On the "Hate Speech" Psy-op
How to shamelessly win arguments.
If you’re out there to “win arguments” without shame or honesty, the easiest way
to do it is variously distort, shame and socially discredit everyone else to
such an extent that impressionable people are left with a choice of either
extreme social shame or taking your side no matter how patently dishonest and
illogical you are.
This is really how the modern propaganda engine works. It is never so good at
justifying what it wants, but it is expert at herding very well-socialized
people away from everything else. This has given us the bizarre state of affairs
where everyone openly consents to elite values, but privately knows they’re
lies.
Hate Speech
The idea of “Hate Speech” is one of the most concise and pure-distilled examples
of this technique that it has really become the tool of choice of the
opinion-molding class. It’s so easy, even a journalist could use it!
A lot of “conservative” people in pop-politics have definitely come to
understand that the accusation of “hate speech” is tool used only on those it
could not actually apply to. But why this term of all other possible ones?
First, let’s inspect its traits:
If you accuse your opponent of “Hate Speech,” in fact, even use the word, you
are creating the presuppositions that:
1. My opponent is emotional.
2. My opponent doesn’t have any real rational reasons to believe what he argues
for due to that emotional motivation.
3. All people who believe his stance too are merely emotionally distorted.
4. My stance is so naturally obvious to people who are not emotional.
If you accuse someone in passing of “Hate speech,” you are making a tacit claim
not just that they are governed by emotions, but that irrational emotions are
the only possible justification for their stance. It’s a great tool as an
accusation because it’s throwing a quick emotional tar and feathers on a target
to frame an argument—and the only way to extricate for a target to free himself
is to painstakingly explain himself (which no one has time for) or for the
audience to actually invest time into understanding the wider context.
As an aside, it is definitely true that most “debates” are not logical, but
tactical: people make associations to make their enemies look bad, and throw
out arguments not even that are necessarily good, but that require time and
mental effort—and sometime some inspired conciseness—to dismiss. Most debates
are really emotional and mental gauntelets—and by “mental,” I don’t meant of
intelligence or wit, but of sheer endurance of annoyance.
Either way, the normie, who lives in constant fear of being associated with
scary buzzwords, scatters from the target of accusations of “hate speech” like a
cockroach. To even deconstruct the psy-op I just outlined that’s way more
verbal effort and risk than most people are willing to do, even if they are
aware of the well-poisoning that comes with the term “hate speech.”
Hermetically-sealed Hate Domains
Why theres no platform for Hate.
I’m reminded of the old 1989 “debate” between Philippe
Rushton and one David Suzuki which can thankfully
still be found even on YouTube.
It is worth observing that spectacle.
The debate was supposed to about genetic differences across races,
particularly Rushton’s forte of IQ, etc. I stumbled across the debate as a
teenage socialist and had never heard the research on race and genetics in
Rushton’s 20 minute opening statement, so I eagerly awaited Suzuki’s rebuttal.
The rebuttal never came. Instead, Suzuki took the stage and chided the
university for even allowing his opponent to speak. His speaking time was a
constant flurry of “Hate Speech”-style accusations that were honestly awkward
and shameless, not to mention devoid of even inept attempts to negate Rushton’s
case. Suzuki at most only managed to repeat angrily a couple mantras of faith
that everyone in the modern west is fed.
On a factual level and for “rational people,” Suzuki was loudly and
embarrassingly admitting defeat. But rhetorically, he won: he provided an
emotional out for those who wanted to stay in denial, he promoted fear among the
undecided, and he poisoned the very argument itself with the “Hate Speech”
technique.
Surely the crowd of Canadian university leftists was in his pocket beforehand,
but it just took a little social prodding to have them cheering for him. If he
had simply tried to rationally (and ineptly) tackle the science in front of him
like an honest person, he would’ve “lost” the debate and many more of those
leftists would have wavered in or lost their faith.
Racial genetic differences were such a losing issue for leftist intelligentsia
that they have been so perfectly suppressed—and are really the Patient Zero
issue for “Hate Speech” accusations. Even seeing a packed stadium in the Rushton
debate is cause for nostalgia: congregating 10 people on a university campus to
talk about racial genetics nowadays is sure to fall victim of a bomb threat,
terroristic reprisals and official condemnation and expulsion from the
university itself.
This is the power of the “Hate Speech” psyop. You don’t have to have a case. In
fact, it might be better if you don’t. Calling something “Hate Speech” is what
they call talking past the sale.
The leftist professor merely publicly presupposed that his opponent was
wrong, and took the discussion to, “Since we suppose that he is wrong and evilly
motivated, how can we suppress him?” This of course, is the same thing that a
modern journalist does.
This is substantially more effective than honestly taking the L.
Hate Speech to create hate.
The use of the term “Hate Speech” is agit-prop and tactical frustration in
itself. It’s such a mendacious and condescending rhetorical technique because it
is targeted at people who aren’t at all emotional about their stances
with the specific goal to make them emotional.
