When Hate Crimes are O.K.:

The only effective argument against any sort of ethnic or cultural prejudice lies in the time-honoured conviction that moral imperatives are impartial and impersonal. Random acts of violence against homosexuals, for instance, are wrong because they are random acts of violence against people, representing the imposition of primeval disorder upon the only known Rational Animal. No consideration ought to be paid, therefore, to either the sexual preferences of the victim NOR the attitude which the assailant had TOWARDS those sexual preferences, unless of course such an attitude might be used to rationalize and thereby to legitimize the act of violence, such as if the assailant were to provide an unrefuted intellectual proof for how the sexual preferences were, in fact, corrosive to society. Such a proof would establish the act of violence as “not irrational”, but rather a disciplined use of force against an irrational threat to social order. Yet anyone wishing to defend the victim in this scenario would only doom him if such a defence were to amount to nothing more than “surely you do not mean to advocate for hate crimes!!” Yet far more surely is it true that one never “means” to advocate “for” anything; one has simply to examine the inherent facts and to arrive at the inevitable conclusion.

The Nature of the Truth is Constant. The question of what is or is not true is always important; the question of when this Truth may or may not be expressed is never important, since it ought to be expressed in any set of circumstances wherein it pertains, and since it is a Constant, so is its pertinence. The only circumstances under which a truth is expressed inappropriately are those wherein the truth is so banal that even the attention paid to it is wasted, and other truths are robbed of their due consideration consequently. Yet if you agree with me on a matter of agreeable import, even passionately, then you have no ground to dispute my expression of the opinion, since the nature of the opinion yields to no man’s personal agenda, and any worthwhile collective pursuit must not be corrupted by partisan efforts. If the nature of a group is such that it promotes the honesty and prosperity of all of its outsiders and constituents, then it is justified; if its nature is such that it suppresses the flow of resources, either material or mental, at the expense of either its outsiders or its constituents, then it is illegitimate, and no agency which is wedded inextricably to that group’s cause is justified in defending the group OR its constituents from violent retribution. Since the group’s power rests in the irresponsibility of its constituents, namely the felt immunity to any thought which might be disquieting to the private conscience, as though the individual were somehow absolved of the responsibility to question his own actions or those of his fellows, then it may very well be that only acts of violence targeted at individuals within the group can be used to subvert the group’s dominion. As such, it follows that no act of violence can be considered “wrong” because it is motivated by hatred towards “members of a group”; the very nature of the group’s existence absolutely legitimizes the act of reactionary violence.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]