The Diversity Thing (The Big Lie-Hate Crimes)

2/25/07 | Self

[Nextrush]

"Horst Wessel was murdered because he was a National Socialist."

Joseph Goebbels-1930

"Matthew Shepherd was killed because he was gay"

Common Belief-Today

Both statements tell stories that don't reflect all the facts of the original cases.

Adolf Hitler postulated in "Mein Kampf" that if you tell a big lie, it would be believed more than the small ones that everyone tells and accepts as being lies.

Hitler also believed that even if the truth came out later, the lie would still stick.

Horst Wessel was a Nazi Storm Trooper (Brownshirt) who left his wealthy family to live on the streets. He took up living with a prostitute, who he stole from a pimp named Ali Hohler. When the rent for the apartment wasn't paid, landlady Elizabeth Salm told Hohler where to find Wessel. Wessel was beaten up and eventually died.

The Nazis made a martyr out of him with the impassioned Joseph Goebbels speech I quoted.

In 1998 Matthew Shepherd was robbed for drug money. His killers tried to defend themselves saying he was gay and they were afraid of him. After the trial, the perps along with the police investigator and prosecutor all said that the murder really had nothing to do with Shepherd being gay.

The real story appeared on an ABC News "20/20" program in 2004. But the lie lives on about Matthew Shepherd being the victim of a "hate crime."

A play called "The Laramie Project" is performed around the country to present the story of Shepherd's murder. When the play was made into an HBO film the tolerance.org website described the film as providing a "springboard for a national campaign of hate-crime education."

The real story of what "The Laramie Project" is about gets drowned out when the play is performed because people from the Westboro Baptist Church group show up to protest it.

When the play was performed in Pennsylvania at York Suburban High School earlier this month, superintendent Dr. William Hartman said it was about "acceptance of diversity."

Its clear that "The Laramie Project" projects that idea that a "hate crime" was committed against a "gay man." Shepherd's murder triggered calls for state and federal "hate crimes" laws with then President Bill Clinton calling for "sexual orientation" to be added to the federal "hate crime" law.

Traditionally breaking the law has meant doing the things described in traditional documents like the Ten Commandments (killing, stealing, etc.)

But recently new modifiers have crept into common use like "gun crimes" and "hate crimes."

In the 1960's civil rights laws were enacted to allow prosecution of people who might escape punishment for traditional crimes against black people. For example, the police officers who fought with Rodney King in 1991 on a Los Angeles freeway were acquitted of the state charge of attempted murder. But they were convicted of federal civil rights crimes and sent to prison.

The brutal murder of a black man in Texas in the 1990's was called a "hate crime" Presidential candidate, then Governor of Texas George W. Bush was confronted about the matter in a 2000 debate. Bush noted that two of James Byrd's killers got the death penalty and the other life in prison. The punishment was enough and no "hate crimes" laws were needed.

The "hate crimes" concept involves prosecuting someone for the motivation of their crime instead of the act itself. Among other things, the words someone uses become the basis for prosecution. Use of the N-word etc. becomes a crime.

A "hate crimes law" goes after people for their thoughts and words. George Orwell, call you office. Thses kinds of laws are totalitarian to the core because they establish the principle that thought and speech can outlawed. Today its words against a race or sexual orientation, tomorrow it may words against public officials, etc.

People do hate and are angry when they kill and commit other crimes, even Jesus Christ acknowledges this in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-22).

This is the King James Version:

"Ye have heard that it was said of them in the old time. Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgement:

But I say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement.........."

Does this make "hate crimes laws" "Godly" laws that followers of Christ should accept? Christ is saying God will judge people for what's in their hearts.

I can accept God judging my heart, but its not the government's job.

What about "the Establishment Clause?" Would a "hate crimes law" violate the "separation of church and state?"

It shouldn't surprise us to realize that those who argue for "separation of church and state" are among the loudest advocates of "hate crime" legislation.

