0 comment Thursday, June 19, 2014 | admin
''Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house''. - Matthew 12:29
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Speech Codes, Stereotyping