The Real Agenda behind ELENA KAGAN'S Anti-"Hate Speech" Jewsade(Jewish Crusade).

Some thoughts on the ALTERNATIVE RIGHT article:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/elena-kagan-professor-hate-crime/#disqus_thread

Elena Kagan:

"This Essay on the regulation of hate speech and pornography addresses both practicalities and principles. I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

This is pure rubbish. Inequality is not the product of speech but of race and culture. In Europe, there was lots of anti-Jewish speech in the late 19th and early 20th century, but Jews outperformed the gentiles and became richer and more influential.
Jewish-Americans are many times more successful than Polish-Americans. Is it because of excessive anti-Polish hate speech in America? Who believes such nonsense?
Pop cultural representations of Asians and gays have been condescending and demeaning for a long long time, but both groups seem to be doing better than the white average.
Our popular culture--Hollywood, TV, schools, music, etc--has given more glowing and positive coverage of blacks than of any other race. MSM even go out of their way suppress negative news stories about blacks--corruption, crime, lunacy, etc. Yet, black failure continues.
Since the 60s, 'liberal' became a dirty word, a political epithet, yet your average white liberal is likely to be more educated and successful than your average white conservative.
I don't see much anti-Mexican speech in our culture, yet Mexicans remain economically less successful than most other groups. Asian-Indians are often mocked on TV and there's a lot of yellow peril saber rattling about the Chinese, yet Asian-Indian-Americans and Chinese-Americans do better than most whites. Kagan's theory is just a lot of horseshit. I'm sure PC drones believe it, but Kagan is too smart to really believe it herself. She has ulterior motives.

So, let's cut the bull. Elena isn't really worried about racial or gender inequality. For one thing, she doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Jews are heavily overrepresented in the most prestigious and influential fields. Hmm, could Jews be outperforming white-Americans and Muslim-Americans because our culture is loving toward Jews and hateful toward whites and Muslims? And I doubt if Kagan is bothered by black overrepresentation in sports and popular music. Gee, could Mexicans, Asians, and Muslism be underrepresented in football, basketball, and hip hop because 'hate speech' against them have hurt their self-esteem, thus their ability to succeed in running and jumping?

This whole thing is not about racial or sexual inequality. For one thing, black women do better than black males, and US colleges are now 60% women and 40% men. And gays, who are 2% of the population, control about 25% of arts and culture.

This whole thing is really about CONTROL and JEWISH POWER. Elena, like so many other Jews, is anxious about non-Jews growing alarmed about Jewish power, privilege, and influence. Especially with the internet and decline of MSM, more people are discovering sites like VDARE and Alt.Right and finding out who the real POWER ELITE in this country is and what they are up to. This is what Kagan and Google boys are really afraid of. But they can't spell it out, so they pretend to oppose 'hate speech' in the name of poor minorities.

When Jews weren't the power elite in this country and were suspected of radical/communist/leftist ties in the 5os and 60s, Jews were for 100% free speech. They were radical defenders of the 1st amendment. Back then, Jews were even willing to protect American Nazi and KKK speech. The real reason for this was to protect leftist Jewish speech, and in order to do so, Jews even protected Nazi speech to demonstrate that they stood for freedom of speech on principle.
Since Jews back then were still vulnerable in terms of power, they relied on the guarantee of the constitution. But now that Jews control most of the powerful institutions in this country, they no longer need the 1st amendment. They have the economic, media, academic, political, and cultural power to do as they please. The 1st amendment, which had once protected leftist Jewish speech from the white majority, now mainly serves to protect rightist white speech from the Jewish power elite. So, Jews want to remove this protection. Jews once defended Nazi speech in order to protect subversive Jewish speech. Now, Jews seek to suppress white rightist speech in order to consolidate Jewish elite power.

Leftist hate speech never bothered the likes of Kagan. Marxist ideas led to communism, which only killed around 100 million people in the 20th century. But, Marxist speech is okay with Kagan since it can still be used to destroy nationalism, culturalism, and racism. And Zionist speech doesn't bother her either, despite what it has led to the Middle East. No, she's only after white rightist speech since it speaks truth to Jewish power.

If rightist speech should be curtailed because it led to the Holocaust, shouldn't leftist speech be curtailed since it led to the Bolshocaust? But then, Marxism has long been associated with Jewish power, and Jews still feel a fondness for it. Through Marxism, Jews got to punish and kill millions of 'hateful' Russians. They smashed over 50,000 churches. While preaching equality to the masses, the Jewish communist elites enjoyed the best schools, best living conditions, best privileges in the Soviet Union.
Well, we have the same thing in the United States. Kagan is a child of superprivilege who's never rubbed shoulders with real people in her life, yet she acts like Ms(or Mr.)Egalitarianism. In practice, Jews seek the most power and privilege for themselves. In words, Jews yammer about equality and 'social justice', but it's never at their own expense but at the expense of middle and lower class white gentiles(who are certainly NOT privileged or favored in anything). Notice how Kagan isn't bothered even in the slightest by Jewish overrepresentation at Harvard, Hollywood, Wall Street, MSM, Law firms, medical institutions, etc. No, she only gets antsy about white male gentile representation at fire departments. This is how most two-faced Jews operate.

We also need to understand how and why Jews see us the way they do. Steve Sailer once wrote that blacks, being less intelligent and more aggressive, are more likely to fall into stupid or destructive behavior if you 'let the good times roll.' In other words, freedom is more dangerous to blacks since they have less self-control and self-understanding.

Jews see us the same way. Jewish IQ is 15 pts higher than that of white gentiles, which is 15 pts higher than that of blacks. How we see blacks, Jews see us. Jews fear that we may not be able to handle too much freedom. We are too stupid and irrational; too much freedom for us may lead to 'let the Jew heads roll'.
Just as some of us reluctantly praise Fidel Castro for keeping the blacks in Cuba in line, American Jews--now that they have elite power--want to control our minds and behavior and keep us in line, because if they don't, we may come to see the true nature of Jewish power, grow angry and resentful, and rise up to tear down the Jewtocracy.
That is what this is really about.

-----------------------------------------

Elena Kagan is not fighting for equality for defending Jewish inequality. If any group in the US is unequal and over-privileged in the most prestigious and powerful institutions, it is the Jewish community.

The role of politics is TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER. Since Jews are the most powerful, we should be speaking truth to Jewish power. This is what Kagan and her liberal Jewish buddies are really afraid of. They wanna label as 'hate speech' any expression that dares to speak truth to Jewish power. By making a big stink about 'hate speech', Kagan hopes to distract our attention from Jewish power and fool people into thinking that WHITE GENTILES are most powerful and that they use 'hate speech' to keep down blacks and Hispanics, whose only defenders are noble saintly Jews.
It is a form of political blackmail employed by Jews. Jews are telling white gentiles, "If you dare criticize our Jewish power, we will use our power in the media, law, and government to set the black and brown dogs to bite your ass."

Also, it is simply not true that 'hate speech' leads to white privilege in the US. If anything, the slightest whiff of 'racist' speech or expression by any white guy in any profession--especially the privileged and prestigious ones--gets him demoted, disgraced, fired, dragged through the mud, discredited, and etc. If anything, even without 'hate speech' laws, the worst thing a white person can do in terms of power, influence, and prestige is to say anything that is politically incorrect about race(and increasingly sex and homosexuality). How 'hate speech' is a social or ecnonomic advantage to whites is beyond me. Even sending a private email about Race and IQ gets a Harvard student ostracized and attacked by the Dean of College herself. Look what happened to Jimmy the Greek and James Watson. Even liberal Larry Summers got in hot water for merely speculating there might be sexual differences in math and science.

Also, there is more than one kind of 'hate speech'. There is the superiorist or supremacist kind employed by the privileged and powerful toward the weak and powerless. Whites in South Africa had such attitudes towared blacks, Jews in Israel likewise toward Palestinians. But, 'hate speech' has also been the function of the weak and powerless. Many Poles and Russians expressed anti-Jewish sentiments out of envy and resentment at Jewish economic and cultural superiority. Same in Hungary. In those cases, 'hate speech' was pro-egalitarian, for it targeted the Jew for being TOO rich, TOO privileged, TOO influential, TOO well-connected, etc.
Communism was essentially the radical Jewish appropriation of mass envy and resentment toward the rich. If populist-nationalists identified Jews with elite power and privilege, communists tended to target gentile elites as the bad guys. In communist Russia, many bourgeois Jews joined the communist movement to attack and destroy the goy elites and to gain control of the goy masses. We're seeing roughly the same pattern in the US. American Jews are using the politics of egalitarianism to preserve their own elite privileges while attacking the white gentile elites and muffling the freedom of the white masses. Frank Rich's noxious and rabid fuming about the mostly white Tea Parties should tell us what and how liberal Jews really think. What is Elena Kagan but Frank Rich in drag?

Indeed, much of anti-Jewish expressions in America have an element of egalitarianism since many Americans of all races--white, brown, black, yellow, Muslim, etc--are deeply unsettled by the power of the Jewish elite. Jews are 2% of the population but control much of news media, Hollywood-TV-music industry, Ivy League Schools, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc. For all we know, Jews own 40% of the wealth in this country.

This is why Jews really fear 'hate speech'. Not because it violates or is an affront to egalitarianism but because it speaks truth to Jewish elitism. But being ever so cunning and clever, Jews always try to defend their own tribal interests as a noble and saintly effort to help the underprivileged or disenfranchised or whatever.

If Kagan is really worried about inequality, she should call for suppression of freedom for Jews, for it was the emancipation of the Jewry which led to unprecedented levels of inequality. With freedom, Jews used their superior intelligence, brilliance, innovative spirit, social networking, managerial skills, and ruthlessness to gain unprecedented levels of wealth and power in Europe--in Russia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, France, England, etc. If Kagan is really into equality, she should note that Germany has been more equal with no Jews or few Jews(or suppressed Jews)--from Nazi era until today--than with free emancipated Jews. Jews simply outperformed the Germans, the most talented Europeans. In places like Poland and Hungary, Jewish success was even more astounding since most Poles and Hungarians didn't even possess the work ethic and efficiency Germans did. If inequality is the greatest evil, then having Jews in any given country will lead to huge inequalities. Jews have been among the richest people in South Africa too. Get rid of Jews, and a nation will be more equal. It may be equally poor, equally pathetic, equally lacking in innovation, equally lacking in enterprise, but at least it's more equal.
Detroit is very equal. Everyone is poor and stupid.

Inequality in the US had once been partly determined by social and racial discrimination, but that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Inequality today is the result of success, not because we oppress. With freedom and meritocracy, smart and enterprising people are bound to succeed much more than dumb and/or lazy--and all honest people know some races and groups are more intelligent and have more valuable cultural capital. It's not so much because smart and enterprising people oppress the dumb and lazy but because the latter are left behind in the dust in fair competition. Sergei Brin is worth billions while most of us just scrape by. Talk about inequality!! But did Brin succeed by oppressing whites, blacks, browns, etc? No, he just happened to be smarter than most. And what about Michael Jordan?

The irony of all this is that WE are not the ones doing the complaining about inequality. Most conservative white people have a sense of honor and don't begrudge those who've risen to the top through talent and hard work. Rather, it is the most unequal people in America--the rich and powerful Jews--who are bitching and whining most about inequality. Woah, what is going on?
Why are Jewish billionaires and Harvard elites complaining of inequality when they are the main practitioners and beneficiaries of it?
So, we must look for the REAL reason behind liberal Jewish mania over 'hate speech'. We must conclude it is not really about helping blacks and browns from white supremacism but about safeguarding Jewish supremacism from white populism. The real problem of white populism in the eyes of the Jewish elite is not so much that is racially supremacist but because that it is anti-elitist, which means it's potentially anti-Jewish-supremacist since the JEPE--Jewish Power Elite--now owns and controls this country.

If Kagan is really horrified by inequality and wants to do something about it, she should propose that we perform lobotomy on all Jews with IQ higher than 120. That way, we'll have far fewer Jews becoming super billionaires, Hollywood moguls, Ivy League intellectuals, head of pharmaceutical companies, leaders in computer softward, top lawyers, top bankers, and raking in tons of money from all over the world.
And we should kneecap every promising black athlete just so non-blacks get a chance to succeed in pro sports too.

--A.F.

The Right Must Fight with Bad Faith when It Comes to Free Speech.

