“Hate crimes”—an inevitable symptom of unassimilable diversity
(See, below, Dimitri K.’s surprising angle on Shmulevich’s act of vandalism.)
Regarding the indictment of 23-year-old Pace University student Stanislav Shmulevich for two felony counts of “Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree as a Hate Crime” for having placed two copies of the Koran in public toilets and attempting to flush them, leaving one of them covered in feces, the establi-cons—Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, et al—are attacking the double standard they see at work here. They say that if the same were done to a Torah, it would not be seen as a hate crime.
I don’t agree with that. If you were a Jewish student at Pace University and entered the men’s room and found a Torah in a toilet covered in feces, you would feel attacked and intimidated as a Jew. The person who did it might very well be charged with a hate crime.
But hate crimes are not the issue here. They are just the surface of the problem. We can get nowhere by talking about whether anti-hate crime laws should be on the books, and whether or not hate crimes are being charged according to a double standard. The reality that matters is as follows: As long as Muslims and non-Muslims are in the same Western liberal society, with the numbers of Muslims continually increasing, then, given the nature of Islam as a religion at war with all other religions, increasing conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims is inevitable; and, if anti-hate crime laws are on the books, some expressions of that conflict will inevitably fit the definition of hate crime, with non-Muslims inevitably being charged with hate-crime far more than Muslims. Therefore the only way to avoid anti-Muslim hate crimes is to remove the source of the conflict, by removing Muslims from our society.
It doesn’t matter if you think I’m crazy or extremist or hateful for saying what I just said, because the indisputable logic remains: Since conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims exists wherever Muslims and non-Muslims exist, the only way not to have anti-Muslim hate crimes in our society is not to have Muslims in our society.
On another subject, notice how Robert Spencer repeatedly refers to whiteness as one of the categories that it is permissible to attack under the existing double standard:
And until the American public discourse can dare to break away from the protected-victim model and its subtext of white Christian guilt, [the Muslims] will experience many more such windfalls, whenever someone acts obnoxiously or boorishly toward any Muslim or Islamic object. The American public square today simply has no apparatus for dealing with the possibility that the protected victims might be perpetrating evil themselves…. Muslims can’t be responsible, because they are non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners. It must be something we have done.I don’t remember Spencer’s ever having referred to whiteness in any manner at all, let alone as a quality that is threatened in today’s society. If white people are being targeted as white people, then it is legitimate to talk about white people as peope who have a shared interest as white people. And once we start doing that, all liberal bets are off. As began happening during the cataclysmic fight over the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, mainstream conservatives are continuing to move step by step into racial consciousness—legitimate racial consciousness.
Dimitri K. writes:
Being an immigrant from Russia myself, I can’t help mentioning that some immigration may be useful. It was needed a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine to bring to the public attention all those issues about coexistence with Muslims and freedom of speech. Personally, I am proud of Shmulevich, though I feel sorry about the punishment and would never do it myself (from fear). The West desperately needs heroes, the time of talking heads is over.LA replies:
You’re not seriously saying that a guy who puts a Koran in the toilet and defecates on it is a hero?Dimitri replies:
You are from the different culture Lawrence, you don’t understand. It is like defecating on Lenin’s book in the USSR. It is a symbolic gesture of disobedience. And it could cause serious punishment in both cases.Dimitri continues:
Maybe you are right. Maybe Shmulevich’s act is not the right way how the legitimate opposition should behave. I hope that I am wrong and you are right. But I am not sure, because what I see is the tightening of politcorrect power, which so much resembles the USSR in its latest years. And I don’t see much opposition to it. I know, you tend to disagree with many who are seemingly on our side of the debate, but do not satisfy your strict criteria. The opposite view is that any opposition is the opposition and it helps us and hurts them. Both positions seem reasonable and I am unable to decide myself.LA replies:
I’m in favor of “strong” actions when strong actions can succeed, and for that, they must be part of a larger strategy. I’m not in favor of people impulsively acting out in stupid and immoral ways. That’s a type of “conservatism” that, as I see it, always leads to the discrediting and defeat of the conservative side. That’s why I always put these two words together: Principled Confrontation. We must confront the other side, but we must do it on the basis of principle, so that we will not be embarrassed and find ourselves retreating, the way Pope Benedict did after his amazingly confrontational Regensburg speech.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2007 11:34 PM | Send