; if black, he will be branded a traitor or an "Uncle Tom" and if white, he will be excoriated as a racist of the worst kind. Either label gives both groups the excuse that they need to ignore the offender's arguments, whoever accurate they may be.
The strangest part of the whole thing is that it IS based on racism - anti-black racism at that! Of course, the preponderance of black on white attacks and their staunch defense in the black community at large definitely indicate anti-white bias and discrimination; however, it is based on anti-black racism, by both whites and blacks! The only logical conclusion to the argument of both the "mainstream" blacks and liberal whites that a criminal is somehow less responsible for his actions or has a different capability of emotions and motivations simply because of his race is that he is inherently not as mentally competent or maybe not even as human as are members of the other races. This is the argument that the KKK and similar groups have been making for years, and every single incident like this adds credence to their claims.
Not me. No, black community and their white apologists, I'm not going to let you off that easy!
You see, I've seen far too many good men and women, the Clarence Thomas', Walter Williams' and Bob Harrisons, who happened to be black to believe that you have, geneticly, any less capacity for intelligence or any more propensity for violence inborn in you than people of any other color. That tells me one thing, black criminal; you are the way you are for no other reasons than that's what YOU choose to be, your community allows you to be, and the white liberal hand-wringers encourage you to be, holding you down by making excuses for your inexcusable behavior and not demanding that you be given the same right to be responsible for your own behavior as anyone else!
I don't want to hear your excuses - yours OR those of your apologists. You're men and women, not animals; so stand up on your hind legs out of your gutter of self-pity and victimization culture and act like it! You want to be accepted fully and willingly into society, then act in a socially acceptable manner! You want to get respect, then you've got to have respect; respect for the rest of us and respect for yourself! Until YOU demand acceptable behavior from the members of your own communities, and YOU hold yourselves to the same standards and responsibilities that you would like to hold everyone else to, then YOU are never going to be anything BUT a victim of the ultimate hate crime - that of self-hatred!