The Left has several advantages on the issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech. They have a long record of fighting for free speech going back to days of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. When conservatives went after communists and fellow-travelers, leftists and liberals–many of them Jews–took a seemingly principled stand which called for absolute freedom of speech. Back in those days when white people freely expressed their hostility toward communism and called non-white people ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘chinks’, and ‘spicks’ with impunity, they didn’t fear their speech of freedom being curtailed or controlled. People who feared government control or being blacklisted were communists, fellow travelers, and trouble-making radical leftists of all kinds. Since there was no possibility of the Left taking away freedom of speech from white people(even of the far right), the most that the Left hoped for was total freedom of speech for everyone like the Constitution says in order to, at least, protect their own freedom of speech. If the Left in the 40s and 50s had called for banning ‘hate speech’ of the Right, anti-communists could have argued for banning dangerous and subversive communist or far-left speech. After all, if far-right speech should be controlled lest it lead to social harm, why shouldn’t leftist speech be controlled lest it cause similar harm? Besides, with the fall of Nazi Germany and heating up of the Cold War, America’s main enemies were on the Far Left soon after World War II.
The Left back knew they had to fight an uphill battle. So, instead of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, they called for total freedom of speech for everyone–for Nazis and communists too, for white bigots and black bigots.

Even people who hated communists and leftists had to admit this was a principled stand, one upheld by the constitution. But, the clever Leftists knew that if you allow equal free speech to the Left and the Right, the Left would eventually come out on top since it had far more original, intelligent, brilliant, and dedicated thinkers than the Right did. Liberals far outshone conservatives in artistic, cultural, and intellectual pursuits in the modern era. And, the far left produced a number of brilliant and influential thinkers even if their ideas were ultimately wrong-headed and harmful.

The Far Right, on the other hand, was not only morally and intellectually bankrupt but associated with the unpardonable crime of the Jewish holocaust. Though communists murdered a lot of people too, they could stand proud as the vanquishers of Nazi Germany. As US had fought Far Right Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–and had been indelibly altered by the long Liberal reign of FDR–, US was essentially placed on the liberal path even if it was anti-communist.
At any rate, there were numerous leftist and Marxist thinkers and artists of great talent in the post-war period. Though there had been talented rightist thinkers in pre-war Europe, they had vanished by the end of the war. The fall of Germany, the revelations of crimes, and etc made it difficult for anyone to be a respectable rightist intellectual or artist. Worse, those on the Hard Right in the post-war period tended to be criminal types, thugs, lunkheads, and dolts.
So, total freedom of speech for both left and right was bound to favor the left because the left made far better use of that freedom than the right. The left, populated with many intelligent Jews, wrote books, published fancy journals, directed plays and screenplays, made movies, wrote laws, etc.
The right, populated with crusty complacent wasps or ape-like rednecks, put on silly airs(like Bill Buckley) or waved the Conderate Flag and made Nazi salutes.
It was no contest. In time, the smarter and more creative Left won out over the Right in the so-called Culture War. Culture belongs to those who remember it, preserve it, and make it. You’d think the Right would at least preserve and remember their ‘proud’ culture, but your average American rightist was more into country music, silly pulp novels, and TV shows than culture. Even if Leftists waged war on tradition, they were far more likely to read the classics, think them through, discuss and dissect them, and write about them. Why is it that the English Department is run by Marxists and feminists? Partly because leftists who rule the roost favor their own kind for promotion, yes. But, the main reason is most people devoted to arts and humanities are found on the Left than on the Right.
Also, you cannot win a culture war if you don’t produce any ammo. Where are the conservative artists of note? The Right made a big deal out of Mel Gibson, but Gibson is no great artist. He’s good, and it’s nice to have him but he’s outgunned 100 to 1. And, if conservatives cannot stand Hollywood, why can’t they form their own film companies?
Leftists and liberals also tended to be more interested in journalism, a key area through which we learn about the world. For every Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak who went to journalism school, a 100 liberals and leftists majored in the field. Also, many rich liberal Jews bought up most of the media conglomerates or built them up from scratch with their brilliance, energy, and cunning.
Also, because conservatives tended to be anti-government, far more liberals entered government and took over all the bureaucracies. Instead of being for sound and clean government, conservatives were kneejerkedly for NO government. But, the fact is there will ALWAYS be government. Just as the Sunni boycott of elections in 2004 handed all the power to Shias and Kurds in Iraq, conservative animosity and defacto boycott of government handed all the levers of power in government to the liberals so that even when Republicans run the White House and Congress, all the agencies are managed and controlled by liberals who can stall, undermine, subvert, and counter everything Republicans try to do.

Anyway, in due time, Leftists and liberals won the culture war, the legal war, the social war, the media war, and took over the most powerful institutions in this country. In the 60s and early 70s, they completely triumphed over the Right on the issues of free speech. This was possible due to the consistency of their argument and logic, the aid of the liberal media and academia, and the tenacity/passion/talent of their members. Before political correctness appeared on the scene, liberals argued CONSISTENTLY(and correctly) that freedom of speech/expression meant freedom of ALL speech/expression.
When the issue of porn movies tore the country apart, liberals supported legalizing it as freedom of expression. Liberals were for the freedom of filmmakers to use greater violence on screen. Liberals were for use of foul language. Hollywood had been constrained for decades up to the early 60s by various moral groups–led by the Catholic Church–which said you couldn’t show this, you couldn’t say that. It got so ridiculous that one couldn’t even use the word ‘pregnant’ in an old Hollywood movie. A married couple had separate beds in the same room.
Of course, onne could make a compelling argument that these censorious controls kept filth out of the screen and had constructive social value. Even so, they did violate constitutional right of free speech. In the 60s and 70s, ACLU, though mainly a Jewish organization serving leftist causes, loudly supported free speech for all. In some cases, ACLU went out on a limb to defend the KKK and Neo-Nazis. (The fact that right-wing groups had to rely on the legal expertise of liberals and leftist shows you how intellectually–and financially–bankrupt the far right had become). However one may feel about them, people like Alan Dershowitz won grudging respect from all sides for their intellectual consistency. Dershowitz may be a "weasly Jew" but he stuck to what he said on the issue of free speech(though his recent derailing of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at Depaul was a low blow of the worst sort). As the Far Right was both intellectually and financially bankrupt, it even became dependent on organizations like ACLU to defend its freedoms against local groups who were angry with the KKK’s right to light crosses or Neo-Nazis’ right to hold rallies in certain communities. So, even people who hated Jews–and denied the Holocaust or wanted to gas Jews themselves–came to rely on Jewish legal expertise to enjoy their right of extreme speech in all communities across this nation.

As time passed, with liberals and leftists(Jews prominent among them) controlling most schools and colleges, most media outlets, most popular entertainment industries, most publishing, most law firms, most radio(even conservative Talk Radio is downright slavish when it comes to Jewish/Zionist interests), and so on, it dawned on the ‘progressive’ community that it no longer needed protection of the constitution. Why would people who own and control the apparatuses of the nation need its protection?
When the left had been a pariah in the political wilderness during the early stages of the Cold War, it needed protection of the constitution. By the 80s, the left had become deeply entrenched in all the powerful institutions. Even if the 80s were the Reagan decade, the power and control of liberals(especially Jews) over institutions were near total.
Though Reagan was allowed to be anti-communist against foreign nations, he could not go after domestic communists and leftists INSIDE the US. He could only go after communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Reagan got a blessing to do this from many in the Jewish community(even among liberals) because the Soviet Union had turned anti-Jewish despite its ideological and historical roots in Jewish radicalism. By the 70s and 80s, most Jews were thinking in terms of ‘Save Soviet Jews.’ The very movement that the Jews had supported in 1917 had viciously turned on them since Stalin’s final days.
Reagan was also acceptable to the Jews for he was archly Zionist as opposed to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who angered the Jewish community by sympathizing with Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions. In 1980, Reagan incredibly got nearly 40% of the Jewish vote(and lots of Jewish support in the media). Though most Jews despised Reagan on social and cultural matters, they wanted to use him to bring down the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union and to strengthen Israel’s hand in the Middle East. Anyway, Reagan’s anti-communism could only be aimed at enemies outside America. The Iron Rule in the media allowed the far right to be depicted as evil both abroad and in America, BUT the far left could only be shown as evil abroad. In other words, Hollywood movies could show heroic guys blowing away Nazis in Europe or mowing down subhuman ‘white supremacists’ in the US–like Clint Eastwood did in "Pink Cadillac." But, it was generally not permissible to show far leftists or communists as enemies IN America. They had to enemies abroad. Take Rambo where Sly Stallone fights Vietnamese commies and the Soviets but not commies and leftist radicals in the US. Even "First Blood" had Sly Stallone inexplicably at odds with rightwing rednecks than with leftwing reds. "Red Dawn" by John Milius took place on American soil but all the enemies were Soviet invaders. There was no American-born leftist collaborator in sight.

What was true with movies was true with Reagan politics. He could brashly attack communism abroad but he couldn’t go after leftists IN America. For any government official or big businessman to go after or denounce far leftists IN America was said to be ‘red-baiting’ or ‘McCarthyism’.
The liberal media and academia had pulled off a clever trick after the excesses of McCarthy. Though McCarthy had largely been right about the communist subversive threat, he had played his cards sloppily, drunkenly, paranoid-ly, boorishly, and stupidly. Instead of being surgical and cautious, he went the shotgun approach and hurt people whose connections to communists were dubious.
Because McCarthy came to be nationally disgraced in the most humiliating way, ALL of his ‘victims’–even real commies–were rehabilitated as innocent saints and ‘patriotic Americans’ whose constitutional rights had been violated. The liberal media and academia lost no time replaying this political soap opera narrative over and over. Though FDR had used similar means to suppress the anti-war Right and even locked up 130,000 mostly innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, the liberal media and historiography declared that US had never faced such a danger to its democratic freedom as during the McCarthy period(and again during Nixon’s Watergate scandal though it was small potatoes compared to what Woodrow Wilson and FDR had done during wartime. But what do you expect from liberals? They complain that Bush was acting like a dictator but don’t mind that Obama has become a ‘sort of god’).

It is for this reason that there has long been a double standard in American culture and politics. It’s wrong to ‘red-bait’ but it’s okay to white-bait. If you burn the American flag and attack this country from the leftist perspective, liberals defend and even praise such expressions as what America is all about–dissent and freedom of speech. But if you attack the far left or Marxists, you are said to be a paranoid McCarthyite red-baiting lunatic with no respect for free speech nor for American values of radical dissent.
According to liberals and leftists(especially among the Jewish kind), radical dissent is more truly American than conservative values. For liberals and leftist, the True America is that which the country must become in the future. The REAL America and its past are regarded as essentially negative and hypocritical. This is why 60s radicals and the KKK get different treatment in the media. Though some 60s radicals have been shown in a negative light to some degree, they are seen as essentially well-meaning, idealistic, and ‘ahead of their time.’ They are shown to be essentially good people who got overzealous and did bad. Indeed, even Jim Jones–the original Mr. Kool Aid–was partially idealized in a recent grisly PBS documentary. Though the documentary showed the murderous excesses of Jim Jones’s movement, it ended on a kind of hopeful note, as if to say Jim Jones had wonderfully utopian ideas but failed to see them through because he was sick in the head(the implication being that his rage was the product of our refusal to recognize and support the goodness of his movement and his followers).
.
In contrast, KKK people are shown to be evil incarnate. Naturally, liberals and leftists in the media and academia favor the far left over the far right even if both are deemed dangerous in the larger sense. Anyway, we saw the final culmination of this double standard in the 2008 election. Obama got off scot-free though his political origins are of the radical left and though he hung around radical lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright all his life. If McCain had such connections, he would have been shot down right away.
The rationale employed by liberals to justify this double standard has a degree of validity. Generally, we believe that those with great power should be held to greater account and responsibility than those with less power. Since whites had long discriminated against blacks and are still dominant in the politics/economics of this country, it could be argued that blacks have more of a legitimate gripe against white society than vice versa, notwithstanding the fact that in the past four decades, black crime and violence have been endemic in robbing, raping, and murdering white folks. It could also be argued that the Far Left, no matter how wacky, are closer to the letter and spirit of the US constitution than the Far Right is. Though the Far Left rejects individualism, personal liberty, and private property, it does subscribe to the notion that all people are created equal and should be treated equally in a color-blind manner. Leftists have never lived up to these principles, but as far as ideas go, it is true enough that Leftism and the US constitution agree on the universality and equality of man–though the definition of ‘equality’ isn’t uniform across the Leftist spectrum. The Far Right–whether it be the KKK or the Black Muslims–, on the other hand, reject the notion of equality of man, universality of human rights, and the brotherhood of man. The Far Right tends to be bio-realist or tribalist whether on cultural grounds or national scale. Because the Far Right is based more on animal instincts of clannishness and us-against-them, it is bound to come across as uglier, meaner, and less moral than the ‘noble ideals’ of the Left. In as much as The West has been deeply influenced by Christianity, a egalitarian and universalist doctrine, and Hellenic philosophy, which sought the universal and unifying truths across the, the Left will enjoy a moral advantage over the right at least in the ideological and intellectual sphere... unless the Right makes a powerful and effective argument for biology as the fundamental basis of our social reality and functionality.

