An un-American story: Hate crimes and special victims

It is human nature to resent groups and individuals deemed more special than others.

The fallacy of hate-crime laws -- the prosecution of which requires a degree of mind-reading not yet available to most Earthlings -- has been cast into stark relief the past few weeks following an interracial rape-murder that has bestirred white supremacists and led to death threats against an African-American columnist.

The spark that caused the firestorm was the brutal rape-murder of a young white couple, Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, who were carjacked last January in Knoxville, Tenn. Five blacks -- four men and a woman -- have been charged in connection with the slayings.

Because the story didn't receive national media attention, some commentators and others have asserted that the media do not treat racial crimes equally. They point out that when a black stripper charged three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team with rape, the national media grabbed the story by the ankle and wouldn't let go. Not so Knoxville.

The perception of media bias is understandable -- and a credible case can be made that the media rushed to condemn the Duke athletes because it fit a recognizable racial narrative, especially in the South. But while race was clearly a factor in stimulating media interest, other factors absent from the Knoxville case -- privilege, town and gown conflicts, politics, underage drinking and the name Duke -- also added to the broader "story" appeal.

Nevertheless, the media's largely unskeptical embrace of the charges in the absence of due process, coincident with the horrible events in Knoxville, have stoked passions among some whites who contend that black-on-white crime is underreported.

Adding to the current heat is the decision that the Knoxville blacks won't be charged for hate crimes. Officials say that because the accused have had white friends, they weren't driven by racial hatred.

That seems a flimsy argument, but it does serve to underscore the potential errancy and misapplication of laws that rely on the subjective judgment of others' psychological motives. As the mother of one of the victims said: "If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime."

Hate crimes are not defined only by motive, but by their effect on other members of the same group. The argument for hate-crime laws is that crimes motivated by animus toward an individual because of race, sex, gender identity or disability victimize all members of that group by causing fear and intimidation.

Adding still more fuel to the media- bias claim is a group of white supremacists on one side and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts on the other. Pitts drew fire when he pointed out that the Knoxville incident wasn't considered a hate crime and refuted claims that black crime is underreported. He ended his column with four words for whites who feel oppressed: "Cry me a river."

That's pure columnist flare, but decidedly, um, gutsy considering the likely reaction from people who are not widely known for tolerance. A neo-Nazi group has posted Pitts' address, phone number and his wife's name on its Web site, Overthrow.com. Pitts has received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls, including several death threats that are being investigated by the FBI.

Obviously, Overthrow's editor and the 280 contributors to his American National Socialist Workers Party are the definition of a fringe group that doesn't deserve so much attention. But the same also might be said about those who commit "hate crimes."

In 2005, among about 7,000 hate crimes -- mostly characterized by intimidation (48.9 percent) and simple assault (30.2 percent) -- just six murders and three forcible rapes were reported as fitting the hate-crime definition, according to the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics report. Though we may hate "hate crimes," those numbers hardly seem sufficient to justify extra laws designating a special category for certain crime victims.

Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have insisted that hate-crime laws are necessary because crimes that make minority communities fearful "damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."

The Duke and Knoxville cases cast serious doubts on that premise. It is human nature to resent groups and individuals deemed more special than others.

Signaling through laws (or media treatment) that one group's suffering is more grievous than another's -- or that one person's murder is worse than another's -- is also likely to fragment communities, as well as to engender the very animosities such laws are meant to deter.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@kparker.com.

Article Link (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-parker2707jun27,0,701617.column)

That seems pretty damn balanced for a msm writer. This is the kind of writing I expect to see from every msm article or video package that is presented for my consideration. It goes without saying that I'm disappointed at least 99 out of every 100 stories that reach my consciousness. Here's the one time I'm not.

That seems pretty damn balanced for a msm writer. This is the kind of writing I expect to see from every msm article or video package that is presented for my consideration. It goes without saying that I'm disappointed at least 99 out of every 100 stories that reach my consciousness. Here's the one time I'm not.

I agree with you 100%

Leave some positive comments http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-parker2707jun27,0,701617.column

That seems pretty damn balanced for a msm writer. This is the kind of writing I expect to see from every msm article or video package that is presented for my consideration. It goes without saying that I'm disappointed at least 99 out of every 100 stories that reach my consciousness. Here's the one time I'm not.
Yeah, I actually finished reading and didn't want to reach through the screen and beat someone. Well written piece, as you said, media reports should be a bit more like this all the time.

