The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
Hate Crimes

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

“Hate crimes” are always good for a headline, even when they’re fake. Last week the Los Angeles Times confirmed what many have long suspected and in some cases known—there are a lot more phony “hate crimes” padding the count than the bare numbers reported tell us. [As Hate-Crime Concerns Rise, So Does the Threat of Hoaxes, LA Times, also here]

A “hate crime,” of course, is a crime motivated by “hate,” which these days can cover just about any expression or indication of disagreement or dislike. Laws against “hate crimes” are among the few on American law books that actually punish motive (and therefore criminalize thought rather than simply action).

Assault someone for his wallet and you go to jail for assault or robbery; assault someone because he’s black, Hispanic, homosexual or (rarely) white, and you go to jail for assault as well as for “hate”(extra penalties are added on because of your motives).

These laws are a long step toward the totalitarian manipulation of expression, thought and feeling that George Orwell warned us about.

Nevertheless, there is a constant drum beat for more hate crime laws, more categories to be covered and more propaganda trying to tell us the laws are needed because American society—more particularly,white, Christian, male, heterosexual society—is so full of “hate.”

Now, thanks to the Times story, we know the case for hate crime laws is full of—well—something else.

The story dwells on fake hate crimes perpetrated on college campuses, which seem to be a favorite location for fraud (in more ways than one, perhaps). “A person who is a victim of a hate crime can probably expect to get almost universal sympathy on a college campus. Out in the world at large, that’s not necessarily true,” Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center told the paper.

Mr. Potok believes that’s because people on college campuses are so much more sensitive than those dumbbells and bigots “out in the world at large.” In fact, they’re just a lot more gullible and perhaps more warped.

Hence, hoaxers and fakers of all descriptions flock to the campuses to stage phony “hate crimes” and then parade themselves as victims deserving attention, sympathy and publicity.

At San Francisco State, the paper reports, two black students scrawled racial epithets in their own dormitories and then claimed “white racists did it. At Northwestern University, a Hispanic student claimed someone grabbed him, held a knife to his throat and called him a bad name. At Claremont College a professor claimed her car was smeared with anti-Semitic slogans. Police say in all these cases the perpetrator was the alleged “victim”.

And there are dozens more. No one knows how many because no one bothers to track fake hate crimes.

It will be noticed that many of these fakes are hardly crimes at all. Usually when we hear about a “hate crime” we think of crimes like the brutal murder in Jasper, Texas a few years ago.

But most hate crimes, including these hoaxes, are not so violent or significant. Most are little more than cases of vandalism with ugly names. If the vandals scrawled obscenities instead of racial or sexual epithets, nobody would pay attention.

Why do the fakers do it? One motivation for faking hate is, as one expert says, “the accuser’s sense of victimhood.” Another is the personal inadequacy of the faker. One black female who scratched a racial epithet on a dorm room door and wrote herself a note using it later confessed to the police and said “she wanted to be accepted by other students and draw attention to what she regarded as racial issues on campus. ‘I tried to be part of something,’” she told the paper.

What in fact runs through most of the cases the Times recounts is that when a society is as obsessed with finding and punishing “hate” as ours is, not only will “hate” be easy to find but anyone who claims to have found it will be believed.

Nor will anyone drilled to think of himself as a victim of hate have any trouble finding it.

The admission, even by professional witch hunters like those of the Southern Poverty Law Center, that many “hate crimes” are fakes ought to wake up some of those crusading for more laws. It might suggest that “hate” is maybe not quite as pervasive as they want to believe and as they have to make us believe in order to get more laws and the power the laws will give them.

And it might also tell us that some of those yelling about hate the loudest are people who know a good deal more about that emotion than the ones they’re yelling about.

Maybe the real hate is already inside those who are so eager to find it.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hate Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

Now if it’s racial hatred you’re looking for, I happen to have on hand about as much as you can handle. It’s not hatred of non-whites but of whites, and I didn’t write it — one of my peace-loving, world-saving crackpot readers did.

I assure everyone he’s not typical of my readers in general, most of whom, even when they disagree with me, are ladies and gentlemen (or at least not insane).

Nor is he really typical of much else, except a certain kind of mentality that is largely the creature of the media and the educational system – a mentality that will become more and more common and powerful as mass immigration displaces the historic population of this country.