Anyway, Leftists have arrived at a time and place where they no longer have to struggle or plead for freedom of their own speech. They control most of the levers of society determining laws, ideas, values, fashions, and trends. Since their speech can no longer be threatened, they are now looking for ways to control the speech of their enemies. But, Leftists and liberals know that they cannot do this overnight. After all, they would come across as sheer hypocrites. People would wonder how activists who’d been at the forefront of Total Free Speech in the 50s, 60s, and 70s suddenly morphed into a political force trying to control speech by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. How is it that liberal free speech activists, who used to throw fits about curtailment of speech for communists–and even aided Neo-Nazis and KKK in free speech cases to show that it supported Free Speech for EVERYBODY–, have been so silent about the erosion of free speech due to the machinations of liberals and leftists? Why aren’t members of the Free Speech Movement getting out there to fight for the free speech of ALL people, even of the radical right? It’s because the radical left is no longer threatened. The Radical Left controls all of the academia, runs Hollywood and makes movies like V for Vendetta which dehumanizes white gentile males, and control the news media. Heck, the radicals even ideologically prepared and groomed Barack Obama who is now president despite his disgusting associations. Most trial lawyers are liberal or leftist, and most legal scholars are liberal or leftist. Even most capitalists–educated by leftist professors–are socially and culturally leftist.

So, the Left is now poised to take away our free speech. But, being clever and patient, the Left will not try to enact their laws overnight. They don’t want to look like hypocrites after decades of having fought for total free speech for everyone. If they suddenly called for curtailing far right speech or ‘hate speech,’ people would realize that the Left(mainly controlled by Jews) had acted in BAD FAITH all along.
So, leftists and liberals must make it appear as though the NEW GENERATION of good decent people are DEMANDING ‘hate speech’ laws in order to create a better society. Though the older generation of liberals and leftist had called for Absolute Freedom of Speech, they instructed their own students and audiences(via popular culture) to view The Right as disgusting, evil, vile, hideous, gross, sick, demented, and etc. Though the new generations since the 70s grew up under a system of total free speech, they were emotionally and mentally conditioned to virulently and rabidly hate the White Right. By the 90s and 2000s arrived, the new generation had grown into politically indoctrinated young adults incapable of critical thinking. They were brainwashed into thinking ‘blacks, Jews, homos, and feminists are GOOD’ and ‘whites, especially white gentile males, are BAD’. They were told that EVERYTHING wrong with the world–poverty, oppression, corruption, crookedness, etc, etc–was the product of white ‘racism’, imperialism, and blah blah blah. Since young ones, indoctrinated by political correctness, are loudest in calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, the previous generation of ‘progressives’ who fought for Total Free Speech can pretend that ‘hate speech’ laws are not their doing but demands made by idealistic younger generations whose feelings we should respect. Though people like Alan Dershowitz and Ira Glasser will pretend to oppose the new censoriousness, they will only go through the motions without really putting up a fight. Indeed, almost all liberal and leftist Jews–even or especially those who had called for total freedom of speech in the past–privately want ‘hate speech’ laws. Indeed, the whole Free Speech Movement wasn’t meant as an END but only as a MEANS to bring about the real goal which is ‘hate speech’ laws so that the Left will have freedom of speech to itself while the far right and even the mainstream right will be hamstrung.

It’s a very clever trick, which goes to show that one should NEVER underestimate the brilliance of the left-wing Jews. Notice that though Alan Dershowitz and Nat Hentoff are still officially committed to Total Free Speech for all, they barely stand up to the Leftist PC Police nor to the liberal efforts seeking to institute ‘hate speech’ laws. They make just enough noises and complaints to show that they are still free speech stalwarts, but deep down inside, I’ll bet both leftist Jews are happy that The Right is poised to lose their freedom of speech–like already happened in Europe and Canada.

This is a very dangerous time for the Right. In Europe freedom has already been lost. Only violent uprising can save Europe as white people no longer have their freedom to save their own countries from social decay and foreign invasion. We still have freedom of speech in the US, but with the liberal and leftist control of institutions and shifting demographics, the white right is bound to lose their rights of free speech in the US as well.
This is why we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. USE BAD FAITH AGAINST BAD FAITH. You see, the Liberals are playing it both ways. By supporting extreme leftist and anti-American speech–‘dissent’–, liberals claim that they are defending total freedom of speech. After all, they are even defending the right to desecrate the American flag or to denounce the US government–as long as the hostile speech comes from the Left(radicals) or People of Color(‘underdogs’) of course.
But, Liberals also win moral points for standing up to HATE. They say that as important as free speech is, freedom of dignity is even more important. So, they take pride in opposing ‘hate speech.’ Of course, by HATE, liberals generally mean hostile speech from the White Right. In simple terms, only leftist dissent should be allowed.

Now, anyone with any integrity should plainly see that one cannot be for Total freedom of speech yet also be against ‘hate speech’. Yet, this is the game the liberals(mostly Jewish) play in utter bad faith. Remember that these are the same people who say ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage or that illegal aliens are true Americans. Liberals twist logic into a pretzel to impress people that they are for both total free speech and for ‘social justice’–by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. This isn’t a true duality but merely a form of duplicity.
More and more people are being won over to the anti-‘hate speech’ crusade since they are hooked to stuff like Oprah and have been educated by public schools and get the news from the liberal media. In their stupid minds, Hate is simply a bad evil thing, so what’s the loss if people are not allowed to express ‘hatred’? As far as they’re concerned, it’s no worse than banning smoking in a public restaurant or banning farting in public. Since there’s NOTHING of value in ‘hate speech’, why not ban it outright? It’s only removing toxins from our collective consciousness, right?
And, even those who oppose ‘hate speech’ laws are loathe to stand up openly because they don’t want to come across as condoning ‘hate’. Even if they argue that they are only for the FREEDOM of ‘hate speech’ than for the hatred per se, they still feel like secret supporters of the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

This is why Political Correctness has been so crucial and important to the Left. The Left needed to shape the hearts and minds BEFORE pushing for laws curtailing free speech. The Left had to show that the White Right is truly evil and distasteful. The Left had to make Americans feel this animus against the White Right EMOTIONALLY. So, as ‘hate speech’ laws incrementally arrive, the majority of Americans are embracing it–not intellectually but emotionally. If you can’t win over people through the head, go through the heart.
After generations of kids raised on stuff like ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Fried Green Tomatoes’, ‘Boys Don’t Cry’, and PBS documentaries on Emmit Till, it’s no wonder that so many young people FEEL that ‘hate speech’ laws are necessary. Butter the heart and the mind soon turns to mush.

Indeed, liberals(again, mostly Jews)have done the same thing with the gay agenda. Notice how all these liberal Jewish dominated publications are saying it’s time for ‘gay marriage’ since all these young people–the future majority of this country–demand it. In other words, w we need ‘gay marriage’ because of POPULAR DEMAND from fresh young people. But, who shaped and influenced all those young minds addicted to pop culture, dependent on school textbooks, and attuned to the latest fashions and trends? We know full well that liberals and leftists(good many of them Jews) control the top levers of pop culture, academia, and trend industry. So, the rising popular demand for ‘gay marriage’ is merely the product of the masses being brainwashed by the softly coercive and nudge-nudge-nudging manipulation of the liberal and leftwing Jews. Indeed, Cass Sunstein, now working in the Obama administration, even wrote a book on how to nudge, nudge, and nudge the masses toward goals favored by liberals and leftists. These super-smart leftist and liberal Jews see us as Pavlovian dogs or guinea pigs to manipulate. Dimwit goyim, at the end of day, come to believe that they are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘hate speech’ laws from their own volition when, in fact, they’ve been gently and not-so-gently nudged, nudged, and nudged in that direction by powerful liberal and leftwing Jews who control so much of our society.

This is why need to act in bad faith and call for the curtailment of leftist speech while calling for total free speech. Not because we really believe in controlling free speech but just to drive the Left crazy like it drives us crazy. In boxing, you cannot win by defense alone. Go solely into defense mode and your opponent will just attack and attack. Sometimes, offense is the best defense. If you attack the opponent, he will be too busy covering up to punch you back(unless he happens to be a great counter-puncher); constant jabbing is the best form of defense.
In the free speech debate, the Right has long been purely on defense while the Left has been on Offense. The Left no longer need to be go on the defensive since its power is deeply entrenched in media, academia, culture, etc. Since leftists need not fear any control of their own speech, they are busy attacking the free speech of the Right. In order to divert leftist energy from their non-stop offense against our freedom, we must attack the freedom of leftist speech. We don’t want to control leftist speech; we simply want to put the left on the ropes. We simply want to beat them at their own game.

What is the leftist game? The leftist game is that ‘hate speech is not free speech’ because it may lead to violence, oppression, and hurt feelings. Leftists say that speech itself is dangerous because a hateful statement by a prominent far right figure might inspire a street-level skinhead to go out and commit acts of violence. The leftist argument is that those who inspire such hatred and violence are just as culpable. Well, we can make the same argument. After all, if Karl Marx hadn’t written the Communist Manifesto, not so many people would have been ‘inspired’ to join the radical leftist movement and commit massive crimes against humanity. Where did Che Guevera get his sick ideas? From leftist intellectuals he read in books and magazines. So, if some far right intellectual or leader must be held account for actions committed by others who may have been inspired by his words or teachings, then leftist intellectuals and leaders must be held accountable for all the violence committed by leftist revolutionaries, saboteurs, guerillas, and murderers inspired by the writings of people like Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Fanon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Ayers. All theories may lead to practice. If dangerous right-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous right-wing practice, then dangerous left-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous left-wing practice.

Well, we can play this same game that the Left is using against us. We can say radical leftist speech IS hate speech. Marxism is hatred for certain classes slandered as ‘exploitive’ and ‘evil’. Marxism is also hatred for religions as ‘the opiate of the masses’. It is also hatred for national cultures as ‘irrational tribalism’. Tally up the body count from the history of leftist hatred and it approaches 100 million in the 20th century. It was Marxist-Leftist hatred for the so-called bourgeoisie which led to dispossession, expulsion, and/or mass execution of people of property. It was leftist internationalism that led to mass deaths of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Or, just consider what Chinese Marxist imperialism did to the culture of Tibet. Just look at what leftist Jewish radicalism has done to our national borders? Legal citizens in this country are routinely being robbed, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens thanks to the leftist Marxist ideological hatred of national borders and identity(especially those of white nations and peoples). The left is filled with hatred, no less than the right. If we on the Right hate certain things, ideas, and peoples, the those on the Left have their specialized hatreds. Sure, leftists claim to be for equality and universality and loving all mankind, but their formula for justice and love requires ALL OF US to conform to their demands... OR ELSE! Otherwise, you get persecuted, attacked, and even killed. Islam is universalist too. It too embraces all of humanity as its brother and sister, but Islam says everyone has to do as the Koran says; otherwise, you’re a no-good infidel. So, both Marxist and Islamic forms of universalism are conditional, coercive, hostile, and aggressive. They embrace you like a python and spare you ONLY IF you kiss their ass. It’s a kind of love that makes all the demands and tolerates no deviance. Indeed, it HATES all those who refuse to comply.
There has been an element of this in Christianity as well. Christianity also tried to spread universality all over the world and create a unified brotherhood of man. So, what’s the problem, you may ask. What’s wrong with spreading love and justice? The problem is religions or ideologies like Christianity, Islam, and Marxism assumes that it holds all the TRUTH and all other beliefs and values are lies or worse. In the name of their supposedly higher and righteous love, the followers of these faiths have felt justified in hating those who don’t comply. To be sure, Christianity, as an ideal at least(and ideals do color and shape practice), is better than Islam and Marxism because it advises persuasion than coercion to convert non-believers. Also, Christianity is anti-utopian and accepts that there can never be Heaven-on-Earth.