Maybe the start of a trend? One could hope. I won't hold my breath, though. Blue isn't my color.

Yeah, I actually finished reading and didn't want to reach through the screen and beat someone. Well written piece, as you said, media reports should be a bit more like this all the time.

Maybe the start of a trend? One could hope. I won't hold my breath, though. Blue isn't my color.

If it is the start of a trend it's because we spearheaded the charge. Bear that in mind when you are given the opportunity to send someone like Leonard Pitts' bosses at the Miami Herald a call and/or send them an email. We CAN make changes BUT we must be persistant and FIGHT like hell

I agree, completely.

I lack faith in the msm.

She doesn't evoke the outrage of the situation because at the end of the day she's just another wusscon hack.

Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have insisted that hate-crime laws are necessary because crimes that make minority communities fearful "damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."

Classic kike "stop kicking me" while he's kicking you. Integration has destroyed our society and fragmented our community. The jews at the ADL are well aware of this. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. Back in their country, walls are built to keep out the Paleniggers. Marriages to Palecoons are not recognized. The Paleniggers can't even buy land. Jew = one word, three lies.

So, those six murders and three rapes are made to outweigh 40,000 black-on-White rapes and 1.8 million black-on-White violent crimes a year. 'Hate crimes' is a bogus category invented by the loxist jews at the ADL to distract attention from real crimes, so that Whites will suffer in silence under genocidal policies set by those very same jews.

Again, the important thing here, which most WN, even, are too dumb to grasp is that none of these black-on-White crimes would be possible without integration.

So, whoever set forced integration as our policy bears the moral weight of these crimes.

Who made integration our policy?

Why, it was the jews.

Understand the jews is the key to the whole thing.

Once you grasp what's ACTUALLY going on here, you look at the world in a radically different way.

It's just like public schools. They're not failing. They're succeeding. You simply aren't looking at them from the point of view of the operators.

The corpses of Channon and Chris aren't failures of the System. They are the tree bearing the fruit the planters intended. If you plant an apple tree, it bears apples. If you mix blacks and humans, you get raped and murdered Whites.

It is by intent, and nothing less that the revolutionary removal of the elite that put it in place, an elite dominated by jews, will suffice to change things.

A better than expected article from Parker. A good start anyways.

It's not a start, it's the end. If you praise and subsidize these halfway betties, that's all you'll ever get. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are not the solution, we are. They are to be demonized, not praised. Destroy all fake opposition, name the jew, advance as Whites - that is the winning strategy.

It's not a start, it's the end. If you praise and subsidize these halfway betties, that's all you'll ever get. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are not the solution, we are. They are to be demonized, not praised. Destroy all fake opposition, name the jew, advance as Whites - that is the winning strategy.


Yes but, how exactly to attract the lemmings? If we alienate them all simultaneously then how are we to get the dumb bastards to consider the kike? Isn't a relatively slow process of indoctrination and introduction necessary before we beat them over their motherfucking heads with the truth?

That's what's we've heard from interested (read: paid) conservatives for the last fifty years. How's it working out?

Contrast - we did one rally with a few dozen Whites, all of a sudden we get the real interracial crime context printed in a major paper, and successful bang-ons everywhere you look, ie Pitts, Reed, etc.

It's not about attracting lemmings anyway. We want a hard revolutionary core, not Hobbit Humperz (TM) who piss their pants at The Kike Man having their IP.

We need revolution. Nothing less will suffice. Conservatives are not revolutionaries, they are whiners and losers. They actually harbor a sick hatred of winners - Tom Fleming is the perfect example.

It's not a start, it's the end. If you praise and subsidize these halfway betties, that's all you'll ever get. Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan are not the solution, we are. They are to be demonized, not praised. Destroy all fake opposition, name the jew, advance as Whites - that is the winning strategy.

You can name the jew, advance as whites, but that doesn't mean you have to ostracize those that are generally pro-white. I generally support most on the political sprectrum from Paleoconservatism on over. This does not include both political parties (with maybe the exception of Ron Paul).