The Left (secular progressives, etc) have to get the traditional God separated from the state so that the state (government) can become their God and our God.

What "hate crimes laws" do is place government in the role of God, judging people for their thoughts and words.

Instead of "One Nation Under God", we become "One Nation Where Government Is God.".......

[Nextrush]

This installment of the diversity series is leading us to the part where we look at the political left's twisting of its diversity "principles" in the face of terrorists and Muslim migration into Western nations.

More to come.........

[mkjessup]

That is one excellent post, and right on target. Bravo!

[raybbr]

Some food for thought.

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[right-wingin_It]

Precisely. We don't have the authority to judge Hate, Love, etc. Those are for God alone to judge. And it's not so surprizing, because the foundation of our legal system came from "The Law" found in the Bible.

This "Hate Crime" stuff is a modern day invention of the left, to introduce "state approved bias" into the courts.

[right-wingin_It]

If you think about it, "hate crime legislation" is nothing more than introducing "affirmative action" into our legal structure. The worst place it could possible be...Lady justice is taking off her blindfold! But, it was there for a reason!

[driftless2]

We now have "hate" crimes which are no different than thought crimes. In the following decades the leftists will try to have people thrown in jail for not believing certain leftist ideas. Global warming for instance. People in some countries in Europe can be jailed for not believing in the holocaust. Not believing in the holocaust might make someone a bigot and certainly an idiot, but it does not make them criminals. Global warming has not even been proved, but lefties will try to jail people for not believing.

[expatguy]

bttt

[Verginius Rufus]

The Shepherd case got a lot of media attention not only because it fit into the media obsession with homosexuality and "homophobia" but also because it was just before the 1998 elections. The attention given to the case may have fired up the Democrat base to vote in larger numbers than usual in an off-year election--one which was especially important because a weak Republican showing would discourage Congress from taking any action against Clinton in the Lewinsky/perjury scandal.

[dcnd9]

Respect what makes us different.

However....

LAUDING DIVERSITY.... DIVIDES A NATION!

LAUDING SIMILARITIES.... UNITES A NATION!

[Jacquerie]

But they were convicted of federal civil rights crimes and sent to prison.

IIRC, they faced the federal court only after they were found innocent by a state court. Incredible double jeopardy.

[Basheva]

Back in the 15th century (as I recall reading) the Star Chamber in Britain added to the criminal code a crime called "compassing the King's Death." This meant that even thinking about the King's death was a crime. A capital crime. It was a "thought" crime - not an action crime.

The "hate crimes" legislation of today is its descendent. We are not as far (advanced) from those ancient days as we like to think. We like to think those "primitive days" are far behind us - but they are not.

In fact our justice is not nearly as evenly dispensed as in those "backward" times. Then, ANYONE who "compassed the King's death" was executed.

Today, our application of the hate crime law is dispensed based upon political correctness and the corrupt concept that some hate crimes are worse than others or that some minorities are exempt from being able to kill for hate.

For example....I remember in New York City some years ago (early 1990's?) a mob of black teens chased, caught, robbed and killed a young Jewish man dressed in the garb of Orthodox Jews (as I recall he was in the USA from Australia to study here). As the black assailants chased him they were screaming "Kill the Jew - Kill the Jew!" They stabbed him to death and took his wallet which was later found in their possession.

When they were caught and brought to trial it was determined that even though they were shouting their hate and motive for killing this unfortunate young student, it was determined that this crime was not a "hate" crime.

The only thing worse than insufficient justice is justice that is unevenly applied - justice that assumes some groups are exempt.

I am trying to recall an instance when a black person has killed a white person and it was successfully prosecuted as a hate crime.

Help me out....can you think of one?

Can you think of a crime committed by a moslem against a Christian or Jew that was successfully prosecuted as a hate crime?

[Fishrrman]

This "Hate Crime" stuff is a modern day invention of the left, to introduce "state approved bias" into the courts.

George Orwell would be smiling at the mention of "hate crime", for it is invented right out of his lexicon.