If only for that reason, his mentality is worth knowing and thinking about for a moment, because it may very well be on the way to becoming the predominant mentality in what used to be the Western world.

Writing me by e-mail in response to a recent column of mine about the growing antagonism between native American blacks and immigrant Hispanics, my fan informs me that what I wrote was, in a word, mere pish-posh and proceeds to inform me of what’s really important.

“The world knows who the REAL ENEMY is,” he screams through the Internet. “The Chinese know (Opium war, Boxer Rebellion), The Hawaiians know, The Native Americans know (Stole both their countries), The Japanese know (the TWO atomic bombs), The Blacks know (Slavery, Colonialism), The Eastern Indians know (more colonialism), All South Americans know, The Arabs know, The ORIGINAL Australians know, The ORIGINAL Canadians know, The Vietnamese know, The Jews know, Hell the Animal world and the Earth itself knows, Everything and Everyone knows who the real devil is.”

By now, unless you’re fairly thick, you’ve probably guessed that the “real enemy” is the white race, which has apparently done absolutely nothing throughout its history but slaughter, enslave, rape and loot virtually every other race with which it ever came into the slightest and briefest contact.

It makes you wonder why it was that the white guys always won and no one else was ever able to stop them.

My reader has perhaps never heard of Genghis Khan, whose Mongol hordes came pretty close to exterminating Europeans in the 13th century and failed to do so only because Genghis dropped dead just in time (or too soon, my reader might say). But then my reader has probably never heard of a lot of things that whites created that most whites and non-whites alike seem to approve. I won’t try to list them. Read the Encyclopedia Britannica (preferably an older edition) if you want to know more.

But my reader was only warming up to deeper insights; I apologize for interrupting him.

“Some people of color may not like others from a different ethnic background, on small proportions,” he tells us, “But still through it all, We ALL KNOW who the TRUE CANCER upon the EARTH is. The most destructive, evil, and bloodiest race of all time has always been, is, and forever will be until stopped is. Study, EVERYWHERE that the Whiteman has gone, he has caused SOME kind of destruction. Cancer acts in a VERY similar way. It destroys one part of the body and moves on to another until the whole damn thing is dead.”

“Everyone is familiar with the Whiteman’s tricknowledge. Your [sic] all out of tricks and now you resort still to the old divide and conquer. Set ‘em at each other’s throat and let ‘em kill each other, while we sit back, and have orgasms from witnessing all the blood flow. The whiteman is a demonic vampire whom [sic] survives off blood, war, and violence.”

“As long as your twisted minds keep thinking of ways to destroy in such massive ways you will be TEMPORARILY safe. But one day, just one day…. and the world and people of color will rejoice and celebrate over the devils’s death day. FINALLY DEATH and Evil Oppression IS GONE is what the WORLD will chant.”

I am not trying to claim that my reader is typical of non-whites. On the other hand, he’s not exactly unique either, and those who dismiss his insightful reflections as the irrelevant squeakings of a few misplaced mental cogs would be ill-advised.

The clichés and blunders he regurgitates are precisely what he has been taught in the anti-white multiculturalist curricula of American schools, and the mass extermination of whites over which he is licking his chops is precisely what their teaching encourages.

When, within less than 50 years, whites become a minority in this country because of mass immigration, what my reader so passionately wants to happen — “one day, just one day” — will at last begin to be possible.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hate Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

Some time after Trent Lott’s 157th apology for what he said to Strom Thurmond last month, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the not-very-burning issue of cross burning, and the New York Times splashed the news all across its front page the next day.

A case before the court is challenging a statute of the state of Virginia that makes burning crosses a criminal act, and the reaction to the case from Justice Clarence Thomas was the ostensible reason for the media attention to it.

Justice Thomas doesn’t much care for cross-burning, a practice associated with the Ku Klux Klan and its efforts to avoid “all those problems” to which Sen. Lott may have been alluding a few weeks ago. “There’s no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message,” the Court’s only black justice remarked. “It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.”

In pronouncing this judgment before the discussion of the case had even been concluded, Justice Thomas seems to have closed the book before anyone (including maybe Justice Thomas) had a chance to read it.

Specifically, the case involves a challenge to Virginia’s 1952 statute outlawing the burning of a cross for purposes of intimidation. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the law, and the defendants are now bringing their appeal to the U.S. court.