Do wish to have viable political movement? You have to realize that everyone is not going share your same worldview. Any successful political movement will a bit variance in ideology. In other words to get numbers you need to be flexible without sacrificing your main goal - which I'm assuming is advancement of the white race.

There's probably 99 percent of the population that's the enemy without throwing Buchanan, Francis, and Parker into the mix. Isn't that enough to fight against for the time being?

I agree with Jim Crowe. Not everyone has to or even neccessarily should be doing everything in the same way or even word for word saying the same things. Different people need to be appealed to on different levels. What is incredibly useful about someone like Pat Buchanan is that he represents some old time American values and he is able to present himself and these basic ideas in a way that removes the demonization of these old time values and ideas(this, for example, would not be the case if he did things in the way some might want him to) This is an incredibly important first step. In the very least someone like Pat could be said to be a very good beginning for a lot of average white folks.

Read her article again. It's purely in your head that she's on our side. She calls us white supremacists just like her jew employers. She denounces organized Whites as lunatic fringe. Just like her jew employers.

SHE AINT ON OUR SIDE.

You praise these people, you mistake what drove her in the first place - our efforts. Our efforts are what got this on the national stage. We deserve the credit, not these weakass conserva-liberal-jew-sycophants. Hell, this conservacunt doesn't even give the crime stats. Fuck her.

Have respect for US - including yourself. WE and OUR pressure are what move things, not some wussy ass opinion columnist who shits on us as we run to praise her. Her type is to be scorned and scored, not praised.

Whites have showered praise on the likes of Pat Buchanan for years, and how has he rewarded us? We're sick racists in his view.

Don't read into people views they don't hold.

I agree with Jim Crowe. Not everyone has to or even neccessarily should be doing everything in the same way or even word for word saying the same things. Different people need to be appealed to on different levels. What is incredibly useful about someone like Pat Buchanan is that he represents some old time American values and he is able to present himself and these basic ideas in a way that removes the demonization of these old time values and ideas(this, for example, would not be the case if he did things in the way some might want him to) This is an incredibly important first step. In the very least someone like Pat could be said to be a very good beginning for a lot of average white folks.

With all due disrespect, you are completely, 100% wrong.

If you subsidize, even merely with praise, weak conservative like PB, you are simply going to get more of the same. He shits on WN whnever the subject comes up, while using their arguments, watered down, to put food on his childless table. FUCK PAT BUCHANAN.

WE are IT.

NOT the weak, jew-salad-tossing, paleocon cowards.

WE are IT.

NOT the weak, jew-salad-tossing, paleocon cowards.

Now THAT is the fucking truth, VNN more so than anyone else.

With all due disrespect, you are completely, 100% wrong.

If you subsidize, even merely with praise, weak conservative like PB, you are simply going to get more of the same. He shits on WN whnever the subject comes up, while using their arguments, watered down, to put food on his childless table. FUCK PAT BUCHANAN.

WE are IT.

NOT the weak, jew-salad-tossing, paleocon cowards.

Alex Linder is 100% right, stating an important fact regarding P.B. and others like him. This is not about Jared Taylor with good information about non- White, but then has 0% jewish facts for how the jews engineered the the mess we are in or Pauly Girl Roberts this guys are basically writers.

In 1999 I sent 300 dollars to P.B. as I felt some thing had to be done and the time this was a big deal for me, and living in a White area I was surprised at the hatred against P.B.

P.B. stabbed his supporters fatally in the back, with his choice of a Congoid L.A.CA. school teacher and then had some White hating radical congoid women from NYC on his staff I think media can't remember.

He consulted none of his supporters and picked a Congoid woman, what a great White fighter, huh?

That and for other reasons I wrote and called his headquarters to return my hard earned money, and they are supposed to do it and Pat Pukecannon did not return my money after repeated requests. Nor could I get a reciept.

Even www.amren.com kept their distance after that one I think

Any one who speaks seriously about Patty boy for a leaders makes me wonder why they read VNN, and that they really don't get it, to how serious things are and really do not understand the good postings at VNNF, and not including B.Dave or the poster who talks to his shoe.

Pat's net worth and his investments in 2000 were over 4 million, what those investments were interesting to me at the time, but I won't post from memory.