Compare the pose of Rushton and his supporters with his debate opponent and his
supporters in the video above. Who is hateful? Who is motivated by emotion and
ignorance?
Nonetheless, the goal is to make politically persecuted people upset by
categorically dismissing their needs and to provoke them to anger, thus
simultaneously creating and proving the concept of “hate” as a motivation.
It’s the political equivalent of “Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you
hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?” It’s a game where a powerful
party humiliates their underlings with hopes of attempted retribution.
Accusations of “hate speech” are not leveled to decrease some amorphous ball of
“hate” out in society, but to rapidly increase it. I’ve talked about this
technique used by the
media in videos, but the
very obvious goal is to provoke public fury and use that fury as a justification
to tightening the screws even more severely.
Requisite Propaganda
Obviously, only a fool would think anyone could accuse someone of “hate speech”
and it be effective just by those magical words itself. “Hate” is a gun that
only fires rightward. That’s why it’s a useful weapon for the powers that be.
It’s a weapon that one cannot fight back with.
This is because the media has brought us up with an unrelenting stream of
imaginary archetypes of “hate.” Only if the accusation matches one of these
archetypes is it truly the “hate” of “hate speech.” When someone is called a
hater, that accusation only resonates in the mind of brainwashed westerners if
it matches the thousands of force-fed incidents of micro-drama we’ve gotten from
television, film and social media.
How many times has a TV show shown you a vignette of, say, a perfectly innocent
black man who out of the blue is mercilessly terrified by a evil white person?
Everyone in the scene looks on in shame, but no one stands up for the harmless
colored gentleman, so the show or film can pull each emotional string until the
sickened and confused audience privately fumes with hatred against those odious
white haters. Every person with at least a toe in reality viscerally notices how
out-of-sync such scenes are with real life, but the psychological effect of the
constant stream of exactly this type of brainwashing causes people to accept
there must be some reality to this “hate.”
We are supposed to think whites “hate” non-whites. We will get a constant stream
of imaginary examples of these in TV shows which have no correspondence to
reality. Men “hate” women. Attractive people “hate” unattractive people.
Christians “hate” other religions. Jocks/chads “hate” losers. The strong “hate”
the weak. And everyone “hates” the poor, innocent Jews.
In each case, this “hate” is only depicted in one direction. Therefore using the
acclamation of “hate speech” only works when it is buttressed by the many media
vignette one holds in his memory of subconscious. Therefore, accusing a man,
Christian or an attractive jock of “hate” works, but accusing a vindictive
woman, Jew or nerd of the same for some reason doesn’t, when more accurate.
The inundation of propaganda is so intense that it continues on its own
momentum. If you want to peek down a confusing rabbit hole, there is an entire
cottage industry of social media accounts make professionally-produced
imaginary scenarios that mimic mainstream “hate”
propaganda. Stranger than that, you
might notice that in the comments to such videos, perhaps a strong majority of
people don’t seem to notice that these are fictional videos—obviously staged for
either clicks or for more pernicious brainwashing content.
We can laugh at those commenters, but it’s probable that you haven’t noticed
the same fictionality in the TV and media you grew up with. Even if you
rejected the fakery of specific hoaxes, the wider gestalt of what we are
supposed to believe remains. You might realize that each and every imaginary
“Nazi” event in mass-media fiction is, in fact, fiction—but all people,
even the most “red-pilled” walk away from the TV with some idea that there must
be some kind of truth to, say, the idea of secret Nazis lurking everywhere in
the shadows ready to “hate” unsuspecting victims. At the very least you might
feel the need to differentiate yourself from these phantasmagorical Nazis.
Because of this, Hollywood can publish very absurd agit-prop to get you to
actually hate men/whites/chads/Christians or whichever target group they
have prepped as being most important to undermine for their program or personal
vindiction. Nowadays they are becoming more artless, blatant and ham-fisted, so
you get films like this or things like
Tarantino’s films about Nazis or southerners that are passed off as “fun jokes”
and “exaggeration,” but have already been transmuted from ludicrous myth to
assumed history in the mainstream mind.
Ultimately, there is no blood libel too ridiculous for them to accuse their
enemies of. Logic is a line they want to cross, because when they do,
you—their target—might leap into anger and reactivity.
Overcome Evil with Good
It is most important, however, that you not read this as agit-prop. Indeed,
we should have natural reactions of disgust to lies and propaganda, but the
entire point of the “hate speech” psy-op is to frustrate the target into
embodying the very accusation. Enough haranguing and the most sensible
people become more the imaginary Nazis the media is looking for—well, at least
something somewhat like them.
But as Saint Paul says simply, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good.” I’m describing an illness in this article, not so you can get upset at
the people who inflict it, but so that when you know what it is and how it
works, you don’t have too react or otherwise be psy-opped by the rhetoric.