Hate Crime Charges and their One Sided Enforcement Against Whitey

Recently we had a run in with a prolific LOLbertarian poster who wanted to sperg out at those demanding hate crimes be applied on behalf of White People. I gave him plenty of slack over the months, but between that and the neverending spergout over White Women, I felt like I couldn’t take any more of it.

Hey guyz, did you know that Angela Merkel let in all those fake refugees because she’s a woman? It’s totally not because she’s the property of Schlomo, it’s because she’s a woman. After all, the establishment is run by faggots and women.

I have shown more than enough patience for this. I deleted five of the seven comments he left under the original piece, but saved their contents. That’s because the links he gave proving that there is a systemic anti-White enforcement of hate crime laws against White People were actually quite good.

Sperg’s comment:

I still have not found video of Holder testifying (e.g. in 2009) about ‘hate’ legislation (I know I saw it years ago), but here is a report about what he said:

“Holder: Whites and Ministers will not be protected by proposed hate crimes legislation”

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2284085/posts

Holder makes clear that the law is meant to prosecute ‘hate’ against ‘classes where there is a history of violence against those groups’ — he means historically marginal or marginalized groups, and that is not white people — the author of the above says as much:

That is a largely correct interpretation of what Holder said, and that is how it has been in practice at the federal level: the federal government simply does not prioritize prosecuting ‘hate’ against Whites — in fact, it is fair to say they show no interest at all in doing that — and I’m sure any audit would reveal there have been, comparatively, very few federal prosecutions for ‘hate’ against Whites.

Let’s take a closer look at this 2009 Free Republic piece.

Free Republic:

Senator Sessions asks Holder about the scope of the protected classes. (Beginning at 58:43 – running through 60:09) Sessions presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what scripture says about homosexuality.

That’s Senator Jeff Sessions.

You may remember him as the only one in the Trump Administration who actually wanted to stop illegal migrants from pouring over our border. Here he can be seen pushing back against hate crime charges in a non-retarded way, by attacking the people behind them as anti-White, and anti-Christian. And when I searched for pictures of him I almost instantly found this piece written by some anti-White, who is seething that Sessions was going after “affirmative action,” programs at Universities.

Thanks to God Emperor Orange Faggot, Sessions got drummed out of congress and his career ended. Thanks, guy. Really had our backs on that one.

Then Holder goes on to list the only groups intended to be protected by the proposed law. This is racial identity politics taking a sinister turn. Holder explicitly says the proposed law only protects classes “where there is a history” of violence against those groups. “What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don’t know if we have the same historical record to say members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African American, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over the many years.” (minute 73:00-74:00)

Based on Holder’s testimony, it is clear that the law would not protect white victims who were attacked because of their race by racial minorities. Holder’s testimony explicitly excluded prosecution of the gay activist who attacks a Christian minister or priest because of his sermon on homosexuality, but the legislation protects the gay activist when he is attacked.

Eric Holder, former Attorney General

The article is cuckservative light, but can’t ignore the elephant in the room simply by objectively stating what is going on. The purpose of hate crime laws is to privilege certain groups, perverts, Jews, and coloured people – provided they don’t pull a Kanye or Kyrie Irving – and oppress other groups. The laws are never written in such a way, but they are interpreted in such a way. The reason that these anti-Whites, zionists, and perverts are allowed to get away with this is because consubversives utterly refuse to attack them on this issue, because their (((donors))) don’t want them to.

Our commenter wasn’t done accidentally giving us great resources. From another comment:

Another document from the US federal government dated March 8, 2022:

[STATEMENT OF KRISTEN CLARKE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  AT A HEARING ENTITLED

“COMBATING THE RISE IN HATE CRIMES”]

Senate Judiciary PDF.

Search for the word ‘white’ in the above document: it is found *exclusively* in text detailing ‘hate crime’ committed by Whites (‘white supremacists’), or the preeminent danger of ‘white supremacy’.

Now search for the word ‘hate’ — there is no discussion whatsoever about ‘hate crimes’ committed explicitly against Whites — Whites may be some of the victims of ‘hate crime’ committed due to sexual orientation, but if so it is not stated — and in any case, what’s relevant is ‘hate crime’ committed against Whites *because of their race* — while that might be a theoretical possibility, it is not discussed because it is not at all a priority, or even of interest.

So again: ‘hate crime’ laws are, *in practice*, a tool the government uses against Whites — their existence and use  will never be a net benefit to Whites, and the rare instance where ‘hate’ against Whites is charged and prosecuted is just the exception that proves the above rule.

It isn’t “the Government” that uses these hate crime laws against Whitey, but rather Globo Homo Schlomo, and certain individuals in particular, with names and faces. Similar things are done through multinational corporations, which enforce censorship against White People, and normal people getting uppity towards perverts. Since corporate censorship currently doesn’t work in our favour, I guess we should impotently fight against the abstract concept of corporate censorship. This should manifest itself through whining in echo chambers at anyone demanding that Musk censor some troon posting violent threats, or shut down twitter in Ireland in protest of their neo-Bolshevik speech laws. 

It’s almost hard to write a critique of the “don’t point out the enemies malicious bullshit,” arguments, because they’re so stupid that they’re almost incoherent. No, always point out that hate crime laws are simply anti-White, anti-Goyim, and occasionally anti-Christian/normal laws that exist to systemically privilege certain groups at your expense. The same is true for corporate (((censorship))), and that is the best argument against it.

Another statement by Holder concerning ‘hate’ legislation, this one from 2009:

Senate Judiciary PDF.

There is only one instance of the word ‘white’ in it:

“For example, in June 2003, three white men brutally assaulted a group of Latino teenagers as the teenagers attempted to enter a Chili’s restaurant in Holtsville, New York. “

If you read the nearby text, you’ll see he is using this incident as an example to show why existing ‘hate’ laws need to be strengthened: to make sure racist Whites cannot continue to get away with ‘hate’ crimes.

Up until that point in the Obama administration, how many Whites had been murdered by Blacks? — how many Whites had been victims of brutal violent black criminality? — how many of those incidents involved ‘hate’? — no one knows because no one in the government cares — there was back then, as still today,  no concern about ‘hate’ playing a role in any of the numerous black on white violent crimes.

Serious political action is getting lists of hate crime charges, and going through them by race. I attempted to do such a thing here in Canada. The Government must keep lists of hate crimes, broken down by race and other demographic details. After all, if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to write headlines such as the following.

Despite numerous calls to various authorities, none of them would give me any of this data. Instead, they kept giving me the runaround to various other institutions. Basically, I call the RCMP, and they tell me to talk to prosecution services. I call them, they tell me to talk to some obscure legal institution whose name I forget. Call them, they tell me to talk to the RCMP.

All of this was in the context of the church burnings of 2021. I wanted to find out how many anti-White and anti-Christian hate crime charges had been prosecuted, not just in 2021, but since the invention of the legislation. I strongly suspected that the number would be zero for both, which would be a rhetorical killshot that they just couldn’t allow. 

Governments make this data extremely difficult to acquire, maybe even impossible, for a reason. They also don’t explicitly write them to say “but this doesn’t apply to White People,” for the same reason.

A very productive journalistic task would be to getting a hand on this data. A very unproductive task is firing off a comment in an echo chamber calling the people who are trying to do this stupid because they’re not opposed to the abstract concept of hate crimes. I’m not going to tolerate such nonsense going forward.