By Mark Farrell — Below is a recent question I received, and my response:
Dear Mark,
They just reported on the news that a stuffed toy monkey was hanging up with a rope around its neck. They at first gave the impression that it was in one of the fire houses, but then reported that they weren’t sure where it was located. They were trying to blame this on some white St. Louis fireman. And of course this was reported as a hate crime.
Last week some Jewish woman reported that some swastikas were seen by someone on a local St. Louis college campus. The news was going crazy referring to this as a hate crime.
We know that many times these incidents are done by the very people who are reporting the so-called hate crime.
My question to you Mark–and anyone else–is what constitutes a hate crime against a white person? A burning cross is always referred as a hate crime against a black or a Jew. Why wouldn’t a burning cross be referred to as a hate crime against a white Christian?
What are the symbols that a white person could refer to as a hate crime against them? Hate crimes against whites aren’t symbols but rather a black man knocking up a white woman, and not raising the child, or paying alimony. This is truly a hate crime against the white women. The black man hates the woman by not treating her with any respect or treating his own half white child with any respect or dignity.
My point is I can’t think of any symbols like hanging a monkey, burning a cross, or painting a swastika that can be referred to as a hate crime against a white person.
Help me out on this.
Ed from St. Louis.
————————
Dear Ed from St. Louis,
There is no such thing as a “hate crime”; it is an imaginary construct designed to imprison whites who do not go along with the anti-white propaganda that oozes–as if a pus-filled wart that needs to be lanced–from every crevice of our government.
Even the term “hate crime” is a misnomer at best. When was the last time you heard of a violent–or even a thought crime–being referred to as a “love crime”? So if a crime is not ever considered a love crime, it is fair to say that many, if not most, crimes are simply not committed in another person’s best interests?
Of course, the argument behind “hate crimes” is that someone needs to be punished excessively for committing crimes if done in a hateful manner–that is, if biased against another person. But we already have existing laws to punish people for committing crimes. If you engage in violence, chances are that you’re going to be going to jail, depending on the severity of it, as it’s already a crime no matter how you view it.
Why should a white person who gets in a fight with a black person be punished more than a white person who gets in a fight with a white person? And how often is it that you hear of non-whites ever being charged with “hate crimes”?
Today, of course, the term “hate crime” has taken on a whole new meaning. It can simply mean a white person doing anything non-whites dislike: speaking about non-whites or behaving in a manner inconsistent with a politically correct society.
Recently in Cincinnati, for example, a white man said the dreaded “n”-word in public to some black kids who he felt were behaving irresponsibly. A judge sentenced him to 100 hours of community service for the “hate crime.”
Would a black person be charged with a “hate crime” for saying racial slurs against whites? Recently, some whites were severely beaten by blacks on a bus. During the course of the attacks, “racial slurs” were in fact used against the whites. However, the media said it was NOT a “hate crime.” That’s right. According to the press, “officials said they’re not currently classifying the incident as a hate crime.”
Why? It’s quite simple: The victims are white.
A 9-year-old white student was suspended for three days for committing a “hate crime.” He dared to say “brown people” to some non-whites. Yet, would an “African-American” be suspended for saying “white people”?
In Jena, LA, a white person put a noose in a tree. That was considered by many to be a “hate crime.” And yet an innocent white victim, who was targeted because he was white and who had nothing to do with the noose being displayed, was beaten until unconscious; and that was NOT considered a “hate crime.” Blacks, of course, came to town to complain about the blacks who were arrested for beating up the innocent white kid.
In many cases, with increasing frequency, non-whites invent their own “hate crimes” in an event to garner sympathy and, oftentimes, the accompanying funds. See, for example, Laird Wilcox’s book, “Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America.”
It documents many fictitious crimes that non-whites made against themselves in an effort to elicit sympathy and play the victim–often for all it’s worth.
Even the case you cited, it said the firemen had found the stuffed monkey at a fire and kept it; that it wasn’t a “sinister” case of whites trying to upset blacks (and committing a “hate crime”) by “hanging” this monkey: “It was put on the coat rack because it was wet and it was drying.” And as for the rope near the monkey, it had “been attached to that coat rack for several years.”
Today, while whites are the majority of the population (though quickly declining), the majority of interracial crimes are committed by non-whites, often against whites. Yet no thought is given to these “hate crimes” in most cases. In any case, there is no need to jump on the “hate crime” bandwagon just yet, when such laws are unfairly used by a hateful government against the very descendants of those who founded it. If there are truly “hate crimes” being committed, they are the “hate crimes” by the U.S. Government, as it engages in massive discrimination against white people–from preferential loans, to education, to hiring, to immigration, and to even the racially-biased crime laws called “hate crimes.”
News Source: Mark Farrell (www.natallnews.com)
Loading ...