There is little difference between hate crime and "thought crime". Control what people can (or cannot say), and you have a grip on controlling what they think (or are afraid to think).

I have no problems with folks hating. They are free to "hate" me if they wish. But, in a truly free society, I must also be free to hate _them_. Hate, per se, is not always unreasonable, and can be quite justifiable under proper circumstances.

I can say unequivocally that I "hate" Islam and all that it represents.

I will also contend that if The West wishes to WIN the struggle with Islam - which comprises all of a religious, ideological, cultural, economic, and miltiary conflict (indeed an outright "existential" fight to the finish) - we had better learn to "hate" Islam (and Islamics) on both an individual and collective level.

We did not win our wars with either Germany or Japan by enacting laws that prevented us from "hating" them or criticizing Germans or Japanese on an individual level. We won by hating their guts, and be being willing to destroy as many of them, and their entire countries, until they surrendered to us.

The entire scheme of "anti-hate" legislation is to DISARM that part of ourselves of the means to resist and fight back against ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to our own. Why do you think the left is pushing this so fervently?

- John

[CGVet58]

btt very top - that is an excellent piece of work by Mr. Auster...

[NavySon]

"Would a 'hate crimes law' violate the 'separation of church and state?'"

Oh I love this subject! Forget "church and state," that's just another pseudoargument that liberals love to use. How about hate crime laws violating two amendments? Not just the first amendment for the reasons already explained, but the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. Prosecuting differently because of race, gender, etc. directly violates this right. But to liberals, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just inconvenient pieces of paper.

[NavySon]

"I can accept God judging my heart, but its not the government's job."

Amen! The government decides what ACTIONS will punished and what actions will be tolerated. Is it too much to ask to leave VALUES to that establishment free to kill children but not decide what they learn in school that we call PARENTS?

[NavySon]

"Can you think of a crime committed by a moslem against a Christian or Jew that was successfully prosecuted as a hate crime?"

Isn't it obvious? They don't "hate" us, they just want to show us filthy infidels the light! (lol)

[NavySon]

"Precisely. We don't have the authority to judge Hate, Love, etc. Those are for God alone to judge. And it's not so surprizing, because the foundation of our legal system came from 'The Law' found in the Bible."

Call me naive, but your post seems kind of like a paradox. If you're saying that it makes sense because our legal system is based on the Bible, wouldn't that mean that you're okay with "hate crime laws"? Or is this some type of argument for separation of church and state?

[sig226]

Yankel Rosenbaum was the student killed by the mob. There is a prosecution going on now in Los Angeles that is a black on white hate prosecution, and in all fairness to that otherwise looney-bin, they have prosecuted a few reverse racism hate crimes.

It seems to me that the original post offers a solution to the issue of unfair hate crime law application. By simply noting that Jesus ordained the condemnation of people who hate, the left would be expected to run from the issue

[right-wingin_It]

Call me naive, but your post seems kind of like a paradox. If you're saying that it makes sense because our legal system is based on the Bible, wouldn't that mean that you're okay with "hate crime laws"? Or is this some type of argument for separation of church and state?

Oh, no.

Our legal system has always limited Man's power to the judgement of physical ACTS (or the negligence thereof) themselves. The rest was for God. (BTW, this also made/makes practical sense in when it comes to evidence.)

So I'm saying these "hate crimes" are not for us, but for God alone to judge. And those who disagree with that opinion (on the basis that mention the role of God) should be reminded of the fact that our law came from the Bible in the first place. I think too many progressive libs out there are under the impression that our legal system is derived from Man, and thus Man has a boundless authority -- For instance, one man (a Judge) supposedly has the an omniscient comprehension of ones deepest emotions, their thoughts, literally their soul? And so we can now legislate thoughts and feelings as being criminal? What makes it ridicuous, beyond the obvious loss of rights to our thoughts and feelings, is that it can't properly be judged by another human, who has the same human imperfections.