One of the best lines in any movie was that of General Jack Ripper, portrayed by George C. Scott, in Dr. Strangelove. When informed of the massive casualty estimate of going to war with Russia, he said, ……..
What does this have to do with hate crimes? I will admit, the connection is tenuous, but mentioning it serves two purposes. I get to include one of my favorite all times lines with a meme, and the “hair mussed” phrase calls to mind a similar euphemism, “can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”. These two euphemisms are used to minimize and excuse the “collateral damage” of lost lives, trashed reputations, false prosecutions and imprisonments of innocent people who just happen to be in the “line of fire” or the “wrong place at the wrong time”–more euphemisms–when a more powerful entity decides to pursue it’s, or his or her, agenda.
The more powerful entity can be one with superior force or, in the case of hate crimes, the designated victim classes. Rather than trying to name all the classes of designated victims, a futile endeavor, since a new group may be added even as I write, I will simply say that only heterosexual white males will not be qualified to enter the victimhood sweepstakes, even when they are falsely accused by a designated victim. The group I have called Perfectionist Progressives, to which I can add Intersectionalists, or maybe they are the same, trades in victimhood, which is like currency to them. So called “hate crimes” are, by definition, an act of violence, either physical or verbal, against a member of a designated victim class, by someone who is heterosexual and/or white, and generally male. While that exact definition is not written into the statutes, it is operationally true. The accusation by Jussie Smollett is a case in point. He, being black and homosexual, is automatically a member of two victim classes, and accusing two people of targeting him specifically for his race and sexuality, and adding the “MAGA country” flourish, guaranteed he would be believed by the intersectional media. Therefore, he functioned as if he was the more powerful entity.
Hate crime is extremely rare in this country. According to 2017 statistics from the FBI, in a country of almost 326,000,000, there were 8,828 hate crimes in 2017. Over half, or 4,922 of these crimes, were property crimes or intimidation that did not rise to the level of simple assault. This means it is highly improbable any one person is the victim of a hate crime. Even more improbable during a polar vortex. The fact that the Mediated Reality establishment, the Perfectionist Progressives and other assorted Intersectionals rushed to condemn the attack, the presumed class of attackers, and Trump (MAGA presumption) is evidence that something much bigger than one presumed assault is at play. Some more sober commentators are now saying Smollett is guilty of a “hate hoax.”
I am going to paraphrase Doug Wilson’s blog about sexual abuse at a church and apply it to my thesis, because as usual he nails the principles. The “horror story” can be any incident, from verbal abuse to a school shooting, and the principles are the same.
“When a Horror Story happens, and someone tries to minimize the Horror of it by means of contextualizing it (“look at all the Southern Baptist kids that this didn’t happen to”), they deserve all the derision they are going to get. But when a Horror Story happens, and someone starts using it as a lever to introduce some systemic changes in line with their agenda, and someone else responds to this proposal for systemic change with a reminder of the broader context, this is fully appropriate and necessary. This goes double when it is obvious that the Horror Story was broken with an agenda in mind. For example, if there is a school shooting, and someone tries to comfort us by reminding us how many schools weren’t shot up that day, then he is a blockhead. But if there is a school shooting, and the first thing that happens is a full court press for gun control, and someone responds with some contextualizing data, that is just what ought to happen.”
This is the WHOLE Thing with hate crimes! That category only exists because an agenda is being pursued, which is to portray certain classes of individuals as perpetual victims, others as perpetual oppressors, and to defend the idiotic notion that someone is injured more badly when they are attacked for their race or sexuality, than when they are attacked for their money or for revenge. How do you know if someone was attacked because they were “hated”? You can’t possibly know what someone is thinking, but the existence of hate crime laws says you can read minds. “What if they shouted a slur?” So what if they did? That proves nothing. If I shout a slur at you and then smack your cheek, it’s a hate crime. If I say, “give me your money”, and then proceed to disembowel you with a knife, it’s not a hate crime. Which would the victim prefer???