There is another game that the Justice Department and the FBI like to play, possibly in collusion with Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. That game involves a class of crimes called "hate crimes." What is a "hate crime"? It is a judgment call by a police officer or other government agent about what a crime suspect might have been thinking when he broke the law. It is not an "interracial crime." A crime may be both a hate crime and an interracial crime, but it may also be neither, or either but not the other.

Interracial crimes are obviously what they are, objectively and unequivocally. But by defining a new category (or anyway a "modified" category) of crimes, namely "hate crimes," and leaving it up to the opinion of government authorities to say what belongs in that category and what doesn't, means that law enforcement has acquired a judicial capacity — the capacity of imposing extra punishment on you, if convicted, because of their opinion about your thoughts. If, for example, you can get a longer prison sentence if your conviction is aggravated by "hate crime" circumstances, then what brought you the extra punishment is not what you did, but what the police believed you were thinking when you did it. In better times, a constitutional principle known as the "separation of powers" would have prevented this kind of thing from happening. But the Constitution does not appear to be the supreme law of the land anymore. We're sorry, Mr. Franklin, that we couldn't keep the republic.

Furthermore, the new "hate crimes" category allows the government's statistics-keepers to confuse us by publishing breakdowns by race of the per capita rates for "hate crimes" (which are subjective, remember) as though they were the same thing as breakdowns by race of the per capita rates for interracial crimes. I believe that you can count on the Jewish-controlled media not to remind us of the difference between hate crimes and interracial crimes whenever a TV news anchorman drones on about violent crime in the United States.

Indeed, when you look in the FBI's own publications, one of the things that strikes you is the fact that the Black-to-White ratio in the per capita rate of "hate crimes" is astonishingly lower than the Black-to-White ratio in the per capita rate of interracial crimes. To get an idea of the difference that official opinion can make in the publication of crime statistics, let's consider the FBI data.

Now let's look closer. The FBI routinely classifies Hispanic mestizos (a group of non-Whites) as Whites when they are the perpetrators of crimes, and this is almost certainly true of the above table. Hispanics commit violent crimes at a higher per capita rate than real Whites do, but let's assume, for simplicity, that Hispanics commit merely a proportionate share of violent crimes. Of the 4991 "White" offenders listed in the above table, no more than 4286 were real Whites, since about 705 of them were Hispanics. I said, "no more than" because the FBI likes to classify Arabs and Jews, and sometimes Filipinos, as Whites also, meaning that 4286 is likely an upper limit for the actual number of White "hate criminals."

Notice one other thing, as well, before I get into comparing the per capita perpetration rate ratios. The FBI presents the percentage of all hate crimes committed by each race (nevermind the mestizo-packing in their White offender list for now), without reminding you that Whites greatly outnumber Blacks in the United States, at least for the time being. The naive impression that a lazy or uninformed reader might get is that Whites are, by and large, more dangerous than Blacks. It is only when you include the relative sizes of the racial groups in your thinking that you can see that the opposite is really the truth and, from there, estimate what kind of crime situation the country is moving toward as the number of non-Whites grows in proportion to the number of Whites.

It's a shame when you have to correct FBI methods for racial cheating and for deception by omission, but there you have it. The entire catagory of "hate crime" was politically inspired and is not needed as a law-enforcement tool. But if they must have this category, then they at least should keep score fairly, which they are not doing as long as they keep stuffing relatively violent non-Whites into the White "hate criminal" category.

The table gives the figures for 1995. That year, according to the Census Bureau, White US Citizens outnumbered Black US residents by a ratio of 6.59 to one. The ratio of White "hate crime" offenders (revised to remove the mestizos from the tally) to Black "hate crime" offenders was 1.90 to one. Dividing 6.59 by 1.90 gives us the per capita perpetration rate ratio, Black to White, for hate crimes, namely 3.47. The average Black commits a hate crime about three-and-a-half times as often as the average White does.

(In an earlier study, I found that Blacks were about four times more likely to commit "hate murders" than Whites were. This more general estimate supports my earlier conclusion.)

Now before any of my fellow White racists gets smug about the FBI's confirmation that Blacks commit the so-called "hate crimes" at a higher rate than Whites do, kindly notice that the ratio is lower (Black/White) for the perpetration of violent "hate crimes" than it is for violent interracial crimes. For example, Blacks committed interracial murder at 14 times the rate that Whites did, in 1995, and fourteen is a lot larger than three-and-a-half or four. That's a very significant difference. A Black who assaults a White has only 25% as much risk of being considered a "hate criminal" that a White would have for assaulting a Black. In other words, most Blacks who murder, or rape, or assault, or rob Whites feel absolutely no hate while doing so, in the opinion of the average police officer!

