Hate is not a crime – it’s a feeling, an emotion. Like many other sentiments and most of the emotional impulses we are endowed with, hate is also rather fickle. Feelings come and go, they don’t stick around for a very long time, unless you have a compulsive disorder and try to hang on to them even after their time is long gone.
Despite them being rather short lived (in a mentally sane and stable individual, that is) emotions do serve an evolutionary cause for mankind. It is fair to say, I suppose, that Neanderthal man rather hated seeing his next of kin (or himself) being eaten by sabre tooth tigers, or chased by woolly mammoths. Thus, he or she (or whatever) set about the business of inventing clever technologies that made an untimely demise from this world a tad less likely, increasing an individual’s chance of passing on genes to the next generation.
Much in the same way, inventing the wheel was rather more likely if you hated hauling heavy burdens over long distances and difficult terrains (all those Doric columns in Ancient Greece didn’t erect themselves, you see). And on the other hand, you were just a bit more unlikely to invent the wheel if you didn’t hate manual labour – for lack of labour, want of effort, or both.
So far, so good. Suffice it to say that hate, like an array of other emotional impulses and reflexes, has proved itself to be rather meaningful for mankind. You know this, your dog knows this, and even Our Friends of a more, shall we say “progressive” persuasion know this, if they’re quite honest. Which, lamentably, seldom they are. Because once they were eager haters themselves: they hated war and invented pacifism. They hated exploitation and invented class struggle – which is not the same thing as war at all, you see. Political bigotry from interception, brought to you by the Left. And of course, the Left hated themselves proven wrong time and again, and above all by the “wrong” kind of people. So, they invented A) revisionism B) reactionaries C) the gulag. And in about the same order too, but only for the sake of ideological purity, of course, and not at all to keep themselves in the comforts they’ve come to expect post revolution. No, not at all.
To summarise briefly: during many millennia of human endeavour, hate has served its cause, and served it well. And we haven’t even mentioned hate’s place in literature. Where would Lady Macbeth have gone without hate?
But now that the Left have finally triumphed in their Long March and their ideology effectively holds the reins of power via its bolshie fellow travellers in the main stream media and their “democratic” arm, the so-called political parties (mostly cheeks of the same arse bare a few exemptions that are duly ostracised), hate must be put back in its box. Now that it has served its purpose, it’s no longer of use to the establishment, except for being something that can be projected onto its enemies. Consequently, hate now is quickly becoming a crime, an unacceptable emotion that must be sanctioned negatively to rid the powers that be of criticism and put the plebs in their place. A new crime category has been invented and launched among an unassuming and largely gullible public. And it’s a wild success, much like the proverbial fox in the henhouse.
Now, all this hate crime nonsense feels just too familiar because it reeks of a trick that has already been played not such a long time ago when “islamophobia” was invented. Here, too, the Left have taken recourse to a feeling, a “phobia”, or angst, to shun their political opponents by declaring them emotionally unfit and mentally unstable. This is of course playing the man and not the ball, and it is an attempt at smear and defamation, but that’s the Left for you, at the acme of their political abilities. I for one resent being labelled and put in a rhetorical loony bin for my intransigent points of criticism when it comes to a nefarious political cult posing as a religion, so put me in your gulag, Comrades, but be aware: when I come back, I shall be millions, as someone once famously said.
To pathologize the political opponent has proved itself to be mildly successful nevertheless; probably because it’s such an intellectually lazy and dishonest, morally corrosive and corruptive strategy. And if there’s one thing the Left love (and they really hate most other things, including themselves) it’s corruption. Namely, corrupting other people. Or, as once even these bigots knew for as long as it suited them: if power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Comrades are proving their point rather well, I dare say, if the BBC is anything to go by.
To shortly summarise again: rhetoric trickery can only go so far. But in an age where people would rather watch Strictly Come Dancing than talk to their old parents on the telephone, intellectual laziness can go very far indeed. That’s why “islamophobia”, a complete nothing burger of a term, about as vacuous as “climate change”, became “a thing”. And much like climate change, “hate crime” can be anything a true believer could want it to mean. If you enjoy other people explaining your emotions to you; in as much as what you’re allowed to feel and what not, thus being emotionally manipulated and guilt-tripped within an inch of your life.
There’s another reason why “hate crime” is the Left’s political weapon of choice: it’s what in German is called a Gummiparagraph, a rubber rule, i.e. a rule that conveniently lends itself to being applied to all circumstances. It can mean moving the goal posts by re-defining what the goal is. So, no law at all but despotism, by its nature. This goes to show that the basic tenets of Leftism aren’t logical but psychological indeed. As invented terms go, “Islamophobia” works in the same way, and serves its purpose well: in creating a class of people that must not be criticised, but must be enabled to exploit society for their own benefit and do what they do best, create mayhem and desolation.
All brought to you with the eager compliments of the Left, who of course share most of Islam’s goals, minus the religious cloaking and coating of course. This political alliance is as much about bringing down capitalism by cutting off the branch on which they’re sitting very comfortably (and mostly without earning it) as it is about criminals protecting other criminals, all with a bit of help from other enemies of the common people, namely the state broadcaster. It all works via self-ascribed victimhood as a means of self-legitimisation and self-empowerment. Its aim is a licence to rule very much regardless of the law, so it’s as blatant a power grab as it can get. Or, as once it was called: world domination. And again, it’s the Left doing it. Only this time, they don’t call themselves national, but international socialists. Times change, after all.
Now Lefties, not being very inventive or creative chappies, just Xeroxed what apparently had worked so well with “Islamophobia” and launched “hate crime” on the free market of ideas and opinions. We all know there’s a vast hate crime industry with funding in the lower three-digit millions whose sole and, shall we say lucrative purpose consists of seeing “hate crimes” here, there and everywhere. And it’s not Wiltshire plod, but happy-snappy folks like Annetta Kahane of Amadeo-Antonio fame and our dear old pal, Debbie Wassermann-Schulz stateside. And of course, there is no such thing as a conflict of interest when persons whose sole raison d’être relies on an inflation of hate crime get to decide what hate crime is and isn’t. No, not at all. After all, they’re not doing it for the money, are they? Though Annetta probably could do with a new hairdo and a thorough waxing of her armpits, if I’m brutally honest. But she really was the blueprint for Google’s calling the ADL to monitor the internet for “hate speech”, Annetta was. And Amadeo-Antonio is of course one of the many faces of Soros.
Hate crime is of course an invented term that, much like “climate change” and “Islamophobia”, is meant to serve a political purpose far above and beyond making a nice little earner for persons who are otherwise unemployable or useless for society. It’s a blatant power grab. The concept works not so much by pathologizing, but by directly criminalising (or at least attempting to do so) an emotion. Now, emotional control is of course the essence of emotional abuse, and the Left know this. Some of them are old enough to have read Alice Miller’s books in their first edition, for crying out loud. But for Our “Progressive” Friends, this obviously is another case of “do as I say, and not as I do”: while it is of course beyond the pale when I tell them what to think and how to feel about things, it is completely acceptable, even commendable, for them to do the same thing to their political opponents. Not a bit bigoted, thank you very much.
The concept of “hate crime” is an attempt to put people in a rhetorical gulag where they can be emotionally abused and controlled for disagreeing with what Gustave Flaubert once called “les opinions chic” – the fashionable opinions – and I resent this. Let’s also not forget the neat little double bind built into the term “hate crime” itself because if you do hate to be accused of having committed a “hate crime”, it automatically makes you guilty as charged because you’re a hater, obviously. The Left must have copied this directly from the inquisition and the age of the witch hunts. They must not get away with this because as everything about this forbidden emotion is so purposefully vaguely defined, “hate crime” legislation is wide open to abuse, taking on any meaning the powers that be want it to take on. This is censorship by another name, and a blasphemy law by other means (because “Islamophobia” apparently was not successful enough). It is rhetoric dictatorship and despotism. As if this weren’t enough, it is also totally incongruent with Common Law and an insult to the intelligence of every human being. Apart from being potentially stifling for humanity at large.
And because I detest being ordered about what to think as much as I resent being ordered what to feel, I must decline the offer to censor my emotions. The mere suggestion is wholly incongruent with humanity being so liberally endowed with the ability to use a vast array of emotional reflexes to make life more meaningful. This human endeavour may be hard, it may at times be “problematic”, but there’s no easy way out in matters like these, I’m afraid. And most emphatically not by declaring anything you disagree with a “hate crime” and anyone who gets your goat a “hater”. Make no mistake: the only purpose this political construct serves, is to empower those elements in society who would make the evilest and most destructing use of their powers, once they were unduly invested in them.
As we’ve seen in the last instalment, when setting about its business, “The Club of Rome” employed a strategy common to most Marxist front organisations: to manipulate and corrupt free market economics so that capitalism [more…]
You could only have a problem with Donald Trump’s speech at UN headquarters in New York if you were part of the problem. Oh, there’s people! Every year after their summer holidays, a speech marathon [more…]
Often wondered how and why globalisation really got going? Well, all it took was a set of ideas. They’re mainly centred around buzz words such as sustainability and climate change but what do they mean? [more…]