Skip to Content
0 Votes
Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/08/18 04:18
From version 14.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 01:22
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 15.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/08/18 01:34
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,48 +1,52 @@
1 1  = Hate Crimes as a Weapon Against Whites =
2 2  
3 -[[image:SomeRelevantImage.jpg||width="700px"]]
4 -(% class="wikigallery" %)[[Gallery of Media Examples>>path:/bin/view/Main/Media%20Gallery/Hate%20Crime%20Cases/]]
5 5  
6 6  == Overview ==
7 7  
8 -Hate crime laws were introduced as tools to protect vulnerable communities. In practice, however, they have become instruments of selective enforcement — used primarily to target Whites and shield nonwhite offenders from accountability.
6 +Hate crime laws were originally presented as protections for vulnerable communities. In practice, however, they have evolved into instruments of selective enforcement — applied disproportionately against Whites while ignoring or downplaying attacks committed against them.
9 9  
10 -This page documents the legal, statistical, and narrative asymmetries that expose this weaponization.
8 +This page examines the origins of hate crime statutes, their unequal application, and the way media and government institutions use them as tools of narrative control.
11 11  
12 12  {{toc/}}
13 13  
14 14  == 1. Origins of Hate Crime Legislation ==
15 15  
16 -- History of U.S. hate crime statutes
17 -- Role of advocacy groups (ADL, SPLC) in shaping language
18 -- Shift from civil rights protection to ideological weapon
14 +The first modern hate crime statutes in the United States were introduced during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s. These laws were promoted as a response to racial intimidation and targeted violence, particularly in the South.
19 19  
16 +However, the legislative direction of hate crime laws was heavily shaped by advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). These organizations lobbied to define “protected classes” in a way that elevated certain racial, religious, and sexual minorities while excluding Whites from meaningful legal protection.
17 +
18 +What began as legislation to defend equal rights gradually shifted into an ideological weapon — one that enshrined permanent asymmetry into law.
19 +
20 20  == 2. Protected Classes and Legal Asymmetry ==
21 21  
22 -- Who qualifies — and who doesn’t
23 -- “Protected class” language as exclusionary toward Whites
24 -- Legal disparity in application (case law examples)
22 +The very structure of hate crime statutes is built on unequal foundations. The concept of a “protected class” assumes that some groups require enhanced protection, while others do not. In practice, this means that Whites, even when targeted explicitly for their race, often fall outside the scope of protection.
25 25  
24 +Courts and prosecutors routinely interpret hate crime enhancements through this lens, granting minority victims immediate recognition while treating White victims as incidental. Case law demonstrates this disparity: similar crimes are escalated to hate crime status when minorities are targeted, but dismissed as “random violence” or “mental illness” when Whites are the victims.
25 +
26 +This exclusionary logic cements legal asymmetry as a permanent feature of the system.
27 +
26 26  == 3. Disparities in Prosecution ==
27 27  
28 -- Studies and data showing Whites are:
29 - - Charged more often
30 - - Punished more harshly
31 - - Denied “bias victim” status even in explicitly racial attacks
30 +The selective design of hate crime law is most visible in how prosecutions are carried out. Studies and documented cases reveal a consistent pattern:
32 32  
32 +Whites are more likely to be charged with hate crime enhancements for relatively minor incidents, including fights, comments, or social media posts.
33 +
34 +Non-Whites who commit racially targeted violence against Whites often avoid hate crime charges entirely, even when the motive is openly admitted.
35 +
36 +Sentencing is harsher when Whites are perpetrators and softer when Whites are victims.
37 +
38 +This prosecutorial bias ensures that the system operates not as a neutral application of justice, but as a tool of power projection.
39 +
33 33  == 4. Anti-White Hate Crimes Ignored or Reframed ==
34 34  
35 -{{expandable summary="Examples"}}
36 -- [ ] Case: [e.g., Ethan Liming, Akron]
37 -- [ ] Case: [e.g., Knockout Game victims]
38 -- [ ] Case: [e.g., 2020 BLM riots, White deaths unreported]
39 -Each example will follow this format:
40 - - Description
41 - - Source links
42 - - Racial framing in media
43 - - Legal outcome (if any)
44 -{{/expandable}}
42 +Public awareness of racial violence is strongly shaped by what the media and legal institutions choose to emphasize. Anti-White hate crimes are often reframed as isolated incidents, stripped of their racial motive, or simply ignored. When the perpetrator is non-White, prosecutors and journalists alike tend to downplay ideology and instead focus on mental health, socioeconomic stress, or “lone wolf” narratives.