In one of the cases, a leader of a local Ku Klux Klan group burned a cross on private property at a Klan rally in 1998. On that occasion, the cross-burning was not intended to intimidate or terrorize anyone. The Klan leader was fined $2,500.

The other case before the Court involves a pair of white men who burned a cross in the yard of a black neighbor, in the course of using racial slurs. In that case intimidation as well as criminal trespass seem to be pretty clear. Each was convicted and got a brief jail sentence and a fine. The Virginia court consolidated their cases into the one case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their argument is that in 1992 the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in St. Paul, Minnesota that outlawed placing on public or private property any object “which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” That case also involved the burning of a cross, and the Court, following the Minnesota Supreme Court, struck it down on the grounds that it went well beyond the legitimate purpose of penalizing words that might incite to violence or injury — what are generally called “fighting words.”

The lawyers for the Virginia case claim that the same reasoning applies to that state’s cross-burning statute.

That’s why Justice Thomas’s remarks during the argument phase of the hearing seemed to have prejudged the case.

The whole point of the defense is that cross-burning can sometimes have purposes other than “causing fear and terrorizing a population.”

The irony of the case is that the Klansman actually seems to be the one who really didn’t intend to terrorize anyone when he set the torch to the cross. It was the two non-Klansmen who had intimidation or inciting fear in mind when they decided to light up their neighbor’s back yard in the middle of the night.

Justice Thomas voted against the St. Paul ordnance in 1992. Either he forgot that last week or he thinks the Virginia case involves a different principle.

He may be right. The St. Paul law, to judge from its own language, seems to have intended to outlaw actual speech other than simply what could incite violence. The Virginia law is couched in language that makes intimidation and fear its specific targets.

It’s not clear why the Klansman should have been convicted under it, but it is clear why the other two defendants were.

Burning crosses might possibly communicate some message other than fear and terror, but what’s not clear is why anyone today thinks cross-burning is a useful means of expressing the Inner Me. As a practical means of expressing any coherent thought or message, a burning cross is not very useful.

But the Court might be well advised to strike down the law simply because there is already too strong a trend toward outlawing the expression of unpopular thoughts — at least in places like Europe and Canada, where jails are full of “thought criminals” who have said or written forbidden things about race, immigration or other sensitive subjects.

There are people in this country who would very much like to see such laws enacted here.

The sooner the laws that might serve as precedents for doing so are removed, the less threatened our own freedom will be.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hate Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

If it’s a “hate crime” you’re looking for, the New York Times seems to have found a few in West Hollywood, California.

There, the paper reported last week, a homosexual was attacked and beaten by two men who wielded a baseball bat and a metal pipe. Two other homosexuals were attacked earlier in the same way. “The police say they believe the motivation for the beating was homophobia.” So does almost everyone else in the area.

That may well be the motivation for the attacks, but how does anyone know? The assailants apparently said nothing to indicate their motivations.

The Times, the local police and the local community are quick to identify “hate” as the motive when the victims are homosexuals. But when the victims are just plain white and the attackers aren’t, nobody ever seems to know what the motivation is.

Two days after the Times carried the story about the supposed “hate crime” in California, it carried another story about a brutal bank robbery and mass murder in Norfolk, Nebraska. In that crime, the robber-killers opened fire during their botched attack on a local bank and slaughtered five people. The Times reported the names of three suspects arrested later. It never reported that all four suspects are Hispanics, nor that all but one of the victims are white.

Of course there’s no evidence it was a hate crime.

How could the Nebraska Massacre be a “hate crime”? After all, according to the Justice Department, hate crimes committed by Hispanics are classified as having been committed by whites, thus inflating the number of white perpetrators. Moreover, as the Census Bureau likes to remind us constantly, “Hispanic” is not a racial category; a “Hispanic” can be of any race (except when they commit “hate crimes,” in which case they are whites).

But while it never occurs to the Times or the bureaucrats whose racial pigeon-holing habits it follows that racial motivations just might have had something to do with the Nebraska Massacre, it clearly occurred to the local Hispanics.

“To the white community, please accept our profound condolences and sorrows,” said one local Hispanic during a “healing service” held after the shootings, according to the Washington Post. Apparently this gentleman understands racial realities better than most people. He’s not alone.

No sooner had news of the massacre hit the headlines than the head of the state “Mexican-American Commission” popped up in town “to show support for the Hispanic community,” as the Omaha Heraldreported. She “cautioned that last week’s tragedy may be a setback for relations between Anglos and Latinos” and “instructed Hispanics to contact the commission if hateful or racial incidents spring from this tragedy.”