It is much easier for a White to fall into the "hate crimes" category if he attacks Blacks than it is for a Black to fall into that category if he attacks Whites, even if the crimes are otherwise identical. For example, in April 2000, about 200 Blacks rioted in Cincinnati, committing dozens of acts of assault, arson and vandalism. They destroyed millions of dollars' worth of property and injured many White people in their rampage of racially motivated violence. (What set off the riot was a White cop shooting a Black criminal who had been trying to run away from arresting officers.) But who was the first person charged with a "hate crime"? It was a White man who, after swearing at a Black, threw a brick through a car window, causing about $50 worth of damage and harming nobody. In this city, on this day, Black violent deeds outnumbered White violent deeds by, perhaps, a thousand to one. But it was the White offender who was first charged. Sounds political, doesn't it?

Thus, the political function of the "hate crime" category becomes evident — hate crime is an ill-defined category mainly used to trap Whites — which points toward the motive for creating that category of crimes. I have a strong suspicion that the subtle sneakiness of these criminal justice statistical methods are coordinated with the media's habitual duplicity in regard to the frequency of violent Black-on-White crimes, compared with the relatively rare occurance of violent White-on-Black crimes.

As mentioned earlier, the FBI and DoJ usually lump Hispanics — most of whom are mestizos — into their "White" racial category for the purpose of recording the race of crime perpetrators. However, on the relatively rare occasion when a violent White perpetrator chooses a victim whom he believes to be a Hispanic (and usually the belief will be correct), the FBI / DoJ pull out their "hate crime" score sheets and chalk up another non-White victim of a White "hate criminal."

Let's go over that again.

With Whites and Blacks, the law-enforcement policy regarding "hate crimes" seems to be one of "selective noticing." As a rule (with exceptions) a "hate crime" is NOTICED when the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black. When the perpetrator is Black and the victim is White, no "hate crime" is noticed.

With Whites and Hispanics, the law-enforcement policy regarding "hate crimes" seems to involve a selective imputation of mestizo chameleony. When the mestizo is the perpetrator and the White is the victim, the FBI usually adopts the position that the mestizo was White, too, so therefore the crime had no racial bias. But when the perpetrator is White and the victim is a mestizo, the FBI does not perform its racial switcheroo on the mestizo, and thus another "hate crime" by a "White racist" is recorded.

Legal subjectivity is a useful thing, to a tyrant. In a 17 June 2001 Reuters news article by Nancy Mayfield, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly said that his predecessor in office, Janet Reno, had death penalty quotas in which the federal government would seek capital punishment in...

38 percent of cases involving White defendants
25 percent of cases involving Black defendants
20 percent of cases involving Hispanic defendants

In other words, the intentional policy of the Justice Department was to be 152% as likely to seek the death penalty for a White defendant than for a Black defendant, and to be 190% more likely to seek the death penalty for a White defendant than for a Hispanic defendant. After the counting was done by Ashcroft's underlings, however, the death-penalty percentages turned out to be...

27 percent of cases involving White defendants
17 percent of cases involving Black defendants
9 percent of cases involving Hispanic defendants

So what actually happened is that the Justice Department was 158% as likely to seek the death penalty for a White defendant than for a Black defendant, and 300% as likely to seek the death penalty for a White defendant than for a Hispanic defendant. The anti-White racism in the application of the federal death penalty was large in intent, but it was even larger in actual practice.

This is important!

Notice that the Justice Department does distinguish between Whites and Hispanics (i.e., mestizos), but only so that it can inflict an injustice on Whites.

Whites comprise 59% of death-row inmates, while Blacks comprise only 39%. Dishonest liberals like to portray those numbers as showing bias against Blacks because the percentage of Blacks on death row is higher than the percentage of Blacks in the general population (about 14% in 2000). The implicit assumption that the liberals are making is, as you might expect, that Whites and Blacks are equals in terms of the per capita murder perpetration rate. That assumption is false, and it is a false assumption that liberals make with mendacious consistency. The per capita murder perpetration rate for Blacks is about eight times higher than that for Whites, so that although Whites outnumber Blacks in the United States by almost six-to-one, Blacks often commit more murders per year than Whites do. If the death penalty were applied without bias, then at least half of the death-row prison population would be Black. Any Black death-row percentage less than 50% indicates an anti-White bias with the death penalty, not an anti-Black bias.

The anti-White bias of the federal government, and in particular of the Justice Department, couldn't be made more clear. It is likewise no innocent mistake that the government has a similar bias when it comes to deciding which interracial crimes are "hate crimes," and which are not.