Hate The Hate - Illogic 101

Your honor, respected members of the jury, I intend to prove that the defendant committed an illegal act called assault on my client.  I further intend to prove that because the defendant hates plaid Bernuda shorts, he committed a MORE illegal act - what we call a hate crime.

Among the most absurd and idiotic concepts to roll out of Western culture in the past few decades is the concept of "hate crime".  What the West has devolved into is a war of adjectives, where such incompatible ideas as "free speech" and "hate speech" can be held in one's mind simultaneously.

The concept of "hate crime" has two components: feelings and greater wrong.  Think of "hate crime" as similar the to Catholic Church's concepts of venial and mortal sins, some sins are greater than others.

Let's just examine the crime of murder for a moment.  All murders involve the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.  These are the three things investigators try to prove in an investigation.

Murder is further divided into degrees (first, second and third) and manslaughter, or crime of passion.  First degree murder requires the existence of mens rea, or the guilty mind.  In other words, a murderer is aware he is committing a crime.  It also requires malice aforethought.  Malice.  Hatred, Anger.

Long established Western law already assumes that a murderer has malice aforethought.  They are committing a crime out of hate or anger, and taking the time to think about it in advance.

So how in the hell can someone commit a hate crime if hate is already part of the equation?  If a murderer kills a black man because he hates blacks, that is a motive.  The hate part is already included in the definition of the crime.

Furthermore, if the punishment for murder is life in prison or death, then how can convicting someone of a hate crime make the punishment even worse?  The whole concept from top to bottom is contradictory, and is nothing more than a social hot-button used to try and convict someone in the media before they receive a trial.

In the case of hate speech, we have even more contradictions.  In this case, it is not unusual to hear someone rail in support of free speech, but then condemn hate speech.  How does a human hold these contradictions in a single brain without exploding?  Either speech is free, or it is not.  There can be NO exceptions for speech which one doesn't like.

Hate speech is also a completely arbitrary thing.  What you consider hateful could be music to my ears.  There is no established criteria for "hate", any more than there are solid legal definitions for "love".  Emotions cannot be defined or categorized.  They are irrational and as such apply differently to different people at different times.

If I allude to William Shakespeare by saying we should kill all the lawyers, have I committed a crime?  I have taken no action and caused no one harm.  I've only expressed an opinion, at the most extreme, and quoted a literary passage at the most benign.  And even if we assume that I could commit a crime through speech, is it worse because I have singled out one group, rather than insulting everyone everywhere?

Perhaps the vast majority of society agrees with me that we should kill all the lawyers.  Have I committed hate speech if the majority agree?  Or is hate speech only reserved for a select few or privileged minorities?

In the extreme case, I could be charged with hate speech against hate crimes for what I've written here.  It sounds absurd now, but the definition is completely arbitrary and is subject to the whims of society.

Here in the Muslim-dominated world, there is something similar.  It is called blasphemy.  It is an arbitrary designation for speech that assumes the accuser can speak for God.  The accuser pretends to know that God is offended by another's speech and can convict and even kill the accused based on this conceit without ever having to place God in the witness stand to find out if he was offended.

The West is far more secular and blasphemy laws went out quite some time ago because they were so absurd and arbitrary.  However, hate crime has taken its place and, like blasphemy laws, is used to persecute people that are hated by the establishment.

And here we come to the crux of the problem.  Hate crimes are not actually crimes, but rather a means of persecution against individuals or parties that are out of favor with the establishment.  Any CONTENT of speech that the establishment fears can be shut down by simply labeling it "hate".  There is no formal definition of criteria, just the emotional appeal to the masses.

Since the masses, on the whole, are quite stupid, they are easy to stir up with trigger phrases like hate crime or hate speech, and the establishment can rest assured that no one will think critically about what is actually being done.

Throughout time, governments and rulers have always come up with some term to punish rivals and thinkers.  Whether it's blasphemy, hate crime, sedition, or any of a number of other terms, most people only pay lip service to free speech and never internalize it enough to see when freedom is being attacked.

Hate crime is indeed a crime, but not in the sense of describing a murder or speech, but in the sense of how it is used to silence criticism in ostensibly free societies.  The definitions are vague for a purpose, so that the finger of accusation can be turned on whatever group or ideas are out of favor with the ruling class.

It is time to recognize hate crime for what it is, a crime of hate against the disfavored members of society.  The entire concept should be eradicated, or at the very least turned back upon the ruling elites, for it is they who are actually committing crimes of hate.

As I've said before, a revolution does not occur from within a system.  That is reform.  A revolution occurs when those outside the system see the criminal behavior of those within and tear down the entire system in favor of something more amenable to actual freedom.

If nothing else, hate crime is only a means to create favored victim classes in society to provide entertainment for the elites - and safety by redirecting and venting unrest.

For Hate's Sake I Spit At Thee

For years now, the public discourse - at least from certain sectors - has focused on something called "hate speech."  If you try to figure out just exactly what "hate speech" is, you end up with circular references and vague definitions akin to "pornography."  No one really knows what it is, but hey, they know it when they hear it.