Anyway, we can make a powerful argument that Marxist intellectuals, academics, activists, and others are haters and that their speech should be curtailed(or they should be fined or dragged to prison)since they are espousing and spreading an ideology of hatred(of classes, nationalities, and religions).
We can also charge them of Bolshocaust Denial or Apology. If David Irving should be locked up for denying the Holocaust or apologizing for Hitler, why shouldn’t leftist intellectuals in Europe, Canada, and the US not be locked up too for having denied communist mass murders or having praised the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che? Who says only racial hatred is hatred? The Left is filled with all sorts of hatreds. Hatred for the US, hatred for national borders and identities(especially white), hatred for religions, and hatred for the supposedly ‘wrong’ classes–not just the bourgeoisie but also the peasantry. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky despised the Russian/Ukrainian peasantry, targeted farmers, took their grain, and let them starve? Why? Because communism favors the urban working class. The peasants were seen as backward and stupid animals whose only purpose was to be worked like cattle so that their blood and sweat could be stolen by the government so as to build up the proletarian class in the cities.

Leftists also say that ‘hate speech’ should be banned because it hurts people’s feelings. But, doesn’t leftist speech hurt people’s feelings? Aren’t Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans not emotionally hurt when they go to Western universities taught by left-wing Jewish professors who extol communism, the ideology and system that starved and killed millions of Ukrainians? How would Jewish students feel if a Nazi-sympathizing professor demeaned the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust? If Holocaust denial or apology is ‘hate speech’, then Bolshocaust denial or apology is also ‘hate speech’.
How would refugees from communism–Polish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc—feel if they had to attend high school or college classes where some leftist professor(Jewish or brainwashed by leftist Jews) gave a lecture or passed out reading material saying that communism was a good thing or that Lenin, Stalin, or Mao weren’t so bad or even good in many ways? Wouldn’t the feelings of those students be hurt?

Of course, we are for free speech, and we don’t believe that speech should be curtailed or controlled to spare bruised feelings, BUT we’ve come to a point where many forms of speech have already been banned because they are said to be hateful and hurtful to various groups. Since political correctness is already the law, we can only fight fire with fire. We must use the same tactics. Relying purely on pure principles will not work at this time. We must fight fire with fire. We must say that leftist speech is deeply hurtful to people who, or whose relatives, suffered under communism. Just consider how Cuban-Americans must feel when leftist Jews in this country praise Castro to high heaven or when leftist Jewish PBS mis-characterizes Cubans who fled Castro as a bunch of mafia-connected hoodlums when in fact most Cuban refugees were decent people who left because of communist tyranny.

And, consider the number of white people victimized by black crime. Think of the people who’ve been robbed, looted, raped, and murdered. Think of their relatives.
Given this horrible reality, many white people are understandably hurt and offended by black speech in gangster rap and from demagogues like Al Sharpton and Henry Louis Gates. It’s bad enough to be robbed, raped, or murdered, but it’s even worse when black artists, leaders, and thinkers continue to verbally attack whites and even threaten more collective rage and violence against the white community unless we toady up to black demands. If protecting the feelings of people is so important, we should ban Rap music since it hurts the feelings of people brutalized by black behavior and crime.

Just for the satirical fun of it, we should even call for banning speech making fun of ugly people. Indeed, whose feelings would be more hurt? A Polish American who’s called a ‘Polack’ or an ugly girl who’s called ‘a disgusting ugly dog’? The dumb Polack may laugh it off but the fat ugly girl may go home and cry all night. If protecting hurt feelings is so important, then we need to ban all speech that hurts feelings. Recently, Letterman deeply hurt the feelings of the Palin family, so maybe we should call for the banning of nasty, snarky comic speech too. After all, we have to protect people’s feelings. And, how would a hard working small businessman feel if he worked all his life yet is called a ‘parasitic capitalist pig’ by leftist intellectuals? He would feel hurt and angry. So, we must ban all leftist speech that might hurt the feelings of hard working business folks.

This whole thing would be a game, but we need to play the game. The left operates in total bad faith. We know that. We know that leftist Jews are clever, brilliant, and Marx-Brothersy in running circles around us. We cannot act in good faith with those who only operate in bad faith. We must fight fire with fire. If they call for banning hateful rightist speech, we must call for banning hateful leftist speech. If they say rightist speech hurts feelings, we must say our feelings have been hurt by leftist speech.

We need to do the same with ‘affirmative action.’ If liberal and leftist Jews say white gentiles must give up their jobs to blacks and browns, we must call for affirmative action for whites whereby Jews have to give up their jobs to us. Indeed, this is how White Russians took their country back from Jewish control–through Soviet Affirmative Action which limited the Jews in top echelons of society. We need to do the same. Though we are opposed to Affirmative Action in principle, the superduper powerful Jews are saying we white folks must give up our jobs to blacks and browns. Well, well, then it’s only fair for superduper rich powerful Jews to fork over their wealth and privileged positions to us... OR ELSE!!!

Controlling as Opposed to Denying Hate.

If you listen to liberals, there’s nothing worse than HATE. Indeed, they want to suppress ‘hate speech’. But, is hatred always or necessarily a bad thing? Don’t liberals hate certain ideas, things, and peoples as well? We need to consider two issues. What is the true nature and purpose of hate, and how do liberals define hate? Once that’s well understood, we’ll better underst the role of hatred in human nature, experience, values, and destiny.

What do liberals mean by hate? When liberals speak of ‘hate’, they really mean a specific kind of hate. In their warped minds, only these specific kinds of hate are truly hateful while other forms of hatred are simply regarded as moral outrage or righteous anger. This kind of hypocritical or self-delusional thinking goes back to Christianity or even earlier. Consider the Christian concept of HEATHEN-ness or HERESY. To a Christian, a non-Christian is a heathen filled with ignorance and superstition. If you were to tell a Christian that he himself is also ignorant and superstitious–in the sense that he only knows the Christian God or that Christian theology is a fairytale–, he would angrily reject the characterization since Christianity is, of course, the True Knowledge and since Christian view of God and the Universe is the infallible Truth. In other words, a Christian believes that he cannot be Ignorant since Faith in God reveals all essential TRUTH. What does it matter if one is ignorant of other religions, other cultures, other systems of thoughts, or scientific theories? As far as a Christian is concerned, the only Real Ignorance is not knowing the Truth of God. If one knows the Truth of God, then his ignorance of other matters is trivial, insignificant, or meaningless; truth outside Christianity is deemed non-essential. A Christian feels the same way about Love and Hate. To a Christian, only feelings between God and Man constitute REAL LOVE, and the only True Love that can exist between man and woman is one blessed by God and Jesus. All others forms of spiritual love in other religions or social arrangements are really DEMONIC, and the love between man and woman without the blessings of the Christian God is just animal lust driven by the Devil. Christianity has a way of totalitarizing words and concepts. John said in the beginning there was The Word. And, Jews who came up with the original religion said there is Only One God. The One and Only God is the True God while all other gods are false gods. There is only one Truth and all else are lies. So, the totalitarian roots of modern leftism can be found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And since Islam also shares the common spiritual root, I would suggest that we call radical Islam "Islamo-Marxism" than "Islamo-Fascism".

Anyway, according to Christian moral understanding, Christian Love is True Love but Christian Hate can never be hate but just another form of love. Conversely, since pagan people worship the devil, their love can only be wanton lust and their hate can only be ugly and wicked. In contrast, Christians cannot hate. (In the movie ‘Fanny and Alexander’, the sadistic step-father minister is convinced to the very end that he’s acting out of love when harshly punishing and tormenting Alexander.) Christian hatred of heathens and heretics was said to be tough love, moral outrage, righteous anger, or a profound despair at the wickedness of mankind. So, it didn’t matter if Christians burned people alive, tortured people, enslaved heathens, or destroyed the cultures, monuments, and temples of pagan peoples. Such acts could never be forms of hatred since Christians love all mankind and reject Satan. It didn’t matter if Christians suppressed, banned, or eradicated the cultures of other peoples and used all manner of force to cram Christianity down their throats. Since the deeds were carried out in the name of Truth and Love, it never occurred to the Christians that they were acting out of blind ignorance, intolerance, or hatred. As far as the Christians were concerned, non-Christians were the ones who were hateful, ignorant, and deceitful since they didn’t know nor accept God, Jesus, and the Bible.

Now, one must admit there is a certain logic to the Christian way of thinking. Whether Christian theology is right or wrong, one could argue that Christians had a ‘higher’ or ‘nobler’ goal than most other peoples. One could say Christians were sincere in trying to spread the Word of God, Love, and Salvation throughout the world. And considering the arbitrarily cruel and oppressive nature of most cultures around the world, we can’t deny that the spread of Christianity did a lot of good for mankind. Even so, Christianity had a totalitarianizing, totalitarizing, or totalizing impact on language. It’s one thing to say that Christians felt morally justified in their hatred or that their hatred was of a higher kind, but to say Christian hatred wasn’t hatred because Christians served God is malarkey. Hatred is hatred, just like anger is anger, and ignorance is ignorance. One can argue that certain forms of ignorance are more tolerable or acceptable than others. For instance, most of us are ignorant of the cultural habits of some half-naked New Guinea tribe, but that kind of ignorance is more acceptable in modern society than ignorance of the cultures of Greeks, French, British, Chinese, or Americans. There are things that are worthier and more demanding of knowledge and attention. A person who knows the batting average of every baseball player yet knows nothing about the Constitution or American Presidents of the 20th Century can be said to be more seriously Ignorant than someone who knows the Constitution and the political history of America but knows nothing of Yogi Berra’s batting average. Even so, ignorance of baseball statistics is still a form of ignorance–even if ignorance of something of trivial relevance to most people. Similarly, even hatred in the name of Love is hatred.
Also, there’s no such thing as all-inclusive Love. Even if one professes to Love all of Humanity, it is only one kind of universal love, and each kind of universal love comes with its own conditions, and all conditions have their list of loves and hates. For instance, Christianity loves the potential soul that maybe saved in every individual, but it doesn’t love everyone unconditionally. Indeed, Christianity had powerful hatreds for certain ideas, values, and attitudes. A Christian may say that he doesn’t hate the person per se but only the values, ideas, and attitudes the wicked person espouses; but can we so conveniently separate a man from his values? It’s too simple to say that if a Christian hates a Muslim, he only hates the Islamic(demonic) faith that has taken control of the man’s soul but still loves the soul itself that may one day be turned brought before the light of Jesus.
Indeed, it is true enough that religions like Christianity and Islam encourage and welcome conversion of heathens or infidels to the Truth Faith, and as such, are to be distinguished from an ideology like Nazism that said all Jews are subhuman regardless of what they believed or espoused. But, it’s still been the case that Christianity and Islam only accepted people who embraced the Core Theology, thought Correct Thoughts, and lived the Redeemed Life. Neither could accept humanity AS IS without its conversion to the True Faith. This didn’t necessarily entail violence or forceful acts of conversion–and indeed Christians have foresworn violence-as-tool-for-conversion for quite some time–, but Christians and Muslims, according to their religion, are supposed to hate the social, spiritual, and cultural obstacle preventing heathens from attaining God’s One Truth.
Indeed, Jesus himself was a man of profound hatred. His hatred wasn’t the simple tribal kind but one of moral righteousness. He thought he understood the True Meaning of God. He was a man of peace who preached understanding and love, but he had deep hatred for powerful people, both Jewish and Roman, who either betrayed or violated the Word of God. Because of his moral seriousness and message of love/salvation(and the myth about him being the Son of God), Christians have been reluctant to admit that Jesus was capable of hatred or contempt; in fact, Jesus was filled with both. Indeed, no moral belief system or order is possible without hatred or contempt because morality cannot exist without emotions. One’s hatred or contempt may be of an higher order or morally justified, but it is a form of hatred or contempt all the same. We need just consider how Jesus acted in the Temple ru amok with money changers. Or, consider Jesus’s Prophecy of Redemption for Mankind. He hoped and prayed that his self-sacrifice would serve as a prelude to His Father opening up the heavens and visiting his wrath upon mankind, wiping out all the sinners and cleansing the world in a baptism of fire. Jesus felt this way not out of any sadistic obsession but because he wanted the world to be morally purified. Being a utopian of sorts, he hated imperfections. Since the world was imperfect, sinful, and animated by devilish spirits, those seeking and attaining great power and wealth in the world could only be wicked. As Jesus believed that man had souls, he didn’t necessarily hate the souls of the rich and powerful. He hated the moral and spiritual disease that took possession of those souls. This separation of man into not only body and soul but into soul-as-soul(good) and soul-as-soiled(evil) allowed Christians to come up with elaborate rationale for their moral righteousness and aggressiveness. No matter how much violence, mayhem, and killings Christians perpetrated throughout history, they rationalized(or spiritualized) their actions by saying ‘we are attacking the diseased body, not the soul’ or ‘we are attacking the demon spirits taken possession of the soul, not the soul itself’. So, if a pagan burned his victim at the stake, it was simply evil and hateful, BUT if a Christian burned his victim, it was an act of love to save the soul from the cancer of wickedness. Pagan violence was torture, Christian violence was chemotherapy. As such, Christian violence couldn’t really be called hatred, or if it was hatred, it was hate for the sinful flesh or the demons taken over the soul than for the soul itself.

