News Ticker

Word Games: Thought Police Label Speech as Crime

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and their ilk have concocted a growing list of declared “hate issues.”

If you’ve made it this far into this post, then you’re probably an English-speaker. So let’s define the word “hate” and carefully consider whether such a concept should be some type of crime, let alone a bad attribute.

Hate is, by definition, intense dislike. Synonyms would include loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, resentment, aversion, hostility, ill will and bad feeling. These are all standard human emotions.

A better term in the English language is contempt- a completely natural and essential protective sentiment that allows for not falling into the hyper-tolerance pajama person trap. Contempt is defined as: “a strong feeling of disliking and having no respect for someone or something.”

Hate itself as a concept has been looked at by wise men throughout the ages, and they often got the context and even merit of it. Perhaps some insights can be gleaned.

“They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.” — Edmund Burke

“We do urge hate: If you love something, that love requires you to hate anything that threatens its survival.” — Matthew Hale

“Achilles glared at him and answered, ‘Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. Therefore, there can be no understanding between you and me, nor may there be any covenants between us, till one or other shall fall.” — Homer, The Iliad

“Feeding milk and bananas to a serpent only makes its venom more potent.” — Chanakya Pandita, Raja niti sastra, expeller of Alexander the Great

“A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; a time to be silent and a time to speak. A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.” — Ecclesiastes 7

So if a person committed a crime against another person, more often than not it might involve one or more of those synonyms. On its face, a crime is a crime, and any ill feeling adjective used is secondary.

Of course, the poison of cultural Marxism is designed to link and infer that dislike of other races or even individuals with a crime, even if no actual physical crime was committed. It has gone so far that the dislike might not even be intense, but more of a preference, a contempt, or an opinion. In the Brave New World, that also is labelled hate and also racist.

But this is where it gets more tricky, as crime is defined as “a transgression of law.” One would assume that very few would call loathing, contempt, bad feelings or intense dislike a crime. You would be wrong. The poison has entered the system so much so that Americans are about split on criminalizing hate speech. Notice that I emphasized speech — exhibiting intense dislike or even just dislike — not violence.

Speech is defined as “the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.”

So if one were to simply utter something that hurt the feelings of someone of another ethnic group, race or even age, sexual preference or gender, those mere words constitute a harm in the world of cultural-Marxist, Social Justice Warrior, Pervert Justice Warrior shadow language.

The dictionary and law, at least up to now, has defined harm as physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.”

The term “derogatory” is useful to this discussion. We hear it a lot. To my ears, it’s commonly directed at broadly defined “white people.” But, to be fair, it flies about everywhere in our society. It means showing a critical or disrespectful attitude. So being disrespectful and critical is called “hateful” by snowflakes. If directed at the wrong often special privileged party, it might constitute hate speech and, by extension, be a crime.

How ironic that cultural Marxism is also know as “critical theory.” However, this form of criticism is not even-handed. That’s because postmodernists don’t truly believe everything is subjective, or “not real” (aka Cartoon or Clown World). After “disproving” existing reality, they choose a very specific new reality. They use subjectivism as a strategy to destabilize established thinking and tear down the pillars of western establishment so that they may recreate society with their own Illuminist vision.

The very word “postmodernism” is Orwellian double-think gibberish. I am forced by necessity to use it but a better word is counter-enlightenment. That vision is a socially-engineered “utopia” of anti-meritocracy, tyranny of the minority, Orwellian double-think and control over speech and behavior.

Read “The Postmodernist Cargo Cult Creates Carte Blanche for the Kakistocracy”

The same is true of the word “hostility,” which is defined as unfriendliness or opposition.

The word “antisemitism” is defined as hostility (opposition) toward Judaics. Indeed, Congress is considering passing a resolution calling the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions opposition movement against Israel “antisemitic.”

There is increasing anti-Americanism in the world and the question begs how is that any different than anti-Jew or anti-Israel? And if I, as an American, openly express a degree of critical hostility towards Americanism apparently that makes me a “self hating American.” The wizardry is endless on this general track.

This is the basis for the massive censorship we are witnessing on social media. Not only can you not be hostile toward privileged and protected groups, you really can’t even criticize them. These terms are so abused and overused so as to lose all meaning. You can’t even question what you are seeing with your own eyes.

