explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

A case FOR "hate speech"

RealNewsMar 21, 2018, 10:58:22 PM
thumb_up30thumb_down1more_vert

The following will not be long, ground-breaking discoveries or great analysis. It is what I thought was common sense, but apparently has been lost. If you realistically consider yourself “decently intelligent” this won’t offer many new revelations to you, but I hope that you can use it when meeting and debating others than aren’t. Because in recent times those “normal” qualities have been lost to many.

Why we need “hate speech”

The basis of “debating”

In any given moment of the history of modern society, people have been arguing and used arguments to convince each other. That is the foundation of what allowed humans to turn away from simply killing each other and instead find a better way. Some time ago, I don’t know who said it first, there was a saying: “The founder of modern civilization was the first to use an insult instead of a spear”, and that remains true. What I am trying to say with this is: The basic principle of our world is debate and not war, or so we try.

But in almost any case there is a superior and inferior side to an argument. Given equal other conditions, the better side will win and, so the theory, once implemented benefit both: The one(s) who argued for the superior and the one(s) who opposed them initially. This way they should both be satisfied, as their argument actively helped to improve the quality of life, technological advances, diplomatic courses or any other aspect of our society.

However, people by their nature are self-centered. And thus even if, or maybe even especially when someone starts to realize that they are on the losing end of the argument, they will try to win regardless. This, in general, is not bad – but only as long as people’s minds are open. While the debate continues, both sides will improve whatever they are arguing for and take in the criticism of their opponents. In a debate over opposing policies both sides will improve what they have to offer, thus the longer the argument continues the better the result, regardless who wins.

To sum it up: Our civilization was only possible because people challenged each other with facts and ideas instead of weapons. The decisive improvement is that even after a victory the enemy is not destroyed but converted, and while wars (especially in modern times) tend to devastate the place they are fought on debates do not. But debates still work the same way: The stronger one claims victory, the weaker one admits defeat. What once was an evolutionary method for the stronger to survive (and reproduce, as it is in nature) is now an improvement from the victors to everybody, including the defeated.

The problem is bad losers

So far the theory about debating, now to who ruins it: People who just can’t lose. They, in their mind, have nothing less than a 100% blockade against the mere thought they could be wrong. They are so arrogant in and drunk on the idea that they were right, are right and always will be right that the though of defeat sends them in a frenzy. For a while, debate can continue as before, but eventually people with this mindset will end up at the point where they are close to admitting that they were wrong all along. This is when they go berserk.

As they can no longer convince their opponents, they start to seek other methods which all involve silencing them so the bad losers can have the last word and end the “debate” in victory, for the sake of not admitting defeat and as a loss to all of civilization. Society has become so advanced that we are almost universally emphatic: We collectively do not want to see people suffer or die, and we help each other to avoid this to a certain degree. This is usually a strength, but it is also an Achilles heel:

When the bad losers start realizing they cannot with on arguments, they will try win through these means in order: Emotions, temper tantrum and censorship. They will start to, instead of bringing facts to the table, try to shame their opponents as if they had won and the debate had already been concluded. They will ignore facts and reasons and instead appeal to the empathy of their opponents who will lose if they do not recognize this as an attack and answer with “this is not an argument. Either bring one or admit you lost”.

Stage two is a temper tantrum akin to a 5-year-old that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar right before dinner and is now denying it even though everyone saw it, holding in the air until the little brat get its wishes. It displays two important marks: First, it has no longer anything to do with reality, it is simply outrage out of being cornered. Second, it is going down the rabbit hole further: At the beginning, the worst thing would’ve been a snappy remark from the winner side “you lost”. But now the losers have actively made a monkey out of themselves and WILL be ridiculed, should they admit loss. Assuming the other side does not back down, it goes to stage three:

As it is no longer possible to pressure the other side with emotions or childish behavior, the only way to win is to silence the opposition. All previous tactics are no longer employed just to win the “debate” that at this point has become a struggle of reason against chaos, but to stop the other side from employing arguments. It’s like a race between an Olympic runner and a fat man-baby that, when it starts to realize the runner is just going through and finishing the race, starts shooting the opponent with a gun. Kind of how you’d expect Kim Jong Un to behave if he were at your school. This is the phase we are in now.

The current situation

As I hope all know by now, the United Kingdom has convicted Markus Meechan alias "Count Dankula" for “hate speech” as his video was “grossly offensive” and he is facing a possible prison sentence for the outrageous crime of making a joke video with a pit bull giving the Hitler greeting prompted by Markus saying “Sieg Heil” and the dog reacting to the word “Jews” or to the phrase “Gas the Jews” quite some time ago (see here). His mere name should be enough of an indication that this is a joke and does not reflect any of his political ideals.

Nonetheless the judge has convicted him of a hate crime that has hurt exactly 0 people, inflicted exactly 0 injuries and cost exactly 0 British pounds in damage until it was brought to court. So if you think this verdict was spoken because of the video, you have a lot to learn: This is a test-run by the elites within the British court system and government: Can we censor and (possibly) send someone to prison for "hate speech" alone? How outraged will the people be? Can we smooth it over with bread-and-circuses? Or do we have to back up because the people will send a sh***storm our way?

It is to test out how cold the water of total censorship will be. Because in essence the people running the UK are socialists trying to get closer to communism. Dissenting ideas cannot be heard. If they manage to set the precedent of convicting someone for a harmless video next they will be apprehending others left and right and stir up the fear of “falling out of line” and saying something, thinking something that will get the average person arrested. This is the thought police in action. If you have been wondering how tyranny would come to your door then look no further: You won’t find armed men in black holding a revolver to your face, you’ll find cowardly “Anti”Fa beating you up for supporting Brexit or Trump and sneaky judges speaking verdicts against common sense – we’ve ended up where this all started. The loss of just average decency present in most people.

This is where “hate speech” comes into play: It is the idea that words themselves can be violence and hurt people. The conflation of words and actions that, so the calculation of the authoritarian left, will help them who are clearly on the losing side of the argument over the future of many nations against the legitimate victors. It is the excuse to end free speech and openly threatened everyone: You better conform, or we’ll just claim you hurt us with your words. Any opposing argumentation is to be seen as a dreadful omen that has to be shut down on sight.

It’s red alert for free speech advocates no matter if you like or dislike “Count Dankula”, his comedy or his ideals. Because next time they will come for you, and if they can convict people for mere verbal “violence” then they will be able to use this against everyone from now on by simply claiming that in all the years you lived there is something politically incorrect that was “hate speech” and thus you are now to pay a fine or be imprisoned. It is to create the atmosphere of fear that will make people self-censor. This is political correctness being turned into a weapon.

What will come of this

The results of self-censorship and the loss of the freedom of speech are potent enough to destroy civilization as we know it. The benefits as described in the first part will disappear and be replaced with authoritarian though control that does no longer need to improve – it is simply to be seen as correct even if it goes against reason and reality. When there is no more opposing voice any one argument from the other side is enough to “win” the debate. And thus ideas will no longer be improved to perfection in the struggle to truly win.

All over the world the elites are watching this, and by elites I don’t just mean politicians: Big Tech has been censoring all over the web. Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc have been carefully engineering the debate, but now they can extend their reach and become arms of the government like in Pakistan (see here). We are already seeing this: Governments ask the social media giants to move against “hate speech” and they, in an attempt to look like they are reluctant talk to their customers: “oh, we don’t want to censor you, but the government of country XYZ is forcing us” when actually thinking “yeah, just censor those stupid filthy peasants”. This is how they kept their cover for a long time.

Now we are on the verge of no longer hidden but open, under the spotlight hand-in-hand work between want-to-be authoritarian governments in the US, EU, Africa and most of all China who have just moved ahead with a “social score” that, when too low as a result of dissenting opinions or too few support for the communist dictator that rules over these poor slaves will prevent these people from moving around in the country, applying for jobs, buying food and of cause censor their voices in unprecedented magnitude (see here).

The “hate speech” trial of Markus Meechan is merely a step in the long descent into tyranny. But it’s a big one. Please, use the information you have learned in this blog in order to spread support for free speech and understand the enemy for who they are: Bad losers that will do anything not to admit defeat on the bottom and elites who want to establish total control over public opinion on the top. We have to make noise about this. Refer to this video:



Finally, one last advantage of dissenting voices: As some may know, there are legitimate national socialists on Minds. They are also engaged in conversation (I doubt you could call it discussion) with me and my views, opposing them. If you want to take a look see the comment section of this blog. What I’ve noticed is that this is the, in viewership and up-votes, best blog that I’ve done in what is going to be a full year in about a week at the time of writing. It is because not removing such comments allows others to see who disagrees with you. They say “you know a man by his enemies” and if the enemy are people who follow a universally rejected political ideal that everyone knows is horrible hate you it will reflect good on you. This is how these people who want to convince me of their garbage of an ideology actually helped me promote the exact opposite. Take it from this example: Silencing the opposition is the wrong way. Engaging them in debate where possible and taking apart their talking points will prevail.