"GREED SPEECH" IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN "HATE SPEECH"

Greed > Hate

by Colin Liddell

A society, among many other things, is a piece of moral architecture. Certain ideas and values are cemented into its walls and can be very hard to move. Often we are simply required to accept them without question.

When the world was "remade" at the end of WWII, one of the ideas that got lodged in the socio-moral structure was that hatred per se was bad. In fact, hatred was so bad that we were...ahem...required to hate it.

At first this was implicit, but over time, it became more and more explicit, so that now it has become an almost religious tenet of our "diverse" and "inclusive" Western societies, despite its obviously paradoxical nature.

We now have concepts like "hate crime," "hate speech," and so on. Even worse—they are extremely subjective in how they are applied, which essentially means that they follow the flows of cultural, economic, and political power—rather than providing a fair and independent counterbalance to them.

Yes, this piece of moral architecture is particularly susceptible to abuse. But more than this, the whole concept of "hate crime" is deeply absurd.

Here is Wikipedia's "normie-centric" entry on it:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or race.

So far I'm not impressed...(continues):

Examples of such groups can include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called "bias incidents".

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

As you can see, this is not telling you anything you didn't know already. It's saying little beyond "the bad thing = other bad things" and "bad things are bad."

But the biggest weakness is their causation, as they are clearly implying that the end result of any feeling of hatred is an actual incident of physical violence. However, I'm pretty sure that most hatred exists quite silently and invisibly, and never manifests itself. The vast majority of people swallow practically all of their hatred. In fact, a case could be made that hatred is simply anger and violence that never happened, and that a society with less hatred would be an immeasurably more violent and chaotic one as a result. Yes, hatred may even be the glue that holds societies together, and our phobia of it may be the thing now pulling our societies apart.

George Bernard Shaw once said “Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated,” and this is also why we get people saying things like "Hate is a useless emotion,” etc.

This gentleman wants to stop you hating, and
is prepared to micromanage your emotions.

What they mean here is that it is generally an impotent feeling that, more often than not, makes the hater ill, uncomfortable, or mildly depressed, while having no measurable effect on the object of hatred.

This is probably even more true today, when technology has given us the perfect vent for our hatreds—the internet (although that seems to be rapidly changing with the increasingly heavy hand of censorship coming in).

The simple fact is that hatred is more often connected to stomach ulcers and insomnia than it is to the so-called "sexy stuff" of lynchings, murders, and pogroms that our over-excited culture presents it as invariably causing.

So, what is the "story behind the story" of all this hatred we keep hearing about?

This lady hates hatred so much that
she has become a dried out, ugly shell.  

Sure, it is capable, on comparatively rare occasions, of causing violence and even murder, and it can even become a group emotion. But is it the only emotion to cause violence? Obviously not. Other emotions cause violence too, and it can even be argued that hatred is merely their corollary or sidekick

Just to keep it simple, let's just look at greed.

Where is our society's focus on "greed crimes" and the evils of "greed speech" that provokes all the dangerous greed in the world?

Greed, just like hatred, leads to terrible acts of violence. Bank robberies, muggings, and, yes, even wars are all caused by it. Yet, our socio-moral propaganda apparatus doesn't bleat on, day and night, about the evils of "greed speech" and denounce TV commercials, advertising, and the gratuitous promotion of conspicuous consumerism.

WWII, we are told, was an event caused by collective hatred. It is more coherent, however, to say it was caused by collective greed, and that more deaths are quite literally greed-related than hate related. In fact, many of the Germans and Russians thrown into meat-grinder battles by their superiors obviously hated their own bosses more than anyone else, but they only acted on that hatred in extremely rare cases like Operation Valkyrie, when German soldiers tried to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazis.

But back to the greed—whether rightly or wrongly, poor Germans in the 1930s envied rich Jews and craved their wealth, boosting the rise of the Nazis. Something similarly "greedcentric" and genocidal had happened in Russia during the revolutionary period. Then, once the Nazis were in power, the collective German greed for living space (lebensraum) and the natural resources they needed to be self-sufficient (Ukrainian wheat, Caucasian oil, etc.) led to wars of expansion that wiped out tens of millions.

Even the Nazis were more about greed than hatred.

Even in the most atrocious crimes of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany—namely the genocide of millions of helpless people—the operative emotion was not hatred so much as greed. Three million Russian POWs died in the hands of the Germans—to say nothing of Jewish civilians—while millions of Ukrainians and others died in the hands of the Soviets just in the pre-war period.

Those millions were not killed by men in a hot passion of hatred. That would have been extremely tiring and even debilitating. The fact is that most of those killed essentially died from starvation and neglect, and this happened because their captors were too greedy (and lazy) to share what little food they had with them.

Even in those cases where people were actively murdered, it is not the element of hatred that strikes you, but the cold-bloodedness of the act:

The chief Soviet executioner, Vasily Blokhin, personally dealt with a quota of 300 executions a night. Dressed in a leather apron and leather gloves, he would wait in a soundproof room, painted bright red with a sloping floor and a drain, and shoot the prisoners as they were brought in one-by-one in the base of the skull. For these and other heroic services he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner, twice (1940, 1944), the Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943), the Order of Lenin (1945), and the Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945). Blokhin and his master, Stalin, typify the kind of regime that the Soviet Union was.

It would be absurd to say Blokhin hated all or any of his nightly quota of 300. He simply didn't know them. They were simply part of a political process that was aimed at reshaping a certain society, one that was being reshaped by greed more than by any other emotion.

Greed too is at the root of the evil eating our modern societies, although some attempt is made to dress this up as "hatred" too.

Identity politics is not hatred of other groups so much as greed for what the other group has. Not having something—i.e. a cause of greed—is then turned around and called "racism" by the greedy to stigmatize those who are less greedy because they already have stuff.

Have you ever wondered why only White people can be "racists"? This is because only affluent groups can "provoke" the greed of others. The dominant role of greed in identity politics is especially apparent in the ongoing riots, where we see that the focus is almost always on emptying stores, with violence mainly directed at those who get in the way of satisfying that desire. 

Hate speech is clearly not the problem, and never has been. Greed speech is. So, Big Tech, if you are listening, it's clearly up to you to do your thing and help stamp out greed crimes by stifling greed speech. I'll let you work out the details and the algorithms.

Note: Links to our site are banned on Facebook, so if you wish to share this article there please use the identical version available at this site.

Become a Patron!