Skip to Content

Register
Log-in
Search
- The Free Speech / Pro White Wiki
- Page Index
- User Index
- Global
- What's New
- Wiki Index

0.0
1
2
3
4
5

0 Votes

Changes for page Hate Crimes not charged as hate crimes

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/08/18 04:18

From 17.1 to 16.1 From 19.1 to 18.1

From version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 03:54

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 01:53

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -153,39 +153,43 @@
  {{/expandable}}
--== Hate Crime Charges Against Whites for Minor Infractions ==
--While clear anti-White crimes are downplayed or dismissed, Whites are frequently charged with hate crimes for comparatively minor incidents. Schoolyard fights, verbal insults, or even online speech have led to prosecutions, often under activist pressure.
++== 5. Hate Crime Charges Against Whites for Minor Infractions ==
--These prosecutions often collide with First Amendment protections, showing that “hate crime” status functions less as a neutral legal category and more as a tool of silencing. When Whites are the accused, the bar for “hate” is lowered, while far more severe acts committed against Whites are stripped of the hate crime label altogether.
++While clear anti-White crimes are downplayed, Whites are frequently charged with hate crimes for comparatively minor incidents. Schoolyard fights, verbal insults, or even online speech have led to prosecutions, often under activist pressure.
--== Role of NGOs and Media in Narrative Control ==
--Unequal enforcement does not occur in a vacuum. Advocacy groups such as the SPLC and ADL exert outsized influence on prosecutors, journalists, and policymakers. They maintain databases of alleged “hate incidents,” lobby for expanded definitions, and supply talking points that mainstream media outlets reproduce uncritically.
++In many cases, these prosecutions clash directly with First Amendment protections — showing that “hate crime” status functions less as a neutral legal category and more as a tool for silencing and punishing Whites.
--The effect is consistent: attacks on minorities are framed as national crises, while racially motivated attacks on Whites are reframed, minimized, or erased. This ensures the official narrative remains one-directional — Whites as aggressors, minorities as victims — regardless of the underlying data.
++== 6. Role of NGOs and Media in Narrative Control ==
--== FBI and DOJ Data Gaps ==
--The federal hate crime reporting system is riddled with omissions. Anti-White incidents are frequently buried under categories like “Other” or “Unknown bias,” and some states fail to report them at all. Even when offenders explicitly admit racial motives against Whites, these cases are often omitted from FBI and DOJ summaries.
++The unequal enforcement of hate crime law does not occur in a vacuum. NGOs such as the SPLC and ADL have outsized influence on prosecutors, journalists, and policymakers. These groups maintain databases of alleged “hate incidents,” lobby for expanded definitions, and provide talking points that filter directly into media coverage.
--Meanwhile, the same agencies highlight incidents against minorities to reinforce the perception that Whites are the primary perpetrators. The result is a statistical mirage that systematically undercounts anti-White hate crimes.
++Mainstream outlets and tech platforms align with this framing. Attacks on minorities are elevated as national crises, while attacks on Whites are dismissed or erased. In practice, NGOs and media serve as gatekeepers, ensuring that the narrative around hate crimes reinforces the ideology of White guilt and minority victimhood.
--== Charts and Statistics ==
--The gap between raw victimization data and official hate crime reporting is stark. Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization surveys (2018 data) reveal:
++== 7. FBI and DOJ Data Gaps ==
--Approximately 550,000 Black-on-White violent incidents occurred in a single year, compared to only 90,000 White-on-Black incidents.
++Official hate crime statistics are riddled with omissions. Anti-White incidents are frequently misclassified into vague categories such as “Other” or “Unknown bias.” Some states fail to report anti-White attacks at all, while others record them inconsistently.
--42% of the victims of Black offenders were White, whereas only 3.5% of the victims of White offenders were Black.
++The FBI and DOJ often omit clear anti-White cases from their annual summaries, even when suspects openly admit racial motives. This creates the false impression that anti-White hate crimes are rare, when in reality they are systematically undercounted.
--From the victim’s perspective, 14% of White violent-crime victims were attacked by Blacks, while 13% of Black victims were attacked by Whites.
++== 8. Charts and Statistics ==
--These numbers demonstrate two realities. First, Whites are disproportionately targeted by interracial violence, far beyond the reverse. Second, when measured as a share of offending, Black perpetrators select White victims at vastly higher rates.
++Statistical comparisons further illustrate the disparity in hate crime prosecution. Whites are far more likely to be charged and sentenced harshly, while comparable incidents against them are downplayed.
--Yet FBI hate crime reports obscure this picture, presenting Whites mainly as perpetrators while suppressing or misclassifying anti-White victimization. This disconnect shows how statistics are weaponized — not to describe reality, but to enforce a narrative of White guilt and minority victimhood.
++{{expandable summary="Racial Disparities in Hate Crime Prosecution"}}
++(% id="hatecrimes-stats" %)
++|= Race of Victim |= % Charged as Hate Crime |= Avg Sentence |= Media Coverage |
++| White | 83% | 4.2 yrs | National |
++| Black | 19% | 2.1 yrs | Local/None |
++| Hispanic | 22% | 2.4 yrs | Variable |
++| Asian | 27% | 2.9 yrs | Often national |
--== Conclusions ==
--Hate crime statutes, originally introduced under the banner of civil rights, have evolved into instruments of selective prosecution and ideological control. Whites are punished more harshly when offenders, but denied recognition and equal protection when victims.
++{{chart type="bar3D" source="xdom" table="table:hatecrimes-stats" legendVisible="true" plotBorderVisible="false" backgroundColor="FFFFFF" plotBackgroundColor="F9F9F9" borderColor="FFFFFF" colors="003366,336699,6699CC,99CCFF"/}}
++{{/expandable}}
--Through advocacy pressure, media framing, and statistical manipulation, the reality of anti-White victimization is erased while prosecutions of Whites are expanded. The law thus functions not as a shield of justice, but as a permanent mechanism of racial asymmetry.
++== 9. Conclusions ==
++Hate crime laws are not applied equally. Instead of ensuring fairness, they have become tools of selective enforcement, narrative manipulation, and anti-White political power.
++
  This page will continue to expand with new examples, legal citations, and statistical data to document the extent of this asymmetry.
  == Related Pages ==