Hating The Haters (In The Name Of Love)


It’s no coincidence that the most flagrantly dehumanizing rhetoric being belched out these days spews from the mouths of those who would likely identify themselves as humanitarians. As proof that much of the modern world is upside-down, most eager practitioners of full-throttle “hate speech”—i.e., speech that pulsates with palpable hatred and anger—are those who’d encourage the silencing or imprisonment of others for engaging in “hate speech.” Ironically, the loudest practitioners of so-called “hate speech” are those who actually think “hate speech” exists—but only when someone else is speaking.

If you see someone online these days being dubbed “a piece of shit,” a “scumbag,” a “knuckle-dragger,” a “Neanderthal,” or “subhuman garbage,” what’s mind-meltingly ironic is that the person who’s lobbing these verbal shit-bombs tends to be a liberal—i.e., someone whose entire worldview is based on self-righteous notions of compassion and tolerance. And when you dare call this to their attention, they will call you a subhuman piece of shit merely for pointing out the contradiction between their beliefs and their behavior.

And if you merely note the obvious similarities between their feral, cultish group behavior and that of old-timey lynch mobs, they will call for you to be publicly humiliated and perhaps even physically assaulted. They will say you don’t deserve to live and that you and your ilk need to be exterminated—all, but of course, because they think you don’t love others in the proper manner.

If they sound like religious fanatics, it’s because that’s precisely what they are. There is no rational—and definitely no scientific—basis or evidence for a belief that all humans, either as individuals or in terms of average group abilities, are equal. All of the evidence suggests precisely the opposite. Since there is not the slightest evidence for human equality, it is nothing more than a belief in a myth that sounds nice and appeals to juvenile emotions. This belief must be swallowed like an invisible Eucharist as an article of faith—and if you do not flow with the crowd and profess faith in that transparently ludicrous premise, you will face the same treatment that heretics have endured throughout history. Their reaction is so fierce and unhinged not because they are so convinced their beliefs are true—no one who’s secure in their beliefs would throw such tantrums upon being challenged. Instead, their reactions are those of blind acolytes lashing out at those who question whether their God exists.

This is simply how social psychology works. For any group to form a cohesive identity, they need to define themselves against another group, one that is deemed to be inherently inferior. This is known in the emotion-based and highly anti-scientific realm of sociology as the “cultural other.” Even though egalitarians blanch at the idea of hating those who aren’t like you, they are the most enthusiastic proponents of demonizing the “cultural other” currently playing the game. To many if not most leftists these days, anyone who veers even the slightest from the implausible premise of innate human equality is a caveman throwback who needs to be shat upon before being tarred and feathered and then stoned to death in a public square.

The perceived inferiority of those who don’t adhere to the Sacred Creed of Equality need not be biological, although it’s telling how often things such as breeding and eugenics infuse the rhetoric of those who don’t even claim to believe in eugenics. Merely for disagreeing with them, you will be face-fucked with accusations that you are a genetically deficient inbred mouth-breathing caveman who’s on the wrong side of history and will thankfully be bred out of existence. For them, eugenics suddenly becomes hard science when it can be used to portray their ideological opponents as existing several rungs below them on the evolutionary ladder. Anyone who agrees with them is their equal, yet anyone who disagrees is inarguably a lesser human being. This is why the term “scum” is so often used—merely for not embracing their bullshit creed, one is deemed no more evolved than the algae infesting a stagnant pond.

For them, the idea that those who disagree with them are motivated solely by hatred—rather than by the remote possibility that they simply, honestly, and sincerely disagree with them—is enough justification to hate them intensely. They are merely hating the haters in the name of love, so it’s not the same thing as hatred. And they actually seem to believe their own bullshit. Such is the blind, self-justifying inhumanity of the modern-day humanist.

I’m often portrayed as an impenitent and irredeemable “hater,” and it’s true that I hate many elements of human behavior—especially among groups rather than individuals—but I see such character flaws as somewhat equally distributed among all ethnicities and genders and sexual lifestyles. What’s hilarious to me is that I don’t see anyone on Earth as more or less human than I am. Many of them are dumber, for sure. Many of them simply disagree with me. Many of them see the world far differently than I do.

But we’re all human, and I’ve just expressed a more truly humanistic sentiment than anything you’ll hear from so-called humanists these days. Tag—you’re the hater. Hate me if you want—but you know I’m right. Or maybe you don’t because you’re too fucking dumb to see. But still—you’re a hypocrite for hating in the name of love, you fucking hater, you. Not that there’s anything wrong with hating per se—it’s that you look like a clown for not even realizing you bleed hatred from every pore.

Read Jim Goad’s terrifying yet amusing ebook about fending off fans turned stalkers.