That’s swell. Four Hispanics shoot down several whites in cold blood, and it’s the Hispanics for whom “support” needs to be shown and the whites who are under suspicion for “hateful or racial incidents.”

As for the other notorious recent anti-white racial crime, the Wichita Massacre of December 2000, in which four whites were kidnapped, the women raped and all murdered by two blacks, the Times has never to this day bothered to carry one single story about it.

I know because I checked its computer archive. For the Times, as for many whites, anti-white hatred doesn’t really exist because race doesn’t exist.

For non-whites (in the Nebraska case, Hispanics), the common assumption seems to be that Hispanics will be blamed for the crime, because they think in terms of race. For them race is a living reality; for whites, it’s not.

In neither the Wichita nor the Nebraska crimes is there direct evidence of racial or ethnic “hate”—nor is there in the West Hollywood attacks any clear evidence of hatred of homosexuals. Usually in crimes the police designate as “hate crimes,” the criminals have to say something like a racial, sexual, or religious slur that indicates motivation.

But obviously, not all criminals are always so obliging, and for many of the kinds of creatures that commit these crimes, the motives aren’t always clear anyway. Hate, greed, lust, and anger, among other passions, all hang together in their psyches.

What needs to be done, aside from a good deal more honesty and consistency on the part of newspapers like the New York Times, is to stop trying to lump “hate crimes” together as some kind of meaningful category and start collecting data on simple “racial and ethnic attacks,” in which perpetrators of one race commit violence against victims of another, regardless of motive.

That kind of statistic is much simpler to collect and avoids the swamp of identifying motives. And it might also tell us something important about who is really committing more violence against other races.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hate Crimes, Hispanics 
🔊 Listen RSS

Only a week or so after a debate in the U.S. Senate about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s hate crimes bill,[PDF of bill text] a real hate crime actually took place in New York City, but probably neither most of the senators nor most Americans even heard about it. As the New York Timesheadline described the crime, “Man Shoots Three in Rampage in East Village” Perhaps you can guess why the headline doesn’t mention “hate.”

“Hate” is not mentioned because, as the Times further reported, “a black man who has AIDS and who, as the police said, told investigators he was bent on killing as many white people as he could” did the shooting. Almost invariably, when blacks driven by hatred of whites commit mass murder or try to, it’s not really a hate crime.

Indeed, this particular hate crime almost wasn’t even news. After all, the “black man who has AIDS,” named Steven Johnson, only shot three people and held “40 or so patrons” at the back of the restaurant “where they huddled in terror as he sprayed kerosene on them and threatened them by repeatedly flicking a barbecue lighter” before he was stopped. The New York Times buried the story on page A18, among the obituaries. The Washington Post entombed it in a news brief on page A6, just above another brief that informed us that floods in Ross, Minnesota, had reached the level of 23.5 feet. The conservative Washington Times, panting to catch up to the Post, stuck a news brief about it on page A10 on Tuesday. When blacks slaughter whites and rant “about white people and vow revenge for thousands of years of suffering,” as New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said witnesses described Johnson as doing, it’s not news fit to print.

Indeed, despite the transparent racial hate that drove Mr. Johnson, the commissioner seemed reluctant to call it a hate crime himself. “It will be categorized as a bias crime, but,” he explained, “this was such a bizarre event. This individual was clearly deranged, possibly as a result of his wife having died.”

That’s nice. By publicly speculating on the causes of Mr. Johnson’s rampage and giving the public the benefit of his amateur psychiatric diagnosis, the commissioner may have established grounds for an insanity plea and for dismissing the role of anti-white hatred. It wasn’t really hatred of whites that motivated Mr. Johnson, you see, because he was “clearly deranged” and his wife had recently died.

In 1998, when three white men murdered a black man in Jasper, Texas, for what seem to have been racial reasons, no one bothered to explain their motives, or speculate about their mental conditions, or mention that at least one of them had probably been gang-raped by blacks while in prison and therefore “was clearly deranged.” In that incident, as in the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard around the same time, there was one and only one motivation: hate.

Nor will Greenwich Village receive the blessings of visitations from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan or the small army of celebrities, demagogues and hungry politicians that descended on Jasper in the aftermath of its hate crime. Nor will the president or the Justice Department order the FBI to investigate “anti-white racism” in New York City. Why would they? That only happens when a white attacks a non-white. Why should it happen when whites are attacked by non-whites?

Perhaps most interesting of all, if and when debate on Sen. Kennedy’s hate crimes bill is resumed, no Republican opponent of the bill will think to criticize it because what are today called “hate crimes laws” are really laws that criminalize any white assault on non-whites and thereby create a special legal privilege for non-whites. Nor will any Republican complain that the reluctance of police and prosecutors to call racially motivated violence against whites “hate” is itself an act of discrimination. During the recent debate on the Kennedy bill, the heaviest criticism that Republican “opponent” Sen. Orrin Hatch could come up with was that the bill failed to impose the death penalty for hate crime homicides.

The original concept behind “hate crimes” was that they would expose and penalize and help root out the “white racism” and “hatred” that supposedly permeate American society, and even today those who push them complain that there are far more hate crimes than are really counted by the police (they’re not talking about hate crimes against whites, like the one in New York). But what hate crime laws have really done is expose the blatant double standard, the injustice and the transparent anti-white racism that the self-proclaimed “enemies of hate” have entrenched in our laws and increasingly, through the media, into our minds.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Hate Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

With the federal indictment of a man last week for the murder of two lesbians in a national park six years ago, “hate crimes” are suddenly back in the national news. The Washington Post splattered the story all over its front page the day after the indictment was handed down, [Gay Bias Charged In Deaths (Washington Post) Page A01, Apr 11, 200] and the New York Times carried it in its national news section the same day.

But, as I have noted before, paraphrasing George Orwell, not all hatred is by any means equal.

Hate motivating crimes against blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and women makes the front page and gets the Attorney General of the United States (even right-leaning ones like John Ashcroft) palpitating from their pulpits about how “we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who attack law-abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are,” as Mr. Ashcroft thundered when the alleged ladykiller was indicted.

We wouldn’t want anyone to think Republicans are any less opposed to “hate” than Democrats, would we?

But the hate that dare not be reported at all, at least outside the local area, is hate directed against plain old white, heterosexual, Christian, native American men—the kind that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia earlier this year, where—despite the arresting police officer’s clear statement that a series of violent assaults on white males by blacks was driven by race—prosecuting authorities finally decided, after being lobbied by the NAACP and local black churches, not to prosecute the attacks as hate crimes.

In case you didn’t know, that decision sent a message. The message was that it’s open season on whites, that blacks can attack, assault and maybe even murder white people for transparent reasons of racial animosity and they will not be charged with hate crimes.

In Mobile, Alabama, the message may have been received. The Mobile Register reports [April 16 - story no longer on line] the following story about events that took place on March 25:

“John McDow, who is white, said at least three black males singled him out as he sat in the back of his pickup, waiting for friends at a convenience store…. ‘There were several trucks riding up and down the strip flying rebel flags, and there were some black guys who had bats and sticks and were pulling the flags off’ the trucks, said McDow…. he said a group of black youths pulled into the parking lot, challenged him, and then struck him, knocking him from his truck to the pavement.”

Mr. McDow was not seriously hurt, but the attack on him was a crime and apparently was racially motivated. So it’s a hate crime, right?

Wrong. “Any time you get that many people together, you are going to have some problems,” a local police officer explained to the press. “It’s not really a racial problem; it’s a people problem. People say things they shouldn’t say, and it leads to other things.”

Of course, that’s not what the victim says happened, is it? No one “said” anything, but a gang of blacks showed up armed with weapons apparently looking for trouble with whites because of the perfectly legal Confederate flags they sported. As for “problems” being unavoidable when “you get that many people together,” that’s not true either.

Police and prosecutors have learned that charging blacks with “hate crimes” against whites is simply more trouble than it’s worth. You get visited by the NAACP and the local platoon of the Thought Police, and you may get your name splashed all over the local papers as a “racist” cop who sides with whites against non-whites. Therefore, police today will invoke almost any excuse, any rationalization, any outright lie about and misrepresentation of what really happened and why to avoid charging non-whites with crimes against whites motivated by “hate.

The remedy for what is by now a transparent and dangerous double standard in the identification and prosecution of “hate crimes” is not to demand that non-whites be prosecuted for hate crimes as much and as often as whites but to get rid of the whole concept of “hate crime” entirely.