Read “More than Merely Dubious: How I Was Permanently Banned at Reddit”

But that didn’t stop Red Queen Trump, who has now promised (good link) to “forcibly condemn antisemites,” or those people unfriendly or in opposition to Jews. The word “condemn” is a slippery slope, as it has two meanings in English: first, to express complete disapproval of, censure; second, to “sentence (someone) to a particular punishment.” There is a big difference between disapproval and punishment.

In today’s climate — and especially since Trump used the word “forcibly” alongside “condemn” — this could be seen as a veiled threat given all the talk about “hate crimes” and white-supremacist boogeymen. Trump played a major role in laying the foundation of Biden’s emerging neo-Stasi.

Neo-Stasi Operatives are Rapidly Taking Control of America

The dictionary defines “forcibly” as “using force or violence.” For English speakers not using shadow language, this could be construed as a criminal threat or a form of star chamber justice. Whoever wrote this script for marionette Trump knows exactly what they are doing here.

This weaponized use of terms like “hate” and “antisemitism” has gotten so over the top that thinking people should start completely tuning out those who use it. The use of the word “harm” is, however, legitimate and proper language use.

As far as real unlawful harm goes, if individuals and/or their property are physically harmed by “unfriendly” or hostile types, there is existing rule of law in place going back millenniums to deal with it. There is a whole body of existing law to deal with intimidation and verbal threats of harm as well.

Here is a prime example of just how far this hate crime scam has gone. A transgender, one Ebony Belcher, age 32, was using the women’s bathroom at a supermarket when a female security guard swung open the door and ordered her to get out.

“She opened the door and came in and started calling me derogatory names,” Ms. Belcher claimed. Ms. Belcher said the guard told her, “You guys cannot keep coming in here and using our women’s restroom. They did not pass the law yet.” She said the guard grabbed her by the arm and removed her out of the store.

Belcher then proceeded to file a complaint with D.C. police. Instead of shrugging off the incident as a matter of private property, police arrested the guard pursuant of “hate crime” charges.

Here we have a whole slippery slope of what is being defined as a crime, and what is a transgression of a crime: being called a derogatory name resulting in hurt feelings or perceived slight, whether real or imagined.

8 Comments on Word Games: Thought Police Label Speech as Crime

  1. “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia

    [Query XVII, “Religion”]

    This quote from Jefferson was concerning religion in government, but can be applied to all matters concerning “speech”. The problem being our government is now run by corporations and special interest groups. FYI, SCOTUS has ruled that hate speech is a form of free speech.

    • It was unanimous, effectively rendering all this trumpenfuror blather meaningless. There’s always gonna be a work around for sh*t posters, this is like watching revenge of the nerds in reverse.

  2. Two quick points:
    1) The DNC will never, ever allow Tulsi to be handed the nomination for 2020.
    2) Tulsi has already sworn her loyalty to the Christian-Zionist faction in America and the
    State of Israel.

  3. This hate speech malarkey is an end run around religious freedom. It will culminate in making the Bible and all other religious texts illegal…

  4. Cossack : Re Tulsi Gabbard. Unfortunately this is nothing more than Hope & Change 2.0. But more dangerous being a pretty woman vs. a faggot pretending not to be.

    Don’t believe me – do some digging. Why is she running, why she gets so much air time, why is she being labeled as the only ‘antiwar’ candidate.

    In her own words, the reason she is running for President is the most pressing issue of our times : climate change. She is a second generation politician, was a volunteer grunt, and fully supports the ‘war on terror’.

    We’re being played. Again.

    • I don’t doubt that, I’ve seen who her donors are (raytheon, lockheed, boeing et al), it is all in jest. I know she met with Trump and Bannon after he was elected, and god knows what was discussed. She seems quite antithetical to the current DNC party, at least on paper from observations here. So the value of her getting attention over the status quo DNC candiates is of personal value to me. You have to admit though, she at least went to Syria. Even if she is committed to Council on Foreign Relations and Israel, the angle they are pushing with her as a candidate isn’t known to me yet.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch

Discover more from Winter Watch

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading