History of hatred

When did hate speech begin?

We can go back to before recorded history for this one - no one really knows.

After all, the Mongols hated everyone, and sent hordes to conquer.  If you didn't join them, they hated you to death.  And obviously, they were not the first, just an example of hatred in action.

Even the in Bible, which goes long before the Koran, God hated evil acts.  And the Koran, not to be left out, hated the Jews, Christians, infidels, etc.  And, in fact to this day, they still practice this hatred.  And they lie about it.

When Karl Marx wrote his Manifesto, it was clear the he had no love for the political and economic arrangements in the world; he wanted to propose a form of Utopia that would share everyone's wealth with all.  The problem with that is that any nation or group that has tried to use that formula for success has failed.

Historical fact.  Even China today has abandoned the pure communism/socialism structure, and has opened grudgingly to capitalism.

But let's face it:  It sounds good.  Too bad it just isn't good.

Russia tried it in 1917, when they took over and set up the USSR.  That lasted just over seventy years before it collapsed.  And look at all the natural resources they had.  Instead, whole swaths of their population died because of hatred.  And I'm not talking just about speech here.  Had they been capitalistic and freer with ownership of private property, they might well have been the first world power instead of the USA.  Even Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany had all spread worldwide conquests owing to free ownership of property, but they gave it up for reasons of corruption, mismanagement, conquests that resulted in revolts, etc., or simply lost in wars.

But so far, no real "hate speech".  Patience, I'll get to it shortly.

The Beatniks and Hippies in the 1950s and 1960s tried it with their "communes" and "free love".  They both decried "the man" and "the establishment" for putting their efforts down.  That went nowhere fast, didn't it?  But they also hated the established government authority over them.

Here's the problem with "hate speech":  It leads to censorship of thinking.  Don't think!  Have no opinion lest you be found out and ostracized!  You know, the novel "1984", which predicted a good thirty years too soon the events which we are experiencing today.  Today, thought police are in full swing - it's called "political correctness" or "PC".  And if you disagree, you are guilty of hate speech.

That is nothing more than an attempt to control your thoughts by calling anything and everything you say as an opinion "hate speech".

As far as I am concerned, hate speech is nothing more than an opinion.  After all, if I called out every person who used racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. writings and talking points, I'd be calling everyone "hateful" and guilty of uttering hate speech.  So what if someone calls me "cracker" or "white trash" or whatever.  How different are those terms to "nigger", "wetback" or "gringo"?  Tack on "infidel" and you know that whoever says that actually wants you dead, because it is written in their "holy book" that infidels should be taxed out of existence, made slaves or killed.


Darn.  Just committed "hate speech" by mentioning what the PC police will call "Islamophobia".

How about I call out every person who disparagingly calls me "Scumslime" or other names for identifying hate speech, because that is exactly what they are doing.  And, yes, I will respond in kind because pushing hateful words toward me will get a response.  You don't like it, then be polite.  Otherwise, the war of hateful words is ON.  And on this page, believe me, your post will be promptly deleted.  I strongly dislike hate speech, and I don't have to take your hatred.  On other pages, I will simply ignore you for the most part.  But perhaps not anymore.  I think I'll start a campaign to call out all hateful persons when they put down hate speech, and hold them up for all to see just how hateful they really are.  After all, if they cannot debate, they resort to name calling, and that is just another form of hate speech, isn't it?

How about the MAGA hats?  Isn't the outrage of some people who see those hats and get violent showing hate speech WITH ACTS to back up their hatred?

The latest news comes from Europe:  If you mention "illegal migration" or other named words (and this includes the media, mind you), you can now be prosecuted and go to jail.  I'm sure glad there is a first amendment right here in the USA, but if the Democrats and liberals have their way, that will be out the window as soon as they can legislate it.  They no longer refer to the USA as a "republic", but a "democracy".  It was never set up that way by the Founding Fathers, but the liberals and Democrats are in fact trying their best to convert the USA to a democracy in order to convert it to socialism, which is just one step away from communism and anarchy.  You'll have no more rights to speak your mind, defend your homes and family, nor will you be afforded due process of law.  And anything you say WILL be used against you, no court needed.  Open your eyes, because it is well on its way to being a fact.

Take the Kavanaugh hearings:  He was declared guilty by the Democrats, the news media and other liberals, and they did everything they could to block his appointment to the Supreme Court.  That is not only hate speech (they hate President Trump with such a passion that anything he does is considered terrible), but also hateful acts and a tossing out of the right of due process.  Whatever happened to the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?  I'll tell you:  The Democrats and liberals declare you guilty, and you must prove yourself to be innocent.  Such are the grapes of hatred.

