What is Hate?

[OuterLimits]

"Hate" has become a pejorative for information that one either a) doesn't want to know; b) shouldn't know; c) shouldn't be allowed to know.

http://klas.images.worldnow.com/images/3908022_BG4.jpg

Could 'hate' be the watchword of an ongoing PR campaign, designed specifically to criminalize information, dangerous to a certain paronoid and alien segment of the population? Is this a random outpouring of 'social consciousness' or the deliberate machinations of an interested group?



---
Pick the option you feel best describes "hate" today, or post a comment below.



Cheers,
Team Vanguard

[NewsGuy]

Hate is such a subjective thing that all of your choices apply.

Hate can be information you don't want to know because it jostles your beliefs so hard that you take offence to it; it's information you shouldn't know, at least according to those who do not want you to know about it; and it is also information you shouldn't be allowed to know because it can rile to what another version of truth, or reality.

Take The Right Perspective (http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=8643) for example. The podcast version of a shortwave radio show heard every Friday night at 9pm EST at www.therightperspective.com (http://www.therightperspective.com), its hosts are not anti-semitic in any way whatsoever. Nor do they put down Blacks or other minorities. Frank & John do take a strong, pro-White stand on political issues, such as affirmative action, revisionism and the plight of the Afrikaaners.

Because The Right Perspective speaks out forthrightly on matters from a pro-White view, they are branded a "haters" by some of the callers. Listen to the latest show, around the 50 minute mark to see what I'm talking about.

In reality, what Frank & John are doing are bringing issues forward that shake people out of their current sensibilites, and discuss issues that regualar "conservative" shows are too afraid to touch, mostly because they don't think those issues should not be discussed because of politcal gameplay.

[OuterLimits]

Hate is such a subjective thing that all of your choices apply.

Hate can be information you don't want to know because it jostles your beliefs so hard that you take offence to it; it's information you shouldn't know, at least according to those who do not want you to know about it; and it is also information you shouldn't be allowed to know because it can rile to what another version of truth, or reality.

Well said NewsGuy. But there is still another factor at work. When one is required by the dictates of social engineering to 'overcome' empirical facts, a disingenous, cynical game begins. People with a wit of intelligence 'know the score' and they therefore profoundly resent someone -- who should also have the sense to 'knows the score' -- spilling the beans and pursuing a strictily rational analysis of the facts -- leaving them up in the clouds with their castles and bogus 'belief system'. Don't believe me? Check these DOJ statistics:

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/dojstats.htm

A situation developes in which most non-ideologues agree with us in private, but would still publicly denounce us. They do this because knowing the truth has benefits and because speaking the truth does not -- within our engineered context.

The mass-media has played a crucial role in engineering our context -- with its benefits and punishments -- but is just now beginning to see competition... Itz a power struggle really and one in which the 'short-term' detriments of not going along with the establishment, do not outweigh the potential long-term benefits of being free.

So long as they can manage to present themselves as the 'majority' they will continue to control what is acceptable and what is not... but that is changing rapidly and our footing is infinitely more solid than the going party line. That's why we made it to #2 in the cultural/politicial category before we were 'cleansed' from podcastalley's directory...

Cheers,
8)

[OuterLimits]

More about 'hate' here:

Five academic journals rejected the piece that Professor Adams wrote. One reviewer wrote that the piece was “not appropriate” for an academic journal but might be more suitable in one of the professor’s columns.


http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9057

[OuterLimits]

Relating to process:

The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above.

But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals. Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience – real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.

We are closer to the facts if we explain these phenomena as inherent in the technical and personnel apparatus which, down to its last cog, itself forms part of the economic mechanism of selection. In addition there is the agreement – or at least the determination – of all executive authorities not to produce or sanction anything that in any way differs from their own rules, their own ideas about consumers, or above all themselves.

In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry – steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easy-going liberalism and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored.

The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape; the distinctions are emphasised and extended. The public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification. Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type. Consumers appear as statistics on research organisation charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda.

How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end. That the difference between the Chrysler range and General Motors products is basically illusory strikes every child with a keen interest in varieties. What connoisseurs discuss as good or bad points serve only to perpetuate the semblance of competition and range of choice. The same applies to the Warner Brothers and Metro Goldwyn Mayer productions. But even the differences between the more expensive and cheaper models put out by the same firm steadily diminish: for automobiles, there are such differences as the number of cylinders, cubic capacity, details of patented gadgets; and for films there are the number of stars, the extravagant use of technology, labor, and equipment, and the introduction of the latest psychological formulas. The universal criterion of merit is the amount of “conspicuous production,” of blatant cash investment. The varying budgets in the culture industry do not bear the slightest relation to factual values, to the meaning of the products themselves.

Even the technical media are relentlessly forced into uniformity. Television aims at a synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter drastically...

- Adorno

[OuterLimits]

Before we were banned:


38. GoyFire

Date : 10/4/2005 2:24:25 PM
Source : PodcastAlley.com Top 50 Podcasts
Link : http://feeds.feedburner.com/Goyfire

Political Commentary for Whites

http://www.plazoo.com/en/item/26386954.htm