A similar kind of self-deceit prevails among the liberals and on the Left. So convinced of their moral superiority, they cannot admit that they feel hate or harbor hatreds too. According to their point of view, the Left stands for Love while the Right stands for Hate. So, even leftist hatred isn’t rea hatred, or at most, it is hatred of injustice or evil. In contrast, the Right is said to be about hatred pure and simple; therefore, even love on the Right is said to be founded on Hate. (A rightist might argue that he hates in order to defend what his loves; therefore, his hatred is founded on love. But, a leftist might argue that a rightist loves in order to justify his hatred, i.e. a rightist hates because he likes to hate, and so, his professed love for his own people or culture is a pretext or shabby justification for his hatred. In other words, rightist love is founded on hatred than vice versa.) Much of secular leftism is Christian moralism Redux.
Marxism, for instance, claims to be for all mankind, justice, equality, and all that. So, Marxist violence is said to be necessary violence, a violence borne of love of humanity. It is the hammer of love battering the forces of hate. Of course, some leftists–like Che Guevara and Mao–will admit that they feel hatred for people and ideas standing in the way of ‘progress’, but other leftists characterize their aggressive passions as righteous anger, not hatred. Just like Christians of old, they presumably don’t hate anyone but only want to change his hearts and mind–through violence and force if necessary. Just as Christians think in terms of body vs soul(or pure soul vs stained soul), the Left thinks in terms of Man vs Consciousness. The Left claims to love all mankind, having problems with an individual’s consciousness ONLY IF it’s not with The Program. So, the Left thinks in terms of ‘cure the sickness, save the patient’. The Left will readily admit that some people have to be killed because they refuse conversion to True Science or pose a counter-revolutionary threat. But, there is still the idea that the Left wants to embrace all of humanity through the infallible scientific truth of Marxist thought, and therefore, its ‘hatred’ or violence is morally justified–necessary evils in order to achieve the higher good. Of course, there is some truth to this. Hitler’s killing of Jews should not be compared with the Allied Bombing of Germany or Japan. Though Allied air campaign may have been excessive and even criminal, the ultimate goal was to defeat belligerent and psychotic regimes and to create a better and more stable world order. Of course, UK and US were not radical leftist nations but liberal-conservative democratic ones, but their conduct in war vs. that of Germany/Japan does illustrate that not all hatreds and violence are of the same order. Our point, at any rate, is to point out that even good hate is hate.

Anyway, in contrast to the Left, the Right is seen as essentially hateful and evil because it tends to be tribalist, nationalist, or racist. But, not all forms of universalism are off the hook as far as the secular leftists are concerned. Though some religions– specially Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam–happen to be universalist like Marxism, Leftists have generally disdained religion as unscientific and superstitious, and as such, a force of Ignorance manipulated by the powers-that-be to control the masses and keep them in their place. Also, the emphasis on the Meek Inheriting the Earth simply didn’t jibe with the revolutionary thrust of Marxism which said mankind must UNITE AND FIGHT in order to create a just new order.
There is some truth to the leftist charge against the Right. The Right doesn’t accept the universalist notion of humanity(or justice), and even when it does, prefers border and barriers among peoples than all of humanity being part of some ONE New World Order.
Also, even the Rightist concept of universalism embraces the necessity of hierarchy. So, the Spanish conquerors of the Americas set up a system where white Christians were to rule over the natives even after the latter converted to the Faith.
In the United States, blacks were converted to Christianity, but white conservative forces still maintained a barrier between the white world and the black world despite their belief in the same God. Some Christian whites wanted to maintain the institution of slavery while others wanted to maintain discriminatory barriers without slavery. At the extreme end, there was Nazism in Germany, an ideology in which race and consciousness were believed to be one and the same. A communist could hate someone’s ‘false’ consciousness, but he was not supposed to hate the man himself. According to communist theory, even a capitalist, Muslim, or Nazi could be converted to communist consciousness. If the ‘sickness’ was cured, the ‘patient’ was cured. He too could be a good communist, a comrade. And, we saw some of this in practice in East Germany. Though Soviet troops behaved horribly in the early yrs of occupation and even though communist rule in East Germany was oppressive and miserable, there was still the idea that at long as East Germans adopted Marxism and maintained the alliance with the USSR, they were all comrades and international brethren. This wasn’t possible according to Nazism which determined a person’s worth by race. Of course, race alone couldn’t save or favor someone in the Nazi order. Nazis were pro-Aryan but didn’t tolerate fellow ‘Aryans’ who didn’t get with the program or resisted the national agenda. So, a communist or Jehovah’s Witness ‘Aryan’ could end up dead like a Jew. So, Nazism too required ‘Aryans’ to be develop the ‘correct’ consciousness. And, it’s also true enough that Nazis regarded many non-Aryan peoples as acceptable in the New Order they hoped to create; a person wasn’t subhuman simply because he wasn’t Aryan, though Aryans were regarded as the racial king-of-the-hill. But, certain peoples and races were truly looked down upon as subhuman or unworthy. Though Nazis had little contact with blacks, contempt was the rule. Nazis had little use for Russian Slavs though they tolerated other nationalities of Slavs better. But, if you were Jewish, your consciousness didn’t matter. Nazis believed that the essential Jewish consciousness was rooted in the Jewish race or biology. Jews were said to think and act the way they did because due to Jewish genetics. As Jewish consciousness could not be separated from the Jewish body, there was no way to cure the ‘Jewish sickness’. The only way to deal with the Jewish disease was to be rid of the Jew altogether, body and soul–because the Jewish soul was the flipside of the Jewish body.

There are two ways to define hatred: psychological and moral. The psychological understanding of hatred is rather simple and uncontroversial. Hatred is simply a passionate dislike, a strong distaste, dread, smoldering rage, or feelings of antipathy, animosity, or contempt. One can hate anything or anyone. Some feelings of hatred are acute, some are chronic. Some are emotional, others are well-reasoned. Certain hatreds are inborn, others are developed in life. Some are temporary, some are long-lasting. A friend may fight a friend and hate him, but they may be on good terms again. A person can hate spinach. A person can hate a certain movie or book or the design of a house or car. A person can hate certain smells.(Hatred of certain noxious smells is an inborn evolutionary trait and advantage in most cases as terrible smelling stuff is often dangerous.)
And, there are certain emotions or reactions connected to hatred. Intense fear or phobia is often related to hatred but isn’t the same. It may be true that a phobic person hates the source of his fear, but not all hatreds are phobic, which is to say one can hate something without fearing it. A person may intensely hate the way someone looks or sounds without fearing that person. And, fear isn’t always the same as hatred. We would be fearful of lions and tigers in nature, but we don’t necessarily hate them for what they are. We would simply hate what they might do to us if they came upon us in nature. In the PSYCHOLOGICAL sense, hatred is easy to define and understand. We all have feelings of hatred for all sorts of things, individuals, ideas, and things that happen in our lives. Indeed, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t or couldn’t feel this hatred.
Few would deny that it’s wrong to feel hatred, but we believe that our feelings of hatred should be controlled and restrained whenever necessary. For instance, it’s natural to hate ugliness, but we don’t think it’s right to go to an ugly person and say, HEY, I HATE THE WAY YOU LOOK! That would be mean and hurtful. So, even though the person’s ugliness(or smelliness) may offend or hurt us, we want to be diplomatic and kind, as long as know it’s not the person’s fault. A person born ugly is ugly, and he or she can’t do anything about it. And, a sick person lying in bed and rotting to death cannot be faulted for the smells he or she produces. Of course, it’s different with a person who goes out of his or her way to look or smell offensive. In those cases, we may and indeed must express our hatred of their hideous behavior or agenda. (The problem with blacks is that even when they don’t go out of their way to be evil or offensive, their very nature is often offensive and destructive to society. When a whole bunch of them get together to have fun, the good times often spill over into madness and chaos. And, this is why the issue of black social crisis is such a difficult one to solve. Germans and Russians did horrible things in the 20th century, but given the right conditions and circumstances, they are capable of establishing and maintaining stable societies. I’m not sure if this is possible with blacks. Can a
majority-black society maintain High Civilization? Sure, blacks can create and maintain a low-level society or even a modest civilization–like those African kingdoms–, but do they have the inherent qualities to maintain a highly complex and advanced social system? All the evidence so far seem to indicate otherwise. But, what really complicates this issue is that black problems aren’t necessarily about black evil because even decent blacks mess up just as royally as bad blacks. They have a hard time getting their act together. Consider black churches. All those people may indeed be sincere about God and moral values, but just LOOK AT THEM. They are so wild, crazy, and childish. So, this complicates the moral dynamics of the social/racial problem. If black problems are rooted mainly in evil ideas or leadership by evil men–like Nazism was rooted in evil aspects of German society–, then we can fix the problem by eradicating evil individuals and bad ideas plaguing the community–as was done with Nazi Germany and militarist Japan in WWII. But, the real problem of blackness may not be rooted in some ideology or a bunch of evil individuals but in the very DNA itself, which means that even good blacks are problematic in the way that certain breeds of dogs tend to be. A pitbull is not ‘morally’ more evil than other dogs, but it is NATURALLY(amorally) more aggressive and dangerous. So, people understandably fear and hate pitbulls more. Similarly, the hatred of blacks is different from hatred of Nazis because we hate not only the stupid ideas in the black community but the black biological potential to cause harm and mess up things.)
We may also hate a certain movie, but we would not burn down the movie theater or kill the movie maker because of the way we feel(though Muslims may be the exception in some cases). Because so much in the world is flawed, ugly, revolting, offensive, savage, cruel, disgusting, or unpleasant, it’s natural for us to hate ‘bad’ things. We all hate HIV germs and cancer cells. We all hate corrupt lawyers, incompetent doctors, and lazy nurses. We hate rotten parents who show no responsibility to their kids. The basic emotions that we feel toward negative things in the world are feelings of hatred. Of course, intense and burning hatred can be (self)destructive, and we might end up like animals acting out raw emotions. We want an orderly society, so we don’t want to be dominated by our emotions. So, we try to turn our hatreds into constructive emotions to improve society. (Here, we must make a distinction between controlling/channeling AND denying hatred. It’s one thing to admit feelings of hatred and recognize them as natural and even essential–just like sexual desire–and use them constructively, morally, and lawfully, but it’s quite another to deny hatred as a necessary emotion and, instead, castigate it as pure evil. Controlling and channeling hatred are necessary for the development and protection of society, but denial of hatred can lead to dissipation, decadence, and self-destruction because people would not be allowed to discuss and solve the causes or reasons of their hatred. Their only options or choices would be to deny/repress their hatred and blame themselves for their emotions/attitudes instead of honestly expressing what they justifiably hate about the things or people causing the problem. So, if blacks move into a neighborhood and mess up things, white people are NOT allowed to talk about it, state the obvious, complain about it. Social scientists say the problem is not with blacks-causing-the-problem but with whites-who-take-notice of-and-are-bothered-by-the-problem. So, whites only have two options: ignore the worsening reality &pretend it’s not happening OR move to an area with fewer or no blacks. Of course, some social scientists do admit there is indeed social problems of increased crime and disruptive social behavior when blacks move into the neighborhood. These social scientists recognize white people’s reasons for being afraid of blacks or even hating them. But, as liberals and leftists, they still insist that the problems of blacks are purely historical or economic; black act in a disturbing way because of the legacy of slavery or conditions of poverty. Therefore, instead of hating blacks, white people should hate the history and institutions that made blacks so hateful to begin with. Since whites dominated most of American history, this means whites must essentially hate themselves for having caused harm to other peoples. If a social scientist of the Right countered, arguing that the problem of blacks are the product of history and more the product of biology–blacks being stronger, less intelligent, naturally more aggressive–, he is shouted down as a ‘racist’ and a blind hater. It’s just a fact that certain peoples in this country cannot be hated no matter what they do, or even if the hatred toward them is recognized as understandable, the liberals tell us that non-white problems are purely the result of white gentile oppression in the past–and even in the present. So, if a black guy rapes your mother, your hatred of him is understandable BUT you should really hate the white slave owners 200 yrs ago who exploited the black dude’s ancestors. What goes around comes around. Eye for an eye.)
Anyway, blacks, illegal aliens, the gay agenda freaks, and liberal/leftist Jews are causing a great deal of harm to white America, but white America is told over and over, in a repressive Victorian way, that ALL feelings of hatred for Jews, blacks, gays, and illegal aliens are ALWAYS wrong and evil–though they can hate you all they want. (But, as a safety valve for repressed white hatred, the liberal Jewish media allow and even approve of hatred, fear, and animosity toward Muslims and Chinese. So, what a person cannot say about Jews can be said about Muslims. What a person cannot say about blacks can be said about the Chinese–or Russians. This way, liberal Jews kill two birds with one stone. The frustrated and repressed hate reflexes of white gentiles are released and relaxed on certain targets that also happen to be regarded as hostile to Jewish interests.) It’s one thing to say it’s morally wrong to hate all Jews, blacks, and gays, but it’s quite another to say all negative feelings toward Jews, blacks, gays, and illegal aliens are evil–therefore, white people must spend 24/7 trying to love, respect, and admire ALL aspects of the ‘special’ peoples. It was precisely this Victorian repression of hatred that led to the spiritual apotheosis of Martin Luther King, super popularity of Oprah, and the presidency of Obama. It was not just white guilt but white fear which elevated them to ‘sort of god’ status. The truth is there are many things in the black community and about blacks that whites really don’t like and even hate. But, whites are NOT ALLOWED to hate anything about blacks. Even criticizing rap music may be condemned as ‘racism’. So, white gentiles, brainwashed and manipulated by the liberal Jewish media, try desperately to find reasons to love blacks since unconditionally loving blacks has become a moral imperative. Since so many blacks–leaders and masses–are crazy, whites go out-of-their-way to be supportive when they come upon some ‘nice’ and ‘clean cut’ black folks. White people cling to and support these blacks to prove their anti-‘racism’ and also to send a not-too-subtle message to not-too-likable blacks they will be similarly rewarded if they just act nice like the ‘good’ blacks. Colin Powell milked this white psychology for decades to move up in his career. Of course, many whites know that the liberal Jews are largely to credit or blame for having used the media, academia, and other sources of information to disseminate this mindset among white goyim, and so, there’s a good deal of natural hatred for Jews among white gentiles, but white gentiles aren’t allowed to admit–to others or even to themselves–that they feel negative feelings toward Jews because being critical of Jews is said to be crypto-Nazi. Since hatred of Jews is said to be never ever justifiable, it is repressed among white conservatives and resurfaces as manic Judeophilia. By professing total love of Jews and Israel, silly white conservatives hope that the rich, powerful, and influential Jews will eventually take their side. Just as whites overcompensate and over-reward ‘good’ blacks to prove their lack of hatred, white gentiles over-compensate and over-support Jews in the hope that ‘noble’ and ‘saintly’ Jews will come over to the conservative camp. Conservatives seem to be blind to the fact that most Jews only want the support and devotion of white conservatives but feel nothing but contempt for the values and ideas of white conservatism.

