Our Era of Malice :Edward Cline
https://edwardcline.blogspot.com/2018/08/our-era-of-malice.html
The malice shown for Donald Trump before and after his election had always been there. Not just for Trump, but for America. For the Democrats and their allies in and out of newsrooms, having lost the election in 2016, it had to be expressed, in the news, and in print. It is a necessary urge to vent the venomous lump of hatred in its soul. It didn’t come from nowhere, as a sudden hatred. It had been growing and lurking for years, and awaited the chance to bellow, when its prancing unicorns were being disassembled and dissolved by Trump. The malice is evident in the ubiquity of hate speech, in the rants of Maxin Waters and others in and out of Congress.
Aside from political correctness, “hate speech” is the most pernicious anti-concept in today’s cultural circulation of mental submission. Today, hate speech is as common as cursing. Separated from the object of its wrath, it is an emotional expression that means nothing. It is vibrations in the wind. In print, or physically, hate speech of the anti-Western or anti-Semitic kinds, is just bellows in the air, akin to gorillas roaring and beating their chests in contesting superiority as an alpha male. Unless the gorilla attacked following his roar, it means nothing but a lot of vacuity.
The “tech giants” – Facebook, Google, and others – ban sites such as Alex Jones and others because they violated some ambiguous and relatively unknown“ rules” of publication of what they deem “hate speech.”
There is no one irrefutable authority that defines the meaning of hate speech. Wikipedia tries to cover all the usual but unprovable objects of it but does not define the concept itself:
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
By this “definition,” we can define of the objects of hate speech but not hate speech itself.
Hate speech is treated by most observers as though it had the power of a gun, or had the metaphysical potency to inflict harm, or could cause emotional “suffering.” If someone claims it causes “emotional harm,” that is merely an unprovable assertion. Hate speech is, when one boils it down, an expression of malice. If the malice does not result in physical action, then there is no significance in it.
Hate speech itself should not be a prosecutable “crime” – only the actions resulting from a bigoted or biased instance of it. Hate speech cannot by itself inflict physical harm. Hate speech, as it has been accepted over the years, is a wedge that allows censorship. If someone or something is offensive to one, one has the choice to avoid it.
Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter could just as well call a designation of a statement as hate speech as reverse “pathological altruism.” “Feel sorry for me, I’ve been offended! See the painful blots in my mind and on my self-esteem!”
The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) attempts the same Wikipedia blanket association of hate speech, but does not define it. Anything negative said about Muslims, gays, transgenders, Antifa, etc., is considered “hate speech.”
Jihad Watch reports that a former Mayor of London and current Member of Parliament, Boris Johnson, made headlines for his comments about women wearing the burqa:
He stated that:
He did not want the full-face veil and gown donned by some Muslim women to be banned in Britain but the outfit was “ridiculous” and “weird”. He also said it made its wearers look like letter boxes or bank robbers.
So, the British authorities and the Conservative Party are seriously investigating whether or not Johnson’s “joke” about Mulsimas in burqas as “letter boxes” is a “hate crime.” (There is a better term Johnson could have used, one that is fairly common here in the U.S.: Head- bags, or trash bags.)
Gateway Institute reports:
Johnson has refused to apologize, and the Conservative Party has now launched an inquiry into whether Johnson’s comments violated its code of conduct, which states that Tory officials and elected representatives must “lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance” and not “use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others.”
Johnson’s full remark is here:
“What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live? If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree — and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes….
“If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery [one-on-one meetingsbetween MPs and their constituents] with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled… to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber, then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct.”
| The Deep State argues |
The SPLC is so out to lunch, it is quite possible that if someone verbally expressed his displeasure for the chocolate ice cream served by Dairy Queen, he could be accused of hate speech, because the ice cream implies a resemblance to people of color in the same restaurant (or perhaps not even in the store). So, if “hate speech” is uttered but is in fact criticism of Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren or Maxine Waters, no matter how vociferous it is, if it does not result in a physical attack on them, it matters not. It’s just vibrations in the air, and may was well have been uttered on Pluto.
But the FBI regularly based its decisions on what the SPLC constituted hate speech. THE FBI for the longest time relied on the SPLC as a guide to identifying “hate” groups.
The Daily Caller reported in February 2017 :
In 2014, the FBI removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) from the resources page of its civil rights division, telling The Daily Caller at the time that the removal was because the groups were not themselves government-run.
“Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government,” an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller in 2014. “While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page.”
| The nub of fake news |
These are likely “conservative” groups the FBI would rather not identify or give credit to. The designation of “hate speech” is almost exclusively reserved for statements made by “conservatives” or statements or instances of reason breaking through the “glass ceiling” of political correctness.
The SPLC is akin to a backyard gossip repeating the slander and defamation of others uttered by neighbors.
In the end, the guiltiest party of uttering or publicizing hate speech are the Democrats and their allies in and out of office. Nothing they’ve ever accused Trump of has any substance or credibility. We are tired of its nattering. All we are hearing is the expression of the Trump Derangement Syndrome and evidence of clinical madness.
Posted by Edward Cline at 1:32 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
No comments:
Comments are closed.
