Thursday, 9 September 2010

The Communists' Shifting Definition of 'Hate'

Hate, very simply, is something that no right minded person likes. In fact, we may well hate hate, or if that is too paradoxical, we moderately dislike hate. Most people do not truly hate unless some pretty extreme circumstances make it so.

This poster is racist, I'm complaining to the...er...the...?

Many people do hate, including in the political arena. Although a lot of hatred stems from personal issues, for example someone might hate the Brits if their family has suffered at the hands of the Crown, or one may hate Americans because the CIA has meddled in their country, or one may hate cats because they have just never got along with cats, hatred can also be much more subtle and be brought about by, essentially, brainwashing. Or to use a more polite term, propaganda.

In general hatred is not psychologically beneficial to an individual. It is certainly not helpful to the hated. So in general hatred makes losers all round, although I would certainly not criticise anyone who has justified hatred or anger over a wrong.

But what constitutes hatred? How does society, that is, the majority of society who are to a large extent under the spell of TPTB, define hatred? And most importantly, is this definition consistent?

Hatred is often simply something the Communist doesn't want to hear.

And by using the term 'Communist', I am referring to all those who deceptively call themselves 'progressives', 'global thinkers', and so on, which constitutes the left wing of the establishment - the right wing being the joint (Christian) Zionist and AngloMasonicBritishIsrael war/drug/terror groups. Really they're all stinking Commies whether they even know what they're serving or not. Well really I don't know what they're serving either, but, another story for another day eh...

So the popular (Communist) conception of what hatred is goes something like this. Racists first, then sexists, then homophobes, then xenophobes and nationalists, then if you're a real hardcore Commie, spieciesists.

It's hateful, for instance, to burn a Quran. But, and I'm not a Christian btw (that would be 'hateful', lol), it's OK for that Yiddish American guy to piss on Jesus for his TV show, that is freedom of speech.

It's hateful to ban a burkha but it's OK to ban employees from wearing cross necklaces.

It's hateful (and sexist!) to say that abortion is wrong but it's OK for pro abortion types to tell young girls, hey, if you get pregnant, don't tell your parents, come and see us, we'll get rid of it for you quietly and the government will pay. Yes that is a paraphrase of something the 'health visitor' who taught us PSE basically told to the girls in my class, who were like 14 at the time. Always remembered that because even back then as an unwilling unwitting participant in John Dewey's Commie Circus it seemed very wrong.

It's hateful to say that women are better homemakers, but it's OK for feminists (can't remember which one) to compare women who choose to be housewives with concentration camp inmates. Y'know, the kind of mindset described here.

Here's one that will really get to some people. It's hateful to say that homosexuality is wrong but it's OK for the media to encourage homosexuality at every turn. Well they do, don't they? And they also attack the herterosexual nuclear family at every turn, do they not? Is that hateful? No, it's 'progressive' of course. Silly me.

Okay then. Let's shift directions a little. It's OK for the crazy Muslims to promote Sharia for the UK etc, or it's OK for the crazy Communist La Raza to declare huge swathes of the US to belong to the Mestizo people exclusively, but it's tough to even argue against illegal immigration without having to open every sentence with "I'm not racist but...", because having a view that stands in the way of Communism is 'hateful'.

It's OK to call the BBC "hideously white" (an asinine charge, I hope that doesn't include BBC's Asian only radio network?), but, at risk of sounding cliche, one can imagine how society would react if the situation was inversed, if someone called their Asian network "hideously brown" for instance.

However, who really hates? I don't.

Who is carrying out this agenda of destroying the West from all angles?

While I am hardly a Christian myself - who takes every opportunity to mock and deride Christianity and spit on Christians?

Who has encouraged, nay paid millions of foreigners to come to Western lands, encouraged them to abuse their hosts at every turn, then told the few natives who dare have a problem with this to shut up and stop being so racist and hateful?

Who has made every attempt to undermine the backbone of a healthy society, the family and related values?

Who promotes Malthusian ideology that humans are a pox on the Earth and need to be reduced or completely wiped out?

Who has distorted the definition of 'hate' to make it seem like they are not the hateful ones, and everyone else is?

Who is making trouble where there need not be any?

COMMIES.







Who are the Commies?

2 comments:

  1. What an exercise in DuckSpeak. Not that I blame you in particular. But it still comes out Quack,quack,quack,quack,quaaaaack!
    And that's because there is no useful Left-Right frame. It's an ideological distraction covering up a difference without a distinction : semantics as a tool for sloppy thinking.
    Ever hear of Bob Altermayer ? When I saw a Winnipeg professor had published 'Authoritarianism' to define the differences between systems I didn't have to look. Also called 'Extremism', the tendency towards oppression of the Common Man by government reflects the anxieties of those in power towards oncoming difficulties...especially when those are artificially initiated. Polar opposites...aren't.
    What I found the most incisive was the political definitions section of Wikipedia ( I included a couple of those ). What most struck home was the subdefinition, Narco Kleptocracy.
    Great fun, I'm sure you'll agree.
    opitslinkfest.blogspot.com > Topical Index > Perceptions Alteration

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haha. The language they have given us to use is, at best, vague. I once heard somewhere, can't remember where, that English has many more ways to commit lies of omission or other doublespeak tricks, compared to other languages. Not sure if that's true but if it is, it has been fully exploited!

    We need a new language. Like Esperanto for the anti-NWO world, lol...

    ReplyDelete

I appreciate your comments.