Hatred must be recognized and accepted as a natural emotion just like sexual feelings. But, like sexuality, hatred must be controlled, shaped, moralized, and have a good reason for its expression. For example, when faced with corrupt politicians deserving of our hatred , we don’t simply bring out the pitchforks and hang them. We’ve also come to realize that no one is perfect, so we should be forgiving of people’s imperfections, transgressions, and idiocies(though we may indeed be too forgiving these days). So, we often say we are offended, disappointed, upset, or at most outraged by someone’s actions or thoughts. We generally don’t say, we HATE you for what you did or are. And, it’s true enough that we should nevert act on pure hatred alone. Indeed, all emotions must be curtailed to some extent. Even love has to be tempered, controlled, and shaped according to social rules and needs. It would be bad for society if people just walked up to anyone they desired and said, HEY BABY, I LOVE YOU AND WANT TO SUCK YOU ALL NIGHT. Surely, that is an expression of affection, desire, and love, but we don’t want wild emotions spilling out into the public sphere. Indeed, we need only consider Woodstock to see what happens when LOVE happens on a large scale. Them 300,000 kids were supposed to be about love, peace, and blah blah, but what they created in three days was a Disaster Area and stinking mess(which none of them stuck around to clean up). Some were naked, some were having orgies, some were napping in the mud, some were taking a crap in the open–feeding mother nature?–, and etc. It was all about letting it all hang loose, about returning to the Garden. Funny that Woodstock had looked like The Garden when the rubes ran it but then looked like hell after 300,000 flower folks loved it to death. Society needs order, and all emotions have to be controlled, shaped, and mindful of others. Just as out-of-control hatred is ruinous, so is out-of-control love. Just consider the movie PLAY MISTY FOR ME. The crazy bitch in the movie loves, loves, and loves the Clint Eastwood character and simply cannot accept the fact that he doesn’t love her back. Out-of-control love is very much like out-of-control hatred. It imposes itself, its will, and its agenda on people who may not want any of it. Ironically, it turns into hatred because the object of love may feel loathing and hatred for the obsessive love-struck stalker and because the stalker may come to feel hatred toward the object of his/her love for not loving him/her back. (Very true of Christians too, who often hated heathens and heretics for not returning or reciprocating the Christian love shown them.) Would a pretty woman like an ugly guy chasing her out of love when she only feels revulsion for his ugly-mugly ass? Would a handsome guy like an ugly dogula chasing him around out of obsessive love when he thinks she looks like an ass of a baboon? Anyway, the psychological definition of hate is easy enough to understand, and we can all agree that the ability to feel hatred is universal in all higher animals and even necessary for our survival.
Hate mechanism is, in some ways, an extension of our pain mechanism. Pain alerts us to potential, real, or imagined danger. A hand that comes into contact with fire feels intense pain. A hellishly unpleasant sensation. We all HATE pain. Pain sends signals to the brain that the hand must be removed from the fire because, otherwise, it will be permanently damaged. Pain is nasty, ugly, and hellish, but our survival depends on it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t move our hands from a fire. It’s because we feel back pain, for example, that we know when to rest our backs from stress. If we didn’t feel the pain, we would exert ourselves even as our backs are wearing out. We hate pain because pain hurts, and what hurts us is hateful. So, we try to avoid things and people that cause us pain, and we come to hate things and people that may cause us pain. Hatred, in this sense, is pre-emptive avoidance of pain. We hate pain, therefore we try to avoid it. To avoid it, we must be fearful and suspicious of AND alert and aggressive against those which will likely cause us pain. For instance, animals from a very young age find out that much of nature is dangerous and threatening(and certain hate mechanisms are inborn; for instance, most cats naturally feel intensely nervous when they see a snaky object or hear a eagle-like sound; they evolved to instinctively associate those sounds and images with Danger!) So, wolves, for instance, develop strong hatreds for bears, cougars, other wolf packs, human hunters, and other creatures. Indeed, if they didn’t have these emotions, they would not survive. All animals have keen alertness, and this alertness is tied to fear, and fear gives rise to hatred. Of course, some animals are capable of feeling greater hatred than others. Generally, predators are more hate-prone than herbivores, perhaps because predators must not only flee or defend itself from other creatures but must attack other creatures for food. This very nature makes predators psychologically more complex than herbivores. The hatred felt by herbivores is simpler and easier to understand. They naturally fear and hate predators, creatures that mean to do them harm. It’s a simple kind of fear and hatred. Predators too feel this kind of hatred because most predators are also the prey of other predators. Also, top predators often fight and kill one another. Lions may be kings of the African wilderness, but a lion pride fears and hates other lion prides. Anyway, predators don’t just feel defensive or fearful hatred–the kind that herbivores feel–but feel what might be called the ‘love-kill hatred’. Predators must hunt for survival. They look forward to the next meal which they LOVE to eat. So, a predator does not kill the prey out of simple hatred. It hunts out of love–not so much for the animal itself but for its taste. No prey is willing to lay down peacefully to a predator and say ‘eat me.’. All try to run or give the predator a hard time, and some species even fight back and kill the predator. For instance, a leopard hunting warthogs may actually end up the prey. Even when a predator chases after an harmless prey, the pursuit is usually very frustrating. A gazelle cannot do much harm to a cheetah, but cheetah must exert a tremendous amount of energy to catch those tricky creatures in a hot dry terrain. So, one could say there’s a strange combination of love and hatred in a predator’s aggression against a prey. One could also argue this is why male psychology–in both animal and human world–may be more complex than female psychology. In nature, males generally chase after females, and this activity is oftentimes a blend of love and hatred. For one thing, males must fight other males in often murderous hate-fests in order to win the right to hump the most females. We see this among deers and elephants. The males fight on and on until the top male finally prevails and gains the opportunity of passing its sperm onto the females. We also see this behavior among wolves and lions. So, the male desire to make love to females must often pass the hurdle of hateful fighting amongst the males. There’s further complexity because not all females give themselves easily to males, even to top males. So, in many cases, the male animal must use aggression and violence to subdue the female. The male seeks to make love but it must act in a brutal and hateful manner. Some males may even show anger and hate against the female for rebuffing their loving/sexual attention. This is surely true of human males. Some ugly guy may fall for a girl and hope to win her heart with the prospect of making love to her all night long, but what if she thinks the guy is pretty ugly and gross? He will feel rejected and humiliated, and his feelings of love will turn into feelings of hatred. Hatred for the object of his desire/love that rejected his advances and even hatred for himself for being ugly, gross, and unappealing(like the crazy murderer in Michael Mann’s movie "Manhunter"). . As people are narcissistic by nature, the realization of one’s own ugliness can have devastating consequences. Indeed, many psycho killers are ugly folks, and most of the evil tyrants in history have been not-too-good looking people who sought power instead.

If the psychological nature, dimensions, and definition of hatred are easy to understand, this is not so with the moral definition or understanding of hatred, especially if the moral order in question tend to believe in higher or transcendental absolutes. Moral systems tend to divide the world into good vs evil, and certain emotions tend to fall in the GOOD category while others fall into the EVIL category, sometimes in a wholesale or totalistic way. So, instead of good hatred vs evil hatred, a moral system will argue that Hatred itself is Evil while Love itself is Good. This kind of moral system becomes blindly ignorant or repressive of its own hatreds and confuse them for love.
This has been true especially of Christianity, Islam, and Communism. Moral systems tend to simplify, but simplifying a complex world leads to complexes, which is why our civilization is confused and contradictory. We can see this problem with sexuality in the history of Christianity. Because of the moral concept of sinful flesh and transcendent spirit, Christianity concluded that sexual emotions were sinful. Therefore, the Ideal for the holiest aspirants in the Church was a celibate life. In contrast, those who couldn’t resist sexual temptation were always reminded of their sinful attachment to sinful flesh–even if they were married. Though Christianity made peace with the institution of marriage, it never fully acknowledged the moral validity of sexual emotions until the 20th century. According to Christian ideology, there could be no truly holy sexuality. All sexuality was suspect and something to fear; it was, at best, a necessary sin–like having to take a crap.
There was the concept of holy matrimony, but its purpose was to garb and conceal the sinful nature of sex. Also, couples were advised not to enjoy the sexual act; rather, they were to have sex only for the purpose of procreation, to produce offsprings to be raised under the radiant light of God, and the highest ideal for the best kids was to enter the church, lead celibate lives, and end up with cancer of the balls.

Of course, this puritanical and totalistic banishment, suppression, and denial of sexuality was not only unhealthy but impossible. And, no matter what the Christians did, sexuality crept into the Christian life, often subliminally, at times even blatantly, through literature, music, fine arts, and so on. Even the religious folks during the Renaissance could not resist sensuous paintings of the Virgin Mary. Many paintings and sculptures of Jesus were actually quite beautiful in a fleshy way. And Michelangelo’s David was a good looking dude. But, many Christians, for as long as possible, refused to frankly discuss sexual matters or admit that sex was natural and had a vital role in society. They looked upon sexual feelings as something dirty and pretended as though marriage wasn’t about sexuality but serving the will of God. So, it was ‘union under God’, ‘blessed by Jesus’, and so on and so forth instead of admitting, ‘okay, you two wanna have sex and enjoy orgasm.’ The Christian Church, as it became surrounded by a secularizing culture, eventually came around to the notion that sexuality is indeed a vital and healthy aspect of human life. Today’s Christians still argue for sexual morality and commitment under God, but few would say, in a totalistic way, that sexuality in and of itself is evil or sinful. The Muslim world is another story altogether, of course.
The Jews, of course, always had a saner(and more tribal) attitude toward sexuality. Jews admitted the centrality of sex in the lives of man, and indeed much of the Old Testament is about a whole bunch of people getting laid. Indeed, the Jews regarded sexuality as a great life-creating gift from God. The problem that Jews had with sexuality was its crazy animal propensities if unchecked by moral rules. People would be f___ing like beasts or American Negroes, and the Garden of Eden would turn into Jungle of Harlem. So, according to the Jewish religion, God said, "okay, you can have and enjoy sex, but get married first and obey the rules I set forth." If those rules were followed, sex wasn’t necessarily dirty according to Judaism.

The concept of the ‘pagan’ met the same fate as sexuality in the Christian world. Because Christianity is monotheistic and believes in One God and One Truth for all men, all things pagan were deemed to be evil, devilicious, sinful, or wacky. But of course, no culture or civilization could ever completely wipe out the past and start from Year Zero. Even the Khmer Rouge failed; indeed, why even cling to the notion of Cambodian nationhood going back many centuries if a people were to start from Year Zero? So, just as tribal-nationalism survived and eventually thrived under communism, paganism survived under Christianity and cane to define much that was said to be Christian. Of course, Christians overlooked this contradiction and pretended that the pagan aspects of their civilization was perfectly in harmony with Christian ideas and teachings. Similarly, hardline communists could never admit that they were nationalists as opposed to internationalists. They tried to explain or rationalize their national communism as only a temporary stage on the road to eventual world communism. Communists made the same point about private property. Though the concept of private property was anathema in communism, communists discovered that no society could exist without some practice of private property. But, as the concept of private property was ‘wicked’ and ‘reactionary’, communists either tried to pretend that private property didn’t exist(though in fact some did exist under communism) or just a ‘evil necessity’ for the time being, eventually to be abolished when society achieves full communism. Certain myths die hard, which is why the Chinese Communist Party still insists that the current capitalist development of China is merely a stage in the eventual communization of China. And, it probably also explains why so many privileged Western leftists still cling to Marxist ideas. They fool themselves that their riches and ‘bourgeois’ compromises are really just stepping stones on the way to the bright future of real ‘progress’. They also delude themselves that their power and riches are justified, at least for the time being, because they are using their influence to spread ‘progressive’ ideals, values, and dogma. So, even as Western leftists own tremendous amount of private property, they would rather not admit it ORt pretend that their wealth is a necessary arsenal in the creation of a truly just future. There was some of this among Christian capitalists too. Consider the Robber Barons or Captains of Industry–take your choice–of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of them amassed great fortunes, but as many were were devout Christians(or vain narcissists who wanted to be loved), they never wanted to admit that money was the main passion of their lives. They sought to moralize their ‘greed’, as if to say they had earned all that money in order to be GENEROUS and do good work for Humanity. We see some of that with the likes of George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates in today’s world. These guys love money and want to own all the world but also fool themselves and try to convince us that they only want to help or save mankind. So, AVARICE, GREED, WANTON-MONEY-LUST, and VANITY had nothing to do with their ambitions. Just as Christianity moralized sexuality & spiritualized paganism and just as Marxism rationalized resurgent nationalism & some degree of market dynamics as evolutionary tools in the eventual triumph of communism, Christo-capitalists sought to justify their ‘greed’ and ‘self-interest’ as necessary tools for social good.

And, so we move to the concept of hatred. From the psychological understanding of hatred, we know hatred is an everyday feeling and occurrence. It is a universal emotion in not just humans but all higher animals. But, according to the moralistic definition of hatred, it can only be bad. But, of course, this isn’t possible since ALL people feel some form of hatred on a daily basis. We all hate something or someone. So, the moralistic, puritanical, and neo-Victorian politically correct powers-that-be have defined hatred in a narrow ideological way. To the Left, hatred is simply dislike or antipathy to other races or ethnic groups(or more specifically, white dislike for non-whites). Recently, it has come to include dislike for homosexuals and non-Christian religious groups as well. Originally, Marxists and other radical leftist also condemned homosexuality–regarded as either deviant perversion or bourgeois decadence–and sought to destroy all religions. But, with the rise of multi-culturalism and the gay agenda, the Left has incorporated ‘protection’ of religious groups–at least non-white Christian groups–and gays as part of their program.

On matters of class, Marxism didn’t exactly claim that the upper classes hated the lower classes on a gut level; rather, the bourgeois oppression of the lower classes was said to be the inevitable outcome of the exploitative nature of capitalism. In other words, capitalism’s evil went beyond the will of individual capitalists. Even if every capitalist meant well and didn’t hate the proletariat, he could only oppress and cause harm to the working class since capitalism was a form of modern wage slavery. Similarly, even if a slave master is well-meaning and decent, there can be no just relationship between him and his slaves. The system itself is inherently evil and must be abolished.
Therefore, Marx thought the evil of capitalism went beyond the individual character of capitalists. Even if every capitalist were a good decent person, the nature of capitalism could only lead to oppression since capitalism can only operate through dog-eat-dog competition among capitalists which eventually drive down profits and wages. So, even though communists hated capitalists as generally evil and greedy men, even the good, decent, and well-meaning capitalists could not be spared in the new communist order since they were part of an inherently unjust system. Communists believed that capitalists could only thrive by ruthless competition seeking total monopoly and highest profits for cheapest wages; but, the system would eventually undermine the very possibility of profits since the wealth would become concentrated in the hands of a few while the masses lived on a pittance. And, capitalists who lost out in the competition would also end up joining the masses of toiling workers. Eventually, it would lead to revolution. Similarly, many conservatives believe that the problem of Big Government is systemic than individualistic. Many conservatives argue that even if every bureaucrat were clean and hardworking, the very nature of a Giant Bureaucracy would lead to abuse of power, inefficiency, and mis-allocated resources. It’s just the nature of the beast.

Anyway, the Left seeks to own all of Love and dump all of Hate on the other side. Love is defined as ‘tolerance’ and acceptance of other races, ethnic groups, and gays. Leftist hatred of people who oppose the leftist agenda is not deemed as a form of hatred since leftists are only opposing those who HATE. Hating the "HATE"–as defined by the Left–is not hate. But, it gets funnier. Leftist LOVE requires white gentile males to hate themselves as the villains of history’s crimes, evils, oppressions, and wickedness. So, white gentile males, in order to gain Love, must hate themselves. But, this self-hatred is not called hatred but merely ‘consciousness raising’. Also, white people in general, both men and women, are expected to hate Western history, Western culture, Western values, and Western concepts. But, this hatred of one’s own heritage is not deemed as self-hate, but ‘progressive awareness’ or some such. Meanwhile, the hatred felt by non-white people and Jews toward white gentile people is not deemed as ‘hateful’ but as ‘revolutionary’, ‘liberating’, ‘progressive’, ‘righteous’. So, the hatred felt by Che Guevara wasn’t really hatred but Angry Love. Sometimes, the word RAGE is used to define the hatred of the Left, the ‘people of color’ and other favored groups. RAGE implies that non-whites are simply enraged/outraged by white evil or hatred. RAGE is understood mainly as a righteous response to white oppression. So, when Che Guevara wanted to nuke American cities, that wasn’t hate but only righteous rage(at worst). So, when Black Panthers called for killing ‘honkey pigs’, that wasn’t hatred but merely ‘black rage’ or ‘revolutionary consciousness’. Now, one can argue that some non-white people, in certain conditions and contexts, had a right to hate white people, or at least white people who oppressed them. Surely, if you were black and were discriminated against or called ‘nigger’ all your life, you certainly would NOT have liked the people who treated you that way. If your oppressors are white, you would naturally feel hatred of whites. That is understandable. What is unjustifiable is the pretension that such hatred is not hatred but only a form of ‘progressive’ consciousness or ‘righteous rage’. It is hatred.

The Left has every right to argue that their hatreds are more justifiable than rightist hatreds. We may agree or disagree on that count, but we should at the very least agree that hatred is hatred, and it’s not always a bad thing. What American didn’t hate the Japanese when Pearl Harbor was attacked? What American didn’t hate radical Muslims–or even much of the Muslim world–when 9/11 happened? What Russian didn’t hate Germans when Hitler waged war on the Motherland? What Palestinian doesn’t hate Jews who took the land of his forefathers? What Jew doesn’t hate Palestinians after wave after wave of terrorist attacks?
The problem is not hate, as we all feel hate. We must not be morally puritanical about the nature and practice of hate. The problem is "HATE", a morally puritanical definition where only certain kinds of hate is recognized as hate while other forms of hate–especially the leftist or the non-white kind–are deemed as forms of LOVE.
This is stupid and false, because all people feel both love and hate. Nazis were not all about hate. They hated Jews but they loved their own people, their own heritage, their own nation. Indeed, Nazi hatred was motivated very much by love. We can denounce Nazis for their murderous hatred, but let us not fool ourselves that they were ONLY about hatred. That would be a cartoonish reading of history, a cops-and-robbers vision of the world. Though one can reasonably argue that Nazi hatred was especially poisonous and psychopathic, it would be wrong to say they were motivated only by hatred or even primarily by hatred. Indeed, one could argue that the real problem of Nazism was it was premised on too much love or too much self-love. If Nazis weren’t so crazily in love with themselves, they would have felt less hatred or contempt for people different from, potentially threatening to, or standing as an obstacle to the "Aryans". Hitler wanted to invade the East not primarily out of hatred of Russians(though he felt a great deal of contempt for Russians). His primary motivation was his maniacal LOVE for the Germanic peoples and a romanticized vision of Germanic destiny. To an extent, his thinking–shaped partly by the Western novels of Karl May– wasn’t all that much than that of American whites who conquered the West and then took SW territories from Mexico. White Americans, in their self-love and idea of Manifest(or White)Destiny, thought they should own the lands inhabited by thinly populated savage Indians or inept Mexicans. Nazis were also like Jews who went to Palestine, drove out the original inhabitants, and set up a Jewish state. From the Palestinian perspective, Jewish actions seem hateful, hostile, and cruel. And indeed, it is true enough that Jews came to hate the Arabs standing in the path of Zionist dreams. Even so, it would be wrong to say that Jews were primarily motivated by their hated of Arabs or Muslims. Jews didn’t go to the trouble of establishing a Jewish state simply to hurt other peoples. Similarly, Hitler didn’t attack Russia just to satisfy a murderous hatred of Russians. He did it because he loved his own people and believed that Germans had been wronged by history. Why should a great people like the Germans be limited to their relatively small country–compared to Russia, America, and the British Empire? Hitler believed that for Germans to be truly great and powerful, they would need vast territories in the East. Of course, not all hatreds borne of great self-love are the same. American whites didn’t see American Indians or Mexicans as subhuman. The Christian culture of the American whites, at the very least, acknowledged that even Indian savages and inept Mexicans had souls. And, it’s true enough that Jews didn’t look upon Arabs or Muslims as less-than-human. But, Nazis really had a contemptuous view of Russians as lesser humans. So, in that regard, Nazi hatred was more extreme, poisonous, ruthless, and murderous. Even so, it is wrong to say that Nazis were all or only about hatred. Indeed, if Nazism teaches us anything, it is the danger of Love. Too much Love of something can lead to pathological hatred of everything that appears as an obstacle to the object of love.


So, the issue isn’t really about HATE vs. LOVE but about kinds of hatreds vs. kinds of hatreds. In other words, hatred can be good, even necessary. The issue should really about controlling, harnessing, and properly using our hatreds instead of denying Hatred or blaming only the other side of harboring hatred. Hatred is like Fire. Fire can be good or bad. Fire can save us, serve us, and protect us. It can also burn us. Fire is necessary but it must be controlled. If out of control, it can burn everything down. Same is true of hatred. Out-of-control hatred can lead to stuff like Holocaust, 9/11, or communist mass killings. But, one way to control hatred is to control love. The more we love something, the more we hate that which threatens or stands as an obstacle to what we love. Currently, liberals and leftists are showing ever greater hatred toward Free Speech because it allows "hate speech" which threatens or challenges what liberals and leftist hold dearly. Of course, the liberals are loathe to admit that they have a problem with Free Speech so they say they’re only opposed to HATE Speech, but this only shows the liberal and leftist hatred of logic, consistency, and the law. To protect and prop up the ‘Truth’ they love so much, they are willing to lie and cheat. In the name of ‘Truth’, they’ve come to hate real truth, which says freedom of speech means freedom of all sides to have their say(even if it offends the sensibility of the ‘progressive’ crowd.) Similarly, the recent behavior of Perez Hilton is an example of politically correct gay hatred of the true meaning of marriage. This guy is so in love with his Gay Agenda that he seethes with hatred at everyone who refuses to recognize homosexuality as the biological and moral equal of normosexuality, aka heterosexuality. He seeks to IMPOSE his view of politically correct morality on beauty contestants, wants to disqualify those who disagree, and would probably like to ban any anti-gay agenda speech as ‘HATE SPEECH’.
Similarly, communists, in their Total Love of their supposedly fool-proof theory and Justice, felt nothing but pure hatred toward those who disagreed or stood in the way. Since communists explained everything in terms of class conflict/progress vs. reaction, they labeled their opponents as class enemies or reactionaries(even when the dissenters were poor people or leftists). Nazis, in their Total Love of the Fatherland and the ‘Aryan’ race, developed a great contempt or hatred for people seen as standing in the way of ‘Aryan’ ambitions and power. Jews and Russians were especially hated since Jews were seen as a racial-ideological threat and since Russians were regarded as the ‘Asiatic’ horde that occupied lands that should have "rightfully" have belonged to the Germanic peoples.

