The Path of Hate

in Proof of Brain5 days ago

Have you ever noticed whom it is that will tell you the most about the people they hate? I find it often to be the people demanding others be shut down for so-called "hate speech". It is not uncommon depending upon the format of their discussion, article, etc. to see them later on talking about people they dislike, hate, etc. They will often demand these people be censored, fired, or otherwise shunned from society.

The flip side of the story occurs when you go and actually read sites and listen to the people being accused of "hate speech". They don't speak nearly as often about hating people. Often there is not anything even remotely hateful in what they are writing. If you look for patterns and pay attention you will see them. It is hard not to see them these days if you actually pay attention and don't send things you find uncomfortable to your mental spam filters.

I am going to call a group the Controllers from this point on. I will define them now. The controllers are the corporations that control most of the media, film production, music labels, etc. They often also are affiliated with large pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. The controllers are also those who largely have arisen from "Silicon Valley" to create what we call social media platforms. Though it may not be the owners of those companies that are completely in control. The controllers are the politicians, and so-called scientists that are obedient to the demands of the controllers. There are narratives that are beneficial to the controllers. The news must be presented in a certain way. It must only be allowed to push people in one direction. This push can be in the form of crafting the idea that the direction is the "norm" and thinking outside of that direction is abnormal. That will often sway many people as they would rather fit in with the crowd than be perceived as an outsider and possibly targeted for attack, shunning, ridicule, etc.


If you pay attention to whom the controllers are you may realize they are in a position to create the illusion of the crowd. They can push words and phrases like "everyone", "most people", "the consensus is" and craft whom the crowd is perceived to be. They can do this even if that is not actually the crowd. They control the media and the gateways through which most people get the majority of their input and information. They can push the crowd into being perceived as whatever they want it to be.

They can muffle, shadow ban, and censor views and information they do not want to have attention. They can do this even if the source of that information even could be considered part of the majority. By doing this they hide the crowd. They can then elevate and amplify narratives they want given attention. By doing this and pushing it out there frequently they create the illusion of whom the crowd is.

If that illusion becomes strong enough by repeated and frequent repetition then they now have a useful tool. They can begin to manipulate the people that never want to be outside of the in-crowd. They can play upon the fear of those people. They can weaponize them. If someone speaks up against the desired narrative. They need only point out that the person speaking up is not part of the majority and indicate they are somehow deficient, evil, corrupt. At this point the people who want to be beholden to the in-crowd will often do the rest of the work for them. They will begin attacking that person. The controllers need not tell them to attack. They only needed to craft the narrative about who the crowd is. Then they play upon the natural tendencies of people to want to be perceived as accepted by the crowd to defend their narrative.

The problem is that the narrative is fake. It is an illusion. It is carefully crafted.

The last century and then some of psychological, and sociological experiments on behavior needed to go somewhere. We saw some of that half way through the 20th century. It went to some very dark places. That is also during the time propaganda arose. Do you think they stopped there?

They have studied and funded the study of behavior nonstop and in increasing quantities since that time. Do you seriously think they have nothing to show from those studies? What use are those studies?

What would a person want with that information?

Look around you. The veil will begin to fall. Not all of it as it seems to be vast and have drifted into many different corners of life. You can see those studies at work.

What would they do with them?

Do you see evidence of them being used to make people less resistant to manipulation?

If you do see that please let me know. That was one of the guises such studies often operated under. When I look I see them removing things that they found out made it more difficult to manipulate people.

What would be the result of things when you remove those things that help us resist manipulation?

The people in the past that condoned atrocities were fools right?

I suspect they had more environmental and educational background to resist manipulation than many people today.

While we were learning the signs of bad things in history and why we should never want to do those things again the controllers were learning something else. They were learning the things that lead to the exposure and failure of their manipulations. They were learning what not to repeat in order for their plans not to be stopped. They were learning about enemies and ideas that needed to be crushed so they would not get in their way.

They were and still are very wealthy, and very powerful.

Now they are very wealthy, very powerful, and very influential with a century's worth of psychological manipulation studies results in their arsenal of tools.


One thing I think their studies likely lead them to perceive (speculation on my part) is that people have a desire to simplify complex thoughts and situations. The more simple we can make it the easier it is to hold it as some small thought idea without having our minds almost completely consumed by trying to visualize the complex whole. This is a survival mechanism and it is a mental tool. It has enabled us to do a great many things. We simplify a complex thing down into a simple thing and give it a word. Now that word can be used in place of the complex thing and we can build bigger complex mental ideas by putting these words together. We can then simplify those things and create a new word. This is incredibly powerful and has enabled us to rapidly advance.

It can also be weaponized against us. If someone proposes a complex narrative to explain things going on if that narrative is contrary to the desires of the controllers all they need do is ridicule it and push towards a simpler sollution.

They have conditioned some of us to have a near reflexive behavior to latch onto various "Razors" such as "Occam's Razor" or "Hanlon's Razor" yet we often forget that those razors while possible are not catch alls. If we allow any behavior to become automatic and kneejerk then we provide an opportunity for that behavior to be turned against us, and used to manipulate us.

What about hate?

We don't want to be perceived as hateful. That is a bad thing. So what is the likely reaction people will have when someone they trust calls something "hate speech"? Do you think they will stop and go research that speech and see if it is indeed hateful, lies, etc.? In actuality those conditioned to want to be part of the crowd or be perceived as wise (without understanding that word) may just react in horror to that speech. They may view the the person speaking it as hateful, evil, and to be destroyed. Without actually knowing anything about what the person said, and why they said it. They may even come so far as to say how much they "hate people like that".

Attacking hate speech breeds hate. Most often these days the things called hate speech are nothing of the sort. They simply are a narrative that the controllers don't want spoken. Getting it called hate speech is one of their manipulation tools for shutting down any opposition to their desires. They have also trained the unthinking mob that dances to the strings of their manipulation that they too can call things they don't like "hate speech". They have taken it further. They can call anyone that utters anything they remotely do not like alt right, racists, deniers, conspiracy theorists, homophobic, etc. The manipulation result is similar.

Why was I inspired to write this?

I read another story about a Judge shutting down (making law) things because of supposed hate speech. I see this often. The authority figures manipulated into position by the controllers will legislate, convict, persecute, and destroy those ideas and people acting contrary to the will of the controllers. Saying they are doing so due to hate speech is a very common tactic.

It almost never actually has anything to do with hate speech. The people that tend to be throwing the label "hate speech" around these days by their actions tend to be the most hateful, racist, etc. people you are likely to encounter. They are often the thing they claim to be fighting.

PROPAGANDA 102: Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty.

Apply that to the concept of those decrying hate speech, and those calling people racist.

Apply that to Antifa who is supposedly fighting Fascism by being... the thugs of the fascists.

LYRICS: Sacred Reich - Love Hate





ah yes cancel culture and "troll farms", as we call it here, that our current government is paying for it's really the people's taxes to spread propaganda and try to change the merciless dictatorial history. our election next year will surely be messy 😅 great reading and thanks for sharing your article!

Divide and conquer has ever been the go to mechanism for posing thralls against one another so that they can be controlled and profited from by a tiny minority. You reveal the truth that to prevent becoming possessions we need to defend one another, not attack each other.


The people that tend to be throwing the label "hate speech" around these days by their actions tend to be the most hateful, racist, etc. people you are likely to encounter. They are often the thing they claim to be fighting.

I recently had an exchange here in which the blogger was enthusing about the dying culture of the indigenous people of the American/Canadian continent. In a long commentary, I put forward my view and suggested a way in which the individual who has been subjugated by a state system through disregard for their culture could seek the healing addressed in the article.

Since I myself identify with the fate of my family as first emigrants, then refugees, then deportees and those forced into labour camps, and since I carry the legacy of my family within me, personally coming to terms with my family history has helped me to understand the pain suffered and to frame the deeds of my parents and grandparents, seen as unforgivable, in order to resolve my inherited grief. Forgiveness, in my opinion, takes place in the self and not by forgiving others for their misdeeds. Healing is self-healing in this context.

Anyway, the blogger did not understand and insisted that the genocide of the indigenous people would not be repaired by knowing one's personal history, but that one had to "restore the erased culture". I then asked how one could do this if one did not belong to this culture and that something that was not only interrupted but completely destroyed by the majority could be restored at all if everything around one had changed over a long period of time. What is meant by culture in the first place?

The author then called me a racist white European and renounced any understanding of what individuals can actually achieve when they are let out of their assigned victim role.

I realised that the author had not taken the whole matter seriously at all, but was just pretending and throwing out consternation because that is apparently big fashion. I then said this to her head, praising her marketing while at the same time giving her a thumbs down for "culture".

This is how I often feel when I take up another blogger's topic seriously, but the person merely wants to hear a praising echo of their supposed concern, but is really not interested in personal dialogue.

This turns the whole thing into a hive show and I ask myself whether I'm not throwing pearls before swine here if I'm looking for earnestness where there is none. So I put on my jester's cap and make fun of it, there is often nothing else to do for one's own salvation.

Posted via

People write for different reasons. I have seen people like you are describing. They likely will always exist. Once you identify them you can then decide whether you wish to spend your time interacting with them when you realize there will be no true interaction.

As to culture it is just ideas. It actually does evolve rapidly. Cultures exist, and they perish. When they perish it may be a loss, but it also may not be.

As I've said before. Some cultures embraces human sacrifice and/or cannibalism. To them these were not bad things. Those aspects of culture have perished. I suspect most people consider this a good thing.

One problem I have seen is people who treat Culture much like they treat Race when they are VERY different things. One you are born with and cannot change. Culture can be changed and tends to change quite rapidly.

In addition, there is no such thing as cultural appropriation. There is only Cultural Appreciation.

The people that cry about cultural appropriation are crying for the stagnation and potential erasing of their culture. If they want their culture to live they should be happy when other people appreciate and embrace it.

Not all cultures are good.

I think Black Lives Matter missed the mark when they began their movement. The issue is not a skin color one. There is a common denominator to the increased statistics that fits far better than skin color. It is culture.

There are communities where people admire and elevate thugs. Then they wonder why people who admire thugs have a higher negative interaction with law enforcement. This higher negative interaction applies to ALL skin colors who embrace this particular culture.

Also Thomas Sowell pointed out this particular culture did not begin with Black Communities. It actually began with Irish ones in similar ghettos and it was adopted by black communities due to them living in similar environments.

It then was spread a lot by early hip hop, and rap. They sing about and elevate thug, and criminal life. People all over the country hear it and decide to emulate it. Result... higher negative interactions with law enforcement.

It is a better fit than BLM narrative because it explains their observations while also explaining why it happens to certain people that are not black more often as well.

Cultures exist, and they perish. When they perish it may be a loss, but it also may not be.

True. There are multidimensional aspects within a culture. We can keep things which we find of value, we can skip those we find to be obsolete.

As to culture it is just ideas.

... I have a different understanding of culture. For me, a culture is created by practical necessity, such as giving meaning to the death and birth of people by not letting this act pass by without a sound, but giving these events a framework. People cannot so easily accept that they die because they are aware of their mortality. They need a time to say farewell and to grieve, just as they need a time to welcome and share with newborns. Just as a large cultural part of our ancestors was to provide the emerging sexuality in adolescents with maturity tests to welcome them into the adult circle. Sometimes quite physically and psychologically challenging tests that had nothing to do with theory but with hardships that sound barbaric to us today, but where the fears or pains of the young were just part of the culture and they resolved the traumas suffered in the community.

These three milestones are among the most important in the lives of us humans. They are then complemented by serious illness, accident or other forms of trauma.

Other practical and cultural acts have to do with the seasons, food intake, shelter and art.
Storytelling is a form of cultural exchange, in story lies all the power of human imagination and transmission of the very dangers we like to tell about, how those who did not die survived them. Not one good story tells of avoidance.

Something different for me is cult. Here things are exaggerated, reality is bent and it is pretended that the milestones are a personal insult instead of a mature way of facing life's challenges. Cult, for me, is a way of any exaggeration or understatement of what makes us human.

BLM and the like appears cult-like to me (a lot cosmetic and babble but nothing in it).