I looked up the definition of "hate speech" on Google and got this, "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."  So, according to this definition, almost every human alive in every context and every day commits "hate speech."

Schoolboy taunts are "hate speech."  Calling Nazis evil is "hate speech."  Saying that Attila the Hun was an invader rather than an immigrant is "hate speech."  Hell, even referring to "white privilege" is "hate speech," except that it's quite in vogue right now.  And therein lies the issue.

"Hate speech" is one of those amorphous things used to paint anyone we don't like with the brush of "political correctness."  You see, it's OK to bash the white race, and for non-white races to bash each other, but it is a sin of the highest order for white folk to say even the least derogatory thing about anyone else.  It's OK to bash Nazis and fascists, but not socialists and communists.  In fact, the borders of "hate speech" keep moving to suit whatever the Gatekeepers want.  In other words, "hate speech" is a tool of a controlling elite to stifle free and open discourse on whatever topic they don't like.

There is no right not to be offended or insulted.  Sorry, but that is a fact.  Trying to skate through life without someone somewhere offending and insulting you is a hopeless and ridiculous exercise.  For example, if you are fat, then at some point in your life, someone will call you "fat."  It is an accurate description of you.  It's a fact, get over it.  If it offends or insults you, then shutting up the person saying it will not change the fact.  Only direct action on your part to lose weight will do that.  If you don't take action, then you have chosen to be fat, and if you are insulted by someone noting that fact makes you an oversensitive idiot, as well.

Since records began, humans have had prejudices.  Every sub-group of society bashes every other sub-group to make themselves look superior and thus attract and keep members in the group.  Exclusivity is a selling point.  People want things that no one else has, and feel superior when they have them.  Whether your group feels snobbish because you eat at the finest restaurants, or your group has a lock on eternal salvation, everyone everywhere at all times has felt superior because of their membership in some group - and they have bashed other groups for not having the same thing.

Every race has bashed every other race for being inferior.  Every religion has bashed every other religion for not having the secrets to eternal truth.  Every political party has bashed every other political party for not having the answers.  And every individual has bashed some other individual for not being in their group.

It is a fact of life and the human condition that we define ourselves in opposition to others.  It is also a fact that at some point in our life, we will feel insulted or slighted in some way.  For crying out loud, siblings fight at the dinner table because one of them got a piece of pie that was slightly larger than another.  People get their feelings hurt.  So what?

The thing about "hate speech," and other terms, like "conspiracy theorist," is that they are a way to stifle thought and expression that are not in line with our own.  And when you put the deadly force of law behind it, you have a formidable weapon to shut down dissent and control the boundaries of public discourse.

Puppeteers control their marionettes using strings and sticks to animate the bodies and mouths.  Ambiguous terms like "hate speech" are nothing more than those strings and sticks making us dance to whatever tune the Puppeteers wish.

The terms are so vague that they seem reasonable, until you think a little deeper, but the Puppeteers control thinking with "conspiracy theorist" to prevent folks from doing that.  It's a vicious merry-go-round designed to entice people to jump on for the ride, and then slamming the gates behind them so they can't jump off.  All the pretty lights and organ music make the ride seem so cool and reasonable, but you are not allowed to wonder why you would want to ride in endless circles.

In the end, "hate speech" can be defined as just about anything the Puppeteers want, while at another level it's a means of having society itself limit each other from expressing opinions and facts that might hurt someone's feelings.  Anyone who speaks against a protected group or idea is using "hate speech."  You can't even defend freedom of speech without crossing this arbitrary border.

If you start thinking for yourself and offering alternatives to the sanctioned mindset, then you are a "conspiracy theorist," and again free speech is shut down.

The truly amazing thing is that this form of "political correctness" is a classic case of Double Think.  In effect, the individual ends up suppressing others' right to free speech by labeling what they say as "hate speech," while at the same time the individual believes he is protecting free speech.  It's a ghastly mind twist that has been installed in our minds.

Finally, these labels release us from having to think.  We don't need to respond intelligently, or formulate arguments to refute, we just utter "hate speech" and walk away.  No effort.  No thought.  No danger of actually using our minds and reason.  Good little marionettes.

It is time to eradicate these terms from our vocabulary.  They are too glib and vague to be useful in the best case, and deeply dangerous and controlling in the worst.  The control is not on others, it is on ourselves.  We close and lock our own cages when we use these terms.

There is no right to be un-offended, un-insulted or inconvenienced.  You have a right to pursue happiness, which means you can walk away or change the channel.  The other guy has the same right and is using his speech to seek that happiness.  He doesn't have a right to force you to listen, but you don't have a right to shut him up.  This is what used to be called being an adult.

If someone says or publishes something untrue about you, we have slander and libel laws to protect you, and if someone incites violence, there's laws for that too.  Otherwise, get over it and deal with it like an adult.

(By the way, the title of this article is taken from Moby Dick, so sue Herman Melville)