So, we need a more honest definition of hatred, and we must accept hatred as part of what makes us human. People think that love, compassion, and empathy are the foundation of morality and that hatred is the evil nemesis of love, but it’s not that simple. Indeed, hatred is a necessary component of morality, no less than it is an essential component of immorality. (It must be said, however, that the greatest evil has less to do with hatred than sadism or some dark mystery. After all, sociopaths feel no emotions, and that’s what makes them so frightening, so evil. They kill or hurt victims ‘for the hell of it’. They are less motivated by hatred than by some strange and chilling desire to hurt or kill people.) Without hatred–a crucial emotion–, we would all be sociopaths. To be sure, not all sociopaths are violent or aggressive, but even passive sociopaths are not human in the normal sense. A passive sociopath may not attack or harm others but feels little or no emotion in the face of evil. If a killer abducts a child and hurts/kills him, you expect the parents to be sad but also angry and hateful toward the man who committed the crime. A parent who feels little or nothing would be a sociopath. The inability to feel hatred for the abductor/killer would be a sick thing. This is not to be confused with forgiveness and overcoming one’s hatred. A person who forgives does indeed feel hatred but seeks to find inner peace or spiritual grace. He is not a denier of hatred but a controller/surmounter of hatred. He feels human emotions of hatred but rises above them. To rise above hatred, one must be able to feel hatred to begin with. (There was a movie not long ago called ‘Forgiving Klaus Barbie.’ The woman in the documentary felt anger and hatred but wanted to go beyond them. She was a person with normal human emotions seeking higher emotions. But, suppose the woman felt no anger and hatred of Klaus Barbie despite what he did to her family. That would be sociopathic and truly frightening.)
One must also acknowledge that feelings of hatred are natural and even essential to the preservation of the self and of society. Of course, some people want to rise above Worldly matters and attain Other Worldly virtues. They may be wise folks or fools, but they don’t deny reality but seek to rise above it. In contrast, The Politically Correct Gang, filled with self-righteous dogma and rage, denies that they feel any kind of Hatred and ascribe HATE purely to the other side in the political spectrum.

Hatred is a necessary moral emotion because all loves need protection. The simplest and most essential form of morality is self-centered. Every creature has a will-to-live and a case for existing in this world and doing whatever’s necessary–hunting, fighting, stealing, etc–to survive. In this sense, even a hungry thief has a moral case to make. "I stole because I’m hungry, and I must eat to live." The consciousness that chooses to steal is taking care of the hungry body. The next level of morality is familial and then tribal. There is strong bond within the family and within the tribe. This level of morality dictates that the group may enforce whatever is necessary for the collective or communal benefit of the group, and individuals within the family or group must recognize loyalty as the most important virtue. It’s a us vs them morality. To protect and serve the Love within the community, the group be hateful to other(hostile) groups. One group may fight off other groups for food and turf. Or, the group may attack other groups to serve its own tribal needs, interests, and ambitions.

As humanity advanced and communities grew larger, greater prosperity allowed some people to think up ‘higher’ ideals than serving basic roles such as warrior, hunter, or farmer. A warrior thought in terms of fighting the enemy to defend or expand the interests of one’s own side. Hunter warred against animals to feed his people. A farmer was rooted to the land, and as such, developed a strong sense of this is ‘my land’ as opposed to that being ‘your land’.
Tribalism was also necessary for political rulers since all leaders ruled over a specific people and territory. Even so, the progress or process of history through countless wars among tribes expanded the notion of humanity. In conquering other tribes and peoples, the political realm grew larger and incorporated a much wider and more diverse groups of people. Peoples who had been tribal enemies found themselves under an expanded community which required a larger definition of WE for there to be peace and stability. When the Greek world had been defined by city-states, each city-state looked upon others as potential rivals or enemies. It was Alexander who finally united all the Greeks through conquest.
Little tribalisms could be swallowed up by a larger tribalism, just like little drops of water could be brought together to form a larger glob of water. The political classes for most of history were very war-like, and as such, all communities were highly tribalistic. For instance, the Ottoman Turks brought into its empire a great diversity of people, but this didn’t necessarily mean universalism(despite the universalist spirituality at the core of Islam). The Ottomans clearly sought to establish an Ottoman Empire distinct from other empires. Because politics for most of history was very much the tool of the military class, political ideas generally couldn’t exist in some utopian theoretical vacuum to formulate a system that would unite all of mankind. Those ‘higher’ ideas and forces–going beyond tribalism–came from the business, intellectual, and spiritual(prophetic) class. Businessmen, unlike the warrior class, spread their power and influence through peaceful trade, not war. Therefore, business was likely to undermine tribalism far more than political/military power ever could. And, intellectuals with a lot of free time and lifelong devotion to ideas were likely to dream up ideas about a New Order in which humanity would be united by advanced theories. Marxism was such an idea. So is democratic idealism and the globalist dreams of the New World Order. If businessmen and intellectuals were still part of the material world, spiritual thinkers and leaders argued against tribalism from an other-worldly perspective. They contended that all men had equal souls in the eyes of God. Therefore, if you spread the gospel of Truth, the world will become united and holy. Of course, there were plenty of spiritual and intellectual people who argued for tribalism, but the general tide was in the other direction because the thrust of all philosophy and spirituality is to find the Unified Truth. Intellectuals seeks truths that apply equally to all peoples and places. Even thinkers on the Right have had this tendency, as evidenced by Carl Jung’s theory of collective consciousness.

Some may argue that religious and business folks always worked hand in hand with the political and military class to gain dominance over other peoples, and as such, business and religion have been no less tribal. This is true enough in terms of practical history; Christian missionaries followed well-armed European seekers of new land, gold, and riches. And, one could argue that the conviction that Christianity or any other religion is better than other faiths is tribalist and imperialist; and this is true enough in terms of how the Christian faith was actually practiced. Even so, the philosophical and spiritual rationale of Christianity was universalist. It imposed itself on other people in order to unite all mankind than to maintain walls–even if, in actual deed, separation was commonly practiced. At any rate, the core beliefs of Christianity was bound to favor, in the long run, anti-tribal values, though, people being what they are, it will always be impossible to totally separate a faith from some degree of tribalism. Tibetan Buddhism is very Tibetan, and black churches are very black.
Same is true of business. Though business followed and spread throughout the world behind empire building via military conquest, the long-term influence of business was to favor rules and regulations over force and might. Though each kingdom or nation favored its own businessmen over others, the rise of the global system loosened the connection between the business class from their nation/kingdom and between the business class and the political/military class. (This is especially with the Jews, many of whom had no firm roots in any single country. Paradoxically, precisely because Jews were far more tribalist than Christians and maintained their separateness, they failed to develop a strong tribal connection with their gentile host country and became more universalist and rootless in their business practices. Because of the Jewish diaspora–with Jews speaking different languages, eating different foods, and wearing different clothes in different countries–Jews failed to develop a specific geo-cultural identity. A Frenchman was French, a German was German, and an Italian was Italian, but a Jew could be both a Jew and a Frenchman, a Jew and a German, or Jew and an Italian. So, it may well be that the concept of dual citizenship is especially precious to Jews because they’ve always maintained dual loyalties. A German during WWI felt loyalty to Germany, a Frenchman felt loyalty to France, and a Russian felt loyalty to Russia, but a German Jew may have felt loyalty to both Germany and to Jews in enemy nations. Today, we have Jews whose loyalty is divided between US and Israel. This may go a long way to explain why conservatives have been eager for Jews to have their homeland in the hope that Jews may develop more a nationalist mindset and lose some of their rootless, two-faced and ‘venal’ qualities.) Today, we have the global business elites in many countries who are closer to one another than to the people of their own countries. Even as the top players in the world business community compete among one another, the rules they ascribe to often trump nationalism(and this is seen as a good thing by Jewish writers like Thomas Friedman, the author of ‘The World Is Flat’).

Of course, extra-national camaraderie among elites was also a feature of the political/military class prior to the 20th century. Many kings and aristocrats in different nations, kingdoms, and empires married one another, associated with another, and had a mutual understanding based on royal blood that transcended tribalism. An Austrian princess could become the Queen of France or a German prince could marry into the Russian aristocracy. A German prince may have felt closer to an English or Russian prince than with Germans of ordinary stock. Of course, one could explain this as a form of pan-European tribalism or a tribalism of class–with highborn people associating together against or above the mob. Some of this was certainly the case after the predations of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In order to maintain their power and privilege, the upper classes of Europe banded together to defend not only tribal kingdoms or nations but upper class privilege. But, oddly enough, this class tribalism had the effect of promoting a degree of European universalism even if that wasn’t the intention among the aristocratic elites. With the English, German, and Russian kings and nobilities being part of one big family(and united against the danger of Nationalism which increasing represented People Power), a greater unity–if slower political progress–formed throughout Europe. Of course, nationalism couldn’t be suppressed indefinitely, and later the aristocratic elite in each country sought to control it by representing its populist aspirations, but this proved to be like playing with dynamite. Aristocratic Pride & Honor were of utmost importance to noblemen but had no place in the modern world where entire populations could be mobilized and armed with weapons of unprecedented destructiveness. In a way, World War I was a duel between aristocrats with millions of men with machines guns as their pistols.

Hatred is also related to other human emotions such as resentment, contempt, and jealousy. One could argue there is no real difference between jealous(or resentment or contempt) and hatred–that jealousy is really just a form of hatred(or a reason for hatred). An ugly girl feels jealousy toward a pretty girl, and this feeling is natural enough. The thoughts and actions of ugly people are often motivated by jealousy toward pretty people, which may explain the popularity of women like Oprah. It’s the revenge of the hags. And, the whole Jewish-led radical feminist movement that began with Betty Friedan had much to with ugly Jewish women’s jealousy(thus hatred) of prettier non-Jewish women(though the leftist Jewesses will never admit it). Communism was fueled by the jealousies and resentment of the intellectual class and by the working(or poor)class. The intellectual class was convinced of its moral and philosophical superiority and resented(hated) the fact that ‘greedy and crass’ bourgeoisie capitalists held most of the power and wealth. And, working class and poor folks were envious of rich people who had more. This jealousy turned into hatred though the Left cleverly disguised their hatred as LOVE OF JUSTICE.
In time, even good many rich people turned to the Left because they tended to be more educated(intellectually vain) and desirous of moral respect. So, the leftist movement was essentially led and controlled by the privileged class(and almost never by the working and peasant class). If hardline communist intellectuals called for a radical revolution, rich and privileged socialists called for a managed or limited capitalism where the expanded government would essentially be controlled by the privileged elite. Under a social-democratic system, the rich and privileged class keep much of their wealth and also hog the machinery of government IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE. Rich and privileged people picked up leftist causes because ‘man does not live on bread alone’. As leftism became morally and intellectually fashionable, a rich person, in order to be invited to fancy cocktail parties, had to be both rich and politically correct. Indeed, the same happened to radical feminism. Though initially cooked up and led by ugly Jewish hags, it gained ‘intellectual’ and moral legitimacy, and its terminology came to dominate all discussion of women’s issues. As such, even pretty women entered the movement to show that they are not only shallow pretty faces but ‘liberated’ womyn with ‘brains’. That’s how the feminist movement went from ugly-mugly Betty Friedan to pretty-betty Gloria Steinem.

Of course, not all hatred are the same. Some hatreds are indeed morally more justifiable than others. But, we must still face the fact hatred is hatred, justified or not, moral or not. So, the totalistic notion that HATE belongs only the Right while the Left is all about LOVE is false. It may well be that leftist hatred is morally of an higher order than right-wing hatred. Maybe not. I would say rightist hatred tends to be more realistic while leftist hatred tends to be more idealistic. Even so, hatred is hatred, and we must make peace with hatred as an essential part of what makes us human.