45 45  
44 +Below is a selection of documented cases where clear anti-White motives were disregarded, reframed, or minimized. Each expandable section contains detailed descriptions, sources, and outcomes.
45 +
46 +== 4. Anti-White Hate Crimes Ignored or Reframed ==
47 +
48 +Examples of hate crimes against Whites where there would have been mass outrage and hate crime charges had the races been reversed
49 +
46 46  {{expandable summary="2016 Dallas Police Shooting – Racial Motive Censored"}}
47 47  On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson fatally shot five Dallas police officers, injuring nine more. He explicitly told negotiators that he "wanted to kill white people, especially white officers: {{footnote}}Dallas Shooting Suspect Micah Xavier Johnson Had Rifles, Bombmaking Materials in His Home, Police Say. https://abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-shooting-suspect-wanted-kill-white-people-white/story?id=40431306{{/footnote}}
48 48  
... ... @@ -147,42 +147,49 @@
147 147  
148 148  == 5. Hate Crime Charges Against Whites for Minor Infractions ==
149 149  
150 -- [ ] School fights, verbal insults, social media comments
151 -- [ ] Prosecutions initiated under activist pressure
152 -- [ ] First Amendment conflicts
154 +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.
153 153  
156 +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.
157 +
154 154  == 6. Role of NGOs and Media in Narrative Control ==
155 155  
156 -- SPLC / ADL influence over prosecutors and journalists
157 -- Google and social platform alignment with hate framing
158 -- Lack of advocacy for White victims
160 +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.
159 159  
162 +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.
163 +
160 160  == 7. FBI and DOJ Data Gaps ==
161 161  
162 -- Anti-White attacks underreported or misclassified
163 -- “Other” or “Unknown” bias categories
164 -- States that omit anti-White bias reporting entirely
166 +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.
165 165  
168 +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.
169 +
166 166  == 8. Charts and Statistics ==
167 167  
168 -{{expandable summary="📊 Racial Disparities in Hate Crime Prosecution"}}
172 +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.
173 +
174 +{{expandable summary="Racial Disparities in Hate Crime Prosecution"}}
169 169  (% id="hatecrimes-stats" %)
170 -| Race of Victim | % Charged as Hate Crime | Avg Sentence | Media Coverage |
171 -| | | | |
172 -| White          | 83%                      | 4.2 yrs      | National       |
173 -| Black          | 19%                      | 2.1 yrs      | Local or none  |
174 -| Hispanic       | 22%                      | 2.4 yrs      | Variable       |
175 -| Asian          | 27%                      | 2.9 yrs      | Often national |
176 +|= Race of Victim |= % Charged as Hate Crime |= Avg Sentence |= Media Coverage |
177 +| White | 83% | 4.2 yrs | National |
178 +| Black | 19% | 2.1 yrs | Local/None |
179 +| Hispanic | 22% | 2.4 yrs | Variable |
180 +| Asian | 27% | 2.9 yrs | Often national |
181 +
176 176  {{chart type="bar3D" source="xdom" table="table:hatecrimes-stats" legendVisible="true" plotBorderVisible="false" backgroundColor="FFFFFF" plotBackgroundColor="F9F9F9" borderColor="FFFFFF" colors="003366,336699,6699CC,99CCFF"/}}
177 177  {{/expandable}}
178 178  
179 179  == 9. Conclusions ==
180 180  
181 -Hate crimes are not prosecuted equally. Instead, they function as tools of narrative enforcement, media manipulation, and anti-White power projection. This page will continue to expand with new examples, legal citations, and data.
187 +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.
182 182  
183 -== 📄 Related Pages ==
189 +This page will continue to expand with new examples, legal citations, and statistical data to document the extent of this asymmetry.
184 184  
185 -- [[Media Framing of White Victims>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Media/Media%20Framing%20of%20White%20Victims/]]
186 -- [[Legal Disparities in Race-Based Prosecution>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Law/Legal%20Disparities%20in%20Race-Based%20Prosecution/]]
191 +== Related Pages ==
187 187  
193 +[[Media Framing of White Victims>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Media/Media%20Framing%20of%20White%20Victims/]]
194 +
195 +[[Legal Disparities in Race-Based Prosecution>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Law/Legal%20Disparities%20in%20Race-Based%20Prosecution/]]
196 +
197 +References
198 +
188 188  {{putFootnotes/}}