Two years of an investigation into allegations of a non-crime (collusion) has led the prosecutors into searching for ANY crime.  Isn't that not only hate speech, but also hateful acts, if not outright treason for trying to undermine the legally elected President?

Yeah, I know, I use treason too lightly for some people.  Too bad, but when anyone does something to overthrow the valid sitting government just for an agenda, I do consider that treason.  After all, they are in fact enemies of the nation, are they not?


The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 9:30am
Hate crimes and hate speech are both false constructs. A crime is a crime if defined by statute, the motive makes no difference. Likewise speech. Speech is.....just speech. Speech does not incite hatred. Hatred resides in the individual. Just like guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people and with whatever is at hand.
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 3, 2018 - 9:54am
Good points, TBH, but unless you address the lead up to any hateful act, you have no method of knowing who is doing what.  Another term would be profiling by what is being said.
Stephen Hunter Added Dec 3, 2018 - 10:17am
Sunshine you have hit on something that is inherent to human nature, the ability to hate. Our pack animal mentality causes us to keep forming groups, and in doing so the group needs an outsider to hate on. 
I agree that humans' expression of hate should not be censored. However it should be exposed for what it is, the ugly side of humanity. And if we do not keep expressing the opposite, which is  love, then our species is doomed and will self destruct. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Dec 3, 2018 - 10:35am
re"After all, the Mongols hated everyone,"
where did you get that idea?
They were one of the most successful empire in history. 
My research into them shows no hatred
Bill H. Added Dec 3, 2018 - 10:46am
Seems that today's hate here in America is being externally fueled and stimulated. Hate groups have "come out of the closet" and get tons of publicity due to the polarized media that also seems to feed on hate. Both incompetent political parties only see fit to thwart each others efforts, Add this to a "leader" that not only projects a constant negative attitude toward life in general, but seems to enjoy both generating and observing conflict, and the soup of hate is cooked and ready to serve.
Somehow we have become tools for the goals of others, and it would be prudent to counter the creators of hate, rather than spread it amongst ourselves.
Hate and anger are the product of fear.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 11:05am
So whoever is doin' the most hatin' would be the one most afraid. Hmm.....
I do agree, Bill, that there are those who have motive to keep us divided. We just seem to differ in who those parties are
Bill H. Added Dec 3, 2018 - 11:40am
I suggest it comes from both parties.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 3:55pm
As far as I am concerned, hate speech is nothing more than an opinion. See, Sunshine Kid, that's where you should have started and then begun paring down your post from there.
You are often right. You and I agree frequently on numerous issues. But despite this I am compelled to say that you are a complete dildo. If you have a comment about the substance then make it. It doesn't say EditorBeat, does it? No, it does not. Why don't you worry about you being you and let others be who they are. 
Mustafa Kemal Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:11pm
Burghal, if we dont watch out we could end up being referred to as
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:27pm
I hear the domain name is already reserved :)
opher goodwin Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:33pm
The real hate began when Trump started whipping up division - Drain The Swamp, Lock Her Up, Banning Muslims, demonising immigrants, condoning fascists. That took things to a whole new level.
Fake News.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:36pm
You keep telling yourself that Opher. If you chant it long enough maybe it will be true.
opher goodwin Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:38pm
Burger - No - words have power. All violence starts first with words that incite.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:42pm
Dont flatter yourself. I hold ZERO fascination for you
opher goodwin Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:49pm
The Beats and the Hippies did not want to be part of any warmongering, elite-driven war. They did not want the hypocrisy of a conservative society that espoused one thing and did another. They rejected the austerity, elitism, racism, destructiveness and false patriotism. They wanted something simpler, less damaging, more inclusive, more sincere and more meaningful. They saw the heart of America and the UK, with its lip-service to religion, its greed and selfishness, as an empty lie. It was rotten at heart and based on hierarchy and power. It was corrupt.
Corporate America sent its youth to war for economic gain. They made money out of blood.
They did not fight and most avoided sending their own sons into battle. They disproportionately sent the poor and coloured.
Church was a club. If Jesus had come back they would have murdered him.
The laws were flouted. Money talked. If you were rich you could get away with murder. If you were poor or black you got electrocuted.
There was no heart or substance. It was all cash and power.
The Hippies and Beats saw a better way of living. They were, and are, right.
Their legacy is in spiritualism, environmentalism and civil rights.
BTW - Jack Kerouac was an early leader of substance but was undermined by Catholic guilt and alcoholism and became a sad character who was confused, increasingly right-wing and ended up a drunken bum.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:50pm
Amazing, Badlose, you are a walking fairytale.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:52pm
Mebbe go back to Politico, Snopes, and Politifact, did them to continue lying to you about what is and what is not fake news.
Its hilarious you leftists go to leftist sources for them to direct you to what is true or not.  Google is a Bible of sorts to you.  The Gospel of Google leads you to salvation from reality.
Ken Added Dec 3, 2018 - 5:43pm
Where did you get that idea?
They were one of the most successful empire
Maybe because they were the greatest mass murderers in history? It is estimated that Genghis Khan slaughtered almost 25% of the entire world population during his ravaging.
As far as being a successful empire - they were successful conquerors, they were not a successful empire of any sort.  They vanished as quickly as they appeared, ruling for a very short period of time after conquering.
Ken Added Dec 3, 2018 - 5:57pm
The real hate began when Trump started whipping up division - Drain The Swamp, Lock Her Up, Banning Muslims, demonising immigrants, condoning fascists. That took things to a whole new level.
Fake News.
You pretend to be educated and yet your ignorance is astounding.
Trump didn't whip up division, in fact, in many ways he has reached out and tried to calm it down.  Obama is the one who really created the division, but you never bother to mention the source, do you?
It is truly sad how you intentionally remain ignorant and refuse to accept reality.
Drain the swamp - how is that divisive?  Most of America knows how corrupt government is, and want it fixed.
Lock her up - is that not the rule of law?  The fact that she hasn't been investigated at all is disgusting to half of America.  Fortunately there is an IG investigation going on currently that should be quite revealing.
Banning muslims - he never did that.  That is a flat out lie.  He banned immigration from 5 states that HAPPENED TO BE muslim, but were predominantly known as terrorist strongholds.  If he were to ban muslims, why would he ONLY ban about 2% of the population and not even the larger muslim populated countries?j
demonizing immigrants -  Another flat out lie.  He stated that some illegal invaders were criminals and rapists.  That is 100% true.  He never even demonized the majority of the illegals.
Condoning fascists - Again, another flat out lie.  He never condoned them.  He explicitly talked against them.  He said that there were good people there, not all were bad.  That is 100% true.  Many of the protesters there were not white supremacists in any way.
It is staggering how you continue to promote yourself as an educated reasoning person, when you are none of the above.
You are nothing but a leftist ideologue who will say anything to push your agenda.  YOU are fake news.
You continue to say the same crap over and over, even though it has been thoroughly disproven.  As a "scientist"  it should be "settled science" that what you are saying is a lie.
Stop meddling in American political question, because either you know nothing about them no matter how many times they are explained to you, or you are simply flat out lying to make your case and make it sound like America is such an evil country. 
Bill H. Added Dec 3, 2018 - 9:55pm
let me just state that it is refreshing to see people on one side disagree with each other.
Maybe there is hope for the human race after all.
opher goodwin Added Dec 4, 2018 - 6:28am
Ken - you are an extremist fool.
opher goodwin Added Dec 4, 2018 - 6:36am
Mogg - I didn't say that none of the hippies went to fight. I'm sure there were a lot that were conflicted, but the hippie ideology was against violence, against war and against the establishment. The Vietnam war was seen by most of the counterculture as an unjust imperialist war. 
In terms of Jack Kerouac, one of my heroes, I agree with you. His later incarnation, as a right-wing guilt-ridden Catholic drunkard, does not detract the importance of him in my mind. I just find it sad. It's a shame that his early indoctrination finally got to him. If only he, like Allen Ginsberg, had embraced the product of his early work instead of rejecting it, isolating himself and descending into such a morose individual.
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 4, 2018 - 9:58am
Stephen Hunter, Well stated sir!

Mustafa, the Mongols did go out and invade other countries that did them no harm.  What do you call that, "love thy neighbor by the sword"?

Bill H., that is an interesting point you make about hatred being the product of fear.

TBH, I agree that at times I can be dense.  But this time I wrote this piece with the distinct purpose of igniting debate, not trying to stifle it.  Think of the article in that light and see if I have done what I set out to do.

Mustafa:  :)  "Dildobeat" indeed!!!

Opher, I will disagree there.  Sure, President Trump has his detractors, but so did Lincoln (who engineered the first shot of the war when he attempted to resupply a Union fort on Confederate soil), Johnson (who's famous statement was "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next hundred years", Nixon (forced to resign from the office), Jimmy Carter (who failed in so many things that he was labeled as the worst President ever), Clinton (who's dallyance while in office created a scandal), Bush (created a lot of his own problems) and Obama (who promised to "fundamentally transform America").  Need I say more?  And your second post reaffirms exactly what my article is about - "words have power.  All violence starts first with words that incite."  Remember that the next time you see an Antifa rally.

And your points about the Beatniks and Hippies is right on target.  But if you look at what they espoused, rejection of so many things that are part and parcel of life and government, they were in fact attempting to set up a peaceful revolution.  Ditto for your point on corporates and war mongering.  And I'm not getting into any debate about religion.  That's not what my article is focused on.

Ryan Messano, I ask you to please refrain from name calling and put-down comments.  It does nothing toward the discussion.  Let's try to be constructive, not divisive here, OK?

Ken, you get the prize for being incisive with your rebuttles.

Bill H., I could not agree more.  It is good to see HONEST debate here.

Opher, why call anyone with a different opinion a fool?  Aren't you being the divisive one in the conversation by such a personal put down?
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 4, 2018 - 10:05am
To all:  This has been the most enjoyable debate I have seen yet!  I thank you all.
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 5, 2018 - 12:10am
Hate speech laws are completely unnecessary. Violence is already illegal. Harassment is already illegal. 
Why the need to carve out a new distinction of crime? Whose ends does this serve? Because it appears to be unnecessary.
Left-leaning folks sure love the idea. That makes me very wary of hate speech laws. To some left-leaning folks, simply saying "I think homosexuality is harmful to the participants and immoral" is hate speech.
Or I think the vast majority of trans folks are mentally ill individuals in need of help not deforming their bodies. 
To some left-leaning snowflakes, a pastor giving a sermon based on the Bible (inside of his own church) is hate speech. 
Saying that you think abortion is murder, again, would be hate speech to some people on the left. It's against women's rights. You're making them feel bad. 
The list goes on. So it appears that hate speech is apparently anything that disagrees with people on the far left. And they're trying to make it ILLEGAL to disagree with them in public.  
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 5, 2018 - 4:36am
Hate speech is basically criminalizing thoughts, isn't it?  Look at your own definitions of hate speech:  In nearly every case, the leading words are "If you think..."
Making people aware of their conscience is not hate speech, it is awareness awakening.  And hate speech is not only on the far left; it is the moderates trying to fit in to one side or the other by trying to "regulate" acts and thoughts, and that is also hate speech; it is the alt-right for calling anyone who disagrees with their stance by hurling names and invectives.  In either case, the whole point is trying to regulate thought, and that is NOT a good thing for the public.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 5, 2018 - 11:29am
Amen and Amen 
FacePalm Added Dec 5, 2018 - 5:41pm
i just posted on another thread about this very topic.
Rather than cut'n'paste it, i'll attempt to recreate it and see if it goes anywhere different.
"Hate speech" is Bull Shit.
In America, people are free to speak their minds - if they're willing to take the consequences - but no gov't agent is allowed to penalize you for so doing...otherwise, he/she is an Oath-breaking Criminal, a felony perjurer.
What aggravates me the most is various gov't agents making "hate speech" into a crime punishable by fines and jailtime.  Who defines what is "hate speech," and if no man, woman, or child can prove actual damages from hearing it, why is it a crime?  How can it BE a crime if no one is injured save perhaps in their revulsion toward it; the answer to hate speech is countering their points, not eliminating another's right to speak.
After all, Jews in Nazi Germany were PERFECTLY free to salute and shout "Heil Hitler," weren't they?  Popular speech doesn't NEED protection.  UNpopular speech does...and when you can be punished for speaking out against gov't agents abusing their power, it's not too long before the concentration camps are set up again, despite the promise of "never again."
Jefferson said that "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," if i recall correctly, and this is how it should be.  Lousy ideas and hate-filled rhetoric MUST be allowed access to the marketplace of ideas, so that the hatred can be confronted, contradicted, confuted, and rebutted so thoroughly that no one BUYS it.  If no one buys the hatred, it goes where all bad ideas go, the dustbin of history.  If it is suppressed, it merely goes underground where resentments seethe and often grow into psychoses which manifest as murder or worse.
In any society which calls itself "free," freedom of expression MUST NOT be ended or criminal penalties apply for being non-conformist.
The people currently rotting in jails in Germany for denying the Holocaust: what damage did their hearers suffer, again?  Broken bones?  Lacerations?  Bruises?  Contusions?
Speech.  It's a wonderful gift.  We learn best, i believe, from the free exchange of ideas and the experiences we have after trying these ideas out.  If the ideas suck, the results will teach us to not do THAT again; if they're successful, we can be mostly assured that repetition of those ideas will be beneficial. 
Anyone eager to punish "others" must recall that if they want to enjoy the fruits of Liberty, they MUST secure Rights to their fellow man, no matter how "hateful" they think he is.  If they do not, if they punish someone else for the exercise of their liberty to speak freely, they will have established a precedent which will come back to haunt them.  Who DEFINES "hate speech" today may RE-define it tomorrow, and the speech YOU have chosen to exercise may shortly become "illegal," too.
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 5, 2018 - 6:10pm
FacePalm, you cover the subject well, but you did make one mistake:  You stated "Jews in Nazi Germany were PERFECTLY free to salute and shout "Heil Hitler," weren't they?"  Actually, that was almost (but not quite) a requirement in Germany.  The speech might have been hateful to the Jews, but not to Hitler, who was controlling Germany at the time.
What the conversation boils down to is whether inappropriate words are embarrassing or have other consequences should be born only by the speaker from the listener, not the government.  The only exception to that is where slander or libel that impunes the dignity or honor of the subjected person(s), such as a lie about their acts or an accusation of wrongdoing.  In those cases, it is up to the listener to file the case to be adjudicated by the court.  The government cannot file the case on its own without a complainant.
FacePalm Added Dec 6, 2018 - 12:00am
Point taken.
As you know, slander is making false statements known to be false in order to damage the reputation or business of another; libel is the same thing, only in writing.  Truth is an absolute defense to both of these charges, esp. if the charges were filed maliciously, intending to impugn the honor, dignity, or history of the injured party.  In such cases it is difficult to prove damages.  About all one can do when suing is to bring witnesses who would have hired you but for what they'd heard about you..
Another perhaps-obscure point; if you wish to compel the court to act under Common Law, you will demand that they produce the "claimant," not the "complainant."  Under the 6th Amendment, if they cannot put the claimant on the witness stand to be cross-examined, due process has been violated.  This would apply to any and all fictional entities like the State or any corporation(and the State is also a corporation, mostly bankrupt these days, and therefore in receivership to the "holder(s) in due course of the bankruptcy"(ies).
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 1:39am
"Historical fact.  Even China today has abandoned the pure communism/socialism structure, and has opened grudgingly to capitalism."
China, despite claims of still being a Communist nation, and leading with a very oppressive, communist type government, has still remained largely socialist in reality, with government maintaining very strict controls over industry. 
FacePalm Added Dec 6, 2018 - 3:00am
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the way i recall Marxist theory, socialism was to be the final step prior to communism, which was defined as the "worker's paradise."  Since there has never yet been a "worker's paradise," communism as theorized has never existed on this planet.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 3:27am
It was originally by definition intended to be that way, though I would say in China, the "reversion" (for lack of a better term) to the more Socialist standards, were primarily conducted in the interest of financial self-preservation.
FacePalm Added Dec 6, 2018 - 4:33am
i've been given to understand that certain Western banking/corporate interests funded the Maoist revolution ab initio, as part of their "strategic tension" strategy, that is, to create enemies so that wars became "necessary," all in service to their ultimate goal of establishing a NWO/OWG of "an elite, unrestrained by traditional values*," tax-free, above the laws that are applicable to the hoi and the polloi, unaccountable to anyone(human, that is),
But yeah, they're(the chicoms) socialists who are major control freaks....and they're being assisted by many treasonous US corporate entities right now, Google and Apple among them, to implement their total surveillance strategies and penalize those who disagree or commit "crimes" like jaywalking or opposing any gov't policy.
All three of these are combining to "help" Venezuela implement an identical strategy there, and the globalists want this same surveillance state to cover the entire globe...part of their anti-human strategy.
*original quote taken from this:
"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.  Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
-- Zbigniew Brezhinsky, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and advisor to 4 other presidents, Executive Director of Trilateral Commission
Source: from his book, BETWEEN TWO AGES, 1970.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 5:46am
London and the US financed it, largely through HSBC ... or what would become HSBC. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 5:47am
Remember, they were still our "allies" at the time. Subject of course, to the intrusion of Western Values into their internal management ... cough cough. 

Recent Articles by Writers Sunshine Kid follows.