There is no other criminal offense in which punishment is enhanced simply because of the motivation of the crime. Nor is there any good reason why “hate” as a motive makes a crime worse than greed or lust or anger or any other motivating passion, nor why “hate” of a specific group is worse than hate of a specific individual whom you attack or kill (your wife, your mother-in-law, your neighbor).

The whole concept of “hate crime” contains neither ethical nor legal merit. Instead of expanding it, as will be demanded in the wake of the federal indictment last week, Congress should get rid of it and the statutes that embody it, and the Justice Department should simply refuse to enforce it.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hate Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

With a verdict of guilty returned by an Arkansas jury last week in the case of a 13-year-old boy kidnapped, raped and murdered by homosexuals, the murky political mission of much of the national media becomes a bit more transparent than it was before. Despite the horror and shock the Arkansas atrocity offers, virtually no national news stories about it have appeared—in contrast to the massive coverage of the “hate crime” murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998.

The Arkansas case concerns an admitted homosexual, Joshua McCabe Brown, who says he had a homosexual relationship with 13-year old Jesse Dirkhising for some months before Brown and another male “lover” repeatedly assaulted the boy sexually for five hours until he suffocated on Sept. 26, 1999. Last week, a jury found Brown guilty of first-degree murder and the judge handed down a life sentence.

Still, there is virtually no coverage—of the crime, the criminals, the victim, the trial or the trial’s outcome. New Republic columnist Andrew Sullivan, himself a homosexual, conducted a survey of the news coverage of both the Dirkhising and Shepard murders. He found that in the month after the Shepard killing, there were 3,007 news stories about it, compared to a whopping 46 about the Dirkhising killing. And some folks still think the media’s not biased.

Of course, the media and its apologists have their reasons. The Washington Times’ Robert Stacy McCain asked various news outlets why they didn’t cover the Arkansas story but did cover the one in Wyoming. “Obviously we can’t cover every story that happens in this country every day,” a CBS spokeswoman snorted in reply. Some are important and some aren’t. “It appears to be a local crime story that does not raise the kind of issues that would warrant our coverage,” another spokesman from ABC said. “Every day we’re striving for fair, accurate and objective reporting,” pronounced a CNN spokesman.

Yes, but then why do they cover the Wyoming killing, when two heterosexuals murdered a homosexual? That too was a “local story,” a “crime story” with no connection to national issues. The spokespeople don’t say exactly, but we can infer why pretty easily.

The Shepard killing was not just a “local crime story.” It did “raise the kind of issues” we want to talk about. When heterosexuals murder a homosexual, that proves the country and its culture are “homophobic,” you see, that religious and moral sanctions on homosexuality lead to the murder of those who practice it. When homosexuals murder a heterosexual, well, that’s just an anomaly, not worth bringing up.

Both Mr. McCain in the Times and Mr. Sullivan in the New Republic are convinced there was a double standard, and there’s no convincing reason to disagree. As Mr. Sullivan remarks, the Shepard killing “was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law. The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice.”

“The same politics,” Mr. Sullivan writes, “lies behind the media’s tendency to extensively cover crimes’ against blacks, while ignoring black ‘non-hate crimes’ against whites. What we are witnessing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths—if they affect a politically protected class—are worth more than others.”

A tip of the hat to an honest liberal like Mr. Sullivan. What he says and what the discrepancies in coverage by the national media of the two killings in Wyoming and Arkansas come close to proving is that inherent in the very concept of “hate crimes” is a hidden political agenda. The agenda is to show that some people are victimized because of what they are—their race or their sexual orientation—and those who victimize them do so because of what they are—a persecuting race or sexual orientation. A story becomes newsworthy only if it serves to expose and thereby discredit the cultural and racial identities that drive such killings. Killings that don’t expose and discredit such identities are not newsworthy; they’re just “local crime stories that don’t raise the kind of issues” we want to cover.

The double standard in reporting on race — and sex-related crimes and the political agenda the double standard reflects — should have been obvious well before now, but apparently it took the brutal murder of a boy in Arkansas to force it into the national consciousness at all. Now that the national consciousness has been made to grasp the truth about the major media and the political purposes they harbor and try to hide, we should keep that truth in mind the next time they start preaching their standard sermons about “hate crimes.”

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gays/Lesbians, Hate Crimes 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”