Winning

The Hate Machine That Saved the World

September 25, 2017

View as Single Page
The Hate Machine That Saved the World

We hear a whole heapin’ hootin’ helluva lotta ’bout “hatred” these days, but hardly anyone attempts to define what that word means. A lot of people seem to want to kill others for committing hateful acts…or uttering hateful words…or possibly even thinking hateful thoughts…but if you press them to define the term, they’ll probably kill you on suspicion of committing hatred.

This is clearly an unacceptable social problem that is simultaneously problematic and, as I said, unacceptable.

Just for fun, though, I’ll play along and say hatred should be made into a crime. But on one condition—ideologues don’t get to define “hatred.” Instead, I propose a double-blind test involving a subject who’s wired to machines. With a more clinically objective approach to this Hate Problem, we will finally have a society that is able to define hatred regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexuality—and all you haters out there will have to pay the piper!

If hatred is going to be used as the go-to explanation for all manner of human verbal expression and physical actions and political motivations, we should at least pretend it’s real—and at best, let’s attempt to measure it. Since “hate” is the main modern sin and lives can be destroyed if one commits it, we would be wise to examine what this term means and how judiciously it’s applied.

If you’re going to destroy lives and smash windows and club people with baseball bats under the suspicion that they committed the unforgivable sin of “hate,” it would behoove us—as a group of people with no common interests who are still in many cases pretending to be a society—to get a legal definition of the term that is as objective as is humanly possible.

“As a wannabe functional society, what we need is a colorblind, gender-blind, and sexuality-blind definition of ‘hatred.’”

And if you’re the type of nimrod who thinks that things such as “objectivity” and “facts” are white-supremacist patriarchal constructions designed to squash anyone who’s not a cishet white male because only straight white males are even capable of hate, you will be immediately disqualified from being able to pass legal judgment on others in criminal cases involving “hate,” since your ideological blinders render you incapable of passing fair judgment.

Donald Trump is already a solid contender for the title of all-time world champion of being accused of hatred in the most hateful terms possible. I sincerely believe that if you were to take everything he’s ever said that is deemed “hateful,” then compare it to the things that are said about him on the premise that he’s hateful, any reasonable person could easily see that the Trump-haters say objectively worse things.

What’s the most heinous thing they accuse him of saying? That some illegal immigrants are rapists? OK, but it’s true. That hot women will let rich guys grab them by the pussy? Sure, but true again.

But look at what’s said about him—Orange Evil Pervert Cancer Armageddon No-Dick Daughter-Diddling Brain-Dead Hitler Monster Who Needs To Die Immediately.

Isn’t that…you know…at least a tiny bit…worse than anything he’s said?

In the quest to seek an end to “hate,” the problem is that people are neither reasonable nor objective. Their ideology is wrapped so tightly around their puny brains that it strangles out any possibility of them seeing what’s obvious to anyone who doesn’t think like they do—these little pathetic twerps just bleed with hatred.

And that’s cool with me, seriously. I’m not even saying that hatred is a necessarily bad thing; it’s all the dishonesty I have more of a problem with. I HATE it. Leftism is hatred in the name of love. So it’s hatred PLUS dishonesty. And that bugs the shit out of me. Dehumanizing or even torturing others in the service of some half-cocked idea of humanism—and somehow being able to not only justify it but to pretend that it’s noble—is about as fucked-up as it gets.

I’ve seen it so many times. There was a brief online spat I had a few years back with a tranny activist who accused me of spewing “hate speech” because I said that trannies such as Bradley Manning were delusional. Shortly thereafter, this same tranny activist told another tranny—likely an activist, too—to “CUT YOURSELF…DRINK BLEACH…DIE IN A FIRE.”

It occurred to me that if one were to, say, translate the phrases “You’re delusional” and “CUT YOURSELF…DRINK BLEACH…DIE IN FIRE” into Mandarin and read them to a random Chinese person on the streets of Beijing, my hunch is that they’d think the whole cutting and drinking bleach and dying in a fire thing would be seen as a smidgen harsher.

In an evolutionary sense, people tend to hate whatever threatens their survival, and that’s perfectly understandable. I’ve long said that “hate” is subjective and can’t be measured, and I think this is correct—up to a point. The problem is the totalitarian semantic control that some groups these days wield over what exactly constitutes “hate” and what doesn’t.

As much as I hate to get hateful here, it’s been my observation that sometimes, black people say things about white people that, you know, aren’t very nice.

Same thing goes for what some women say about men.

And what gays say about “breeders.”

And what the Talmud says about goyim.

And what the Quran says about infidels.

And what socialists say about the rich.

And what urban sophisticates say about rural “hayseeds.”


Comments