The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert Weissberg Archive
The Pointless and Dangerous War on “Hate”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If one’s reality derived entirely from the mainstream mass media, one would conclude since Trump arrived on the political scene America is awash in the modern-day plagues of Biblical proportions :the hatreds of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and, no doubt, a few others to be named later. Further add how mere disagreement over policy is now classified as “hate,” as in opposition to same sex marriages is “hate.”

Leaving aside the questionable accuracy of these sky-is-falling accusations, should we be worried? Are we to listen to the alarmists who draw parallels with pre-Hitler Germany and today’s allegedly hate-filled politics? Must we ramp-up efforts to promote tolerance, inclusiveness and compassion lest alleged hate crimes become an epidemic? Are today’s safe spaces comparable to 1950s era backyard bomb shelters?

Let me suggest that none of these alleged plagues matter. This conclusion reflects both a plain to see reality and rests on solid social science research: to wit, attitudes are a poor predictor of behavior and this even applies to those boiling over with rage. At most, expressions of enmity will be verbal (and likely symbolic speech, say, burning a Qur’an) and if this malicious but constitutionally protected expression did incite a riot, the criminal code remains an adequate defense. Those painting swastikas should just be charged with vandalism. We do not need mass sensitivity training and safe spaces for the cupcake nation spooked by Trump.

In the classic study of this attitude/behavior disjuncture, the social scientist Richard T. LaPiere beginning in 1930 traveled extensively with a young Chinese couple who were obviously foreign born. The trip occurred during an era of widespread anti-Asian prejudice and well before current anti- discrimination laws so bigotry was 100% legal. They stayed at some 66 motels, and in many instances the Chinese couple themselves negotiated the check-in with Professor LaPiere well in the background. They were refused room in exactly one place, a dump. A follow-up questionnaire asked if the establishment (including restaurants at which they ate) would accept Chinese customers plus other patrons of other distinctive (and generally “unwelcome”) nationalities. Overwhelmingly, the establishment’s response was “no.” The bottom line was that hateful beliefs almost never ever translated into hateful behavior.

The LaPiere study is hardly unique. A mini-industry exists of similar attitude/behavior studies, for example, asking students their views on cheating and then observing them in a cheating friendly situation. More telling the culture fully recognizes that “talk is cheap” or that “people don’t always put their money where their mouth it.” Current examples of hypocrisy abound—liberal whites who heartily endorse racial integration yet pay small fortunes to enroll their children in lily white schools, avid environmentalists whose lifestyle requires consuming huge amounts of carbon-based energy, or proponents of a “healthy lifestyle” who secretly devour Ho-Ho’s and Ding Dongs. How many liberals enraged by Trump have actually moved to Canada?

It is not that attitudes and behavior are totally independent. They are connected but only under certain conditions and these conditions are almost never present when people express these supposedly toxic views. Specifically, there will be a closer alignment when the attitude concerns a fairly structured choice (e.g., buying beer), the behavior reflects multiple attitudes pushing in the same direction (e.g., one likes the beer’s taste and the price is satisfactory) and the behavior is routine (e.g., beer is bought weekly) among several other specific conditions. These stars almost never align for those possessed by hate. How many deplorable homophobes will ever get the opportunity to bash a queer? Millions will live out their entire lives as, to coin a phrase, hatefully frustrated.

The current fixation on attitudes versus far more consequential behavior is predictable. Collecting data about “bad” attitudes is certainly easier than observing such behavior or devising instrument to measure it. It takes minimal effort to, for example, devise an attitude scale for “misogyny” and then pay a survey firm to ask the questions and cross-tabulate the responses with multiple demographic factors to make one’s point. Not only will the research sponsor get quick results, but under the “who-who-pays-the-piper-call-the-tune” principle, he can easily manipulate the outcome to bias the results. If some questions “don’t work,” just replace them and since the data are proprietary, outsider will never suspect social science sausage-making.

Doubters of research flexibility regarding, say, “racism” should visit one website that explains why a claim of being colorblind or believing that America is the land of opportunity is proof positive of being a racist. In other words, since no bureau of standards-like definition of any allegedly hateful terms exists, anyone can improvise and who can disagree? Best of all, the survey respondent cannot object to the classification—the researcher is judge and jury when it comes in condemning those guilty of “hate” and there can be no appeal.

Compare this questionnaire approach with actually observing and then interpreting behavior. In today’s hate obsessed world where words outshine deeds, Donald Trump was an easy target for the accusation of misogyny. It mattered not that he hired dozens of women executives, paid them well, encouraged them to move up the organization and solicited their advice. Far more “meaningful” was his hateful vocabulary—calling a woman fat or ugly, suggesting that animosity might be hormonally driven, using “guy” vulgarity to depict his sexual style and otherwise saying “bad” things. A single off-hand reference to a woman being a “hot babe” wipes out years of actually helping women advance their careers.


Again, attitudes are just one element in the grand equation determining behavior. In the case of the LaPiere experiment prejudicial behavior was conceivably trumped by the more powerful urge to make money or avoid a public scene. It is bizarre to insist that people are so driven by their “hate” and only hate that they cannot control their public behavior. Indeed, it is my impression that those defining themselves as “conservative” are the most socially uptight when dealing with those they loath due to their race, sexual orientation or religion. Similarly, at least from what I have personally witnessed, liberals far more easily succumb publicly to their hatreds, often rioting and calling their foes Nazis, fascists, bigots, and sexists. I have spent countless hours with the evil alt-right Richard Spencer and have never felt physically threatened despite bragging about how my Hebraic tribe rules the world. Perhaps those worried about a society rife with hate should call for teaching people good manners, not imparting multicultural sensitivity training.

Will this new-found obsession with hate become an enduring part of America’s political landscape? Or, like crying wolf, it will just exhaust itself thanks to a bored stiff public? I am not optimistic about this hate mania dissipating. Most clearly, as our economic prosperity permits the funding of seemingly endless grievance groups jockeying for political power, the leveling of accusation will become a common tactic. Now, once rag-tag advocacy groups will be sufficiently funded to rent offices and hire a “Director of Public Communications” to search out ancient examples of hateful speech. Which, in turn will generate a counter-attack and on and on. Conservative groups currently loath to enter the hate Olympics will eventually the fray. The NRA might well accuse their enemies of sclopetumphobia—the irrational hatred of guns—and suggest that those suffering from this disorder seek counseling at a shooting range..

Going one step further, the business model perfected by the Southern Poverty Law Center —uncovering alleged “hate” as a fund-raising tool—will spread to more traditional organizations such as the ACLU. Universities may also join the gravy train and hire experts to shield their fragile students from hate (the parallel is the anti-rape bureaucracy). Why not given that sky-is-falling rhetoric is cheap and is easily manufactured (including hoaxes) given the total lack of standards regarding “hate”?

What will not occur, guaranteed, will be any serious research attempting to link hateful attitudes to actual behavior. Nor will there be any suggestions that humdrum policing or decent manners, not sensitivity training and multiculturalism, best combats hateful behavior. To suggest either of these potential remedies is, in today’s political climate, tantamount to denying the power of hate. And who wants to be a “hate denier” when the existence of widespread hate is settled science? Again, the parallel are those attacked as “rape deniers.”

What this all adds up to is that the honored cultural norm of actions speaking louder than words is being reversed—words now increasingly outshine behavior. The financial equivalent is replacing gold coins with easy-to-print paper money. A white given an honor for, say, successfully raising six black crack-addicted orphans would have this honor rescinded if he was stupid enough to refer to them as “my cute little colored kids.” Doing “good” is now just saying “good things” and in that perverse sense, the war on hate has really made America a better place.

Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The late Jeff Cooper already coined the term hoplophobia to describe the irrational fear of weapons, coupled with the belief that weapons possess an intrinsic will for evil all their own, apart from any will or intention on the part of their user. The Steven Hunter novel Point of Impact described a cure for hoplophobia experienced by one of the minor characters; I think that he was a Jewish psychiatrist but it’s been years since I read the (really quite good) novel.

    I’ll go out on a limb here and say that it’s too bad that “hateful” attitudes aren’t accompanied by more action on the part of whites. It’s hard to believe that that nice Chinese couple in front of you could be a cause of the type of white flight from Vancouver, British Columbia described over there in one of Steve Sailer’s columns. But it’s true. It’s hard to believe that the nice college-educated, apparently middle-class black couple moving in next door is the camel’s nose under the tent for the snarling black underclass. But there was a reason that blacks were met with brickbats and slashed tires when they tried to move into white neighborhoods.

    Whites need to start practicing (discrete) bad manners vis-a-vis other groups.

  2. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Zionists urge no-fly zone in Syria because they want a war between US and Russia.

    Make white American gentiles hate and fight white Russian gentiles.

    Global Divide-and-Rule.

    Zionists fear the spread of Slavicism.

    Unlike white Americans and white Europeans, Russians are guilt-free and nationalist.
    Russians never enslaved blacks. And they defeated the Nazis and suffered horribly under them. Russians did terrible things with communism, but if Jews push that too hard, it will reveal a lot of bad Jewish behavior too, so maybe that’s better left alone. As much as Jews hate Stalin, they cannot attack Stalin without, at some point, exposing dark Jewish secrets as well.

    Zionists fear the spread of Russian-style national mind-set in Europe and America.

    To prevent the spread of this Slavic Virus, the Zionists are trying to instigate a situation where US and Russia will end up fighting one another.

    Once the shooting starts over the skies of Syria, Russian media will vilify the US, and Glob Media will stir up white American hatred at Russia.

    It is a Yojimbo trick.

    It’s like the UK feared German-Russian of 1939. UK and US wanted Germans and Russians to slug it out. Divide and Rule.
    What the Anglos wanted back then between Germany and Russia, the Zionists want today between white Americans/Europeans and white Russians. That way, Zionists can use the opportunity to make whites in US and EU to hate & revile White Russia.
    And Russia will have no choice but to see EU and US as enemy.

    So, this isn’t really about Syria. Zionists are just trying to use Syria to make US and Russia get into a mutual-hate-fest. Even if the war doesn’t escalate into something big, there will be long-lasting political enmity between the two nations, and the hope of white Americans/Europeans and white Russians understanding one another better — and the possibility of Russian-style patriotism spreading to the West — will fade.

    In 1941, Hitler the moron attacked the USSR, and the German-Russian unity was lost.
    UK and US rejoiced.

    Today, Zionists dread the rapprochement of Russia, EU, and US. Zionists see Putinism as a force restraining total Zionist-Globalist mastery. So, Zionists would love to instigate a war between Russia and US.

    • Replies: @Wally
  3. war on hate is just a divide and conquer tactic for the masses.

  4. The “War on Hate” is another version of the “War on Terror” …. an establishment-created instrument designed to produce the very thing it pretends to be against.

    You don’t even have to be a 9/11 Truther (as I am) to understand this. It is quite obvious.

    Globalist Imperial power hi-jacks morality. In the same way that Wall-Street-funded Lenin and Trotsky harnessed the Russian workers’ sense of injustice using the slogans, “Economic Equality” and “Workers ownership of the means of production” as a path to establishing their own effective ownership of everything and TYRANNY by cabal, so the globalist banking/corporate class continually pulls the same stunt today.

    This is Communism (and modern Capitalism; two sides of an identical bankers’ coin) in a nutshell. “Equality” as an instrument for the installation of top-down tyranny.

    How stupid (or supine) are the order-followers who fail to recognise this simple reality.

  5. fnn says:

    The war on hate has been suspended temporarily because the MSM, DNC and CIA are telling us we’re all have to hate the Russians.

    • Replies: @neutral
  6. Randal says:

    The US has the protection of the First Amendment for the time being, which has limited the ramifications of the “war on hate” as they are playing out in the European countries of the US sphere and in the UK. In these latter countries, it is increasingly becoming the norm to actively criminalise the mere expression of views that are classed as “hate”.

    The expression of anti-Semitic (and “anti-Semitic”) views is the major area of push in this regard, and I have a personal interest in this since I am regularly threatened with actual prosecution for my comments here and elsewhere by a self-appointed campaigner against supposedly anti-jewish “hate speech”.

    One example is the circumstances around the private prosecution of a musician, Alison Chabloz, for uploading a song to the internet. She will be in court next Thursday charged with causing “gross offence” by uploading said song:

    #JeSuisChabloz – British Jews falter over a song

    Meanwhile, it is not chance that definitions of anti-Semitism are being strongly pushed forward that intentionally make it difficult to criticise Israel and political aspects of jewish collective interests:

    UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews

    The idea is to make it impossible to say about jewish nationalism and about Israel things that would be merely part of normal discourse concerning other nationalisms and other states, without either self-censoring to a crippling degree or risking criminal sanction (a conviction is not required, since the process of police harassment – searches, confiscation of computers etc – is punishment in itself).

    Americans might legitimately question why this is relevant to them, for they have the protection of the First Amendment. I would respond that these are trends that are common to all the societies of the US sphere, and the First Amendment protection only applies until a Supreme Court decision declares that “Hate speech is not free speech”.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  7. War on Hate criminal prosecutions are selectively prosecuted by the US federal government exclusively against non-diversity people.

    Non-diversity people include all of the following oppression classes, oppressors of diversity people:

    White oppress African American
    Straight oppress Alternate Lifestyle
    Occidental oppress Asian
    Healthy oppress Disabled
    Gringo oppress Hispanic & Latino
    Gentile oppress Jewish
    Paleface oppress Native American
    Men oppress Women

  8. @Randal

    The First Amendment is a weak reed on which to rely. My estimate is that we are at most two Supreme Court Justice changes away from a hate speech exception to the First Amendment. The Trump Presidency may delay that exception, but it will not eliminate its possibility.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Randal
    , @Joe Franklin
  9. Randal says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    I agree. That’s why I think you can see your nation’s future in this area by watching what is being done now in Europe and in the UK (especially).

    Things like the harassment and prosecution of Alison Chabloz should not be of purely academic interest to Americans.

  10. @Diversity Heretic

    The First Amendment is a weak reed on which to rely. My estimate is that we are at most two Supreme Court Justice changes away from a hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

    Federal hate speech crime prosecutions exist now.

    It’s already been sanctioned by the USSC.

    When so-called hate speech is used by a white straight healthy gentile gringo male while accosting a diversity person, the white straight healthy gentile gringo male is subject to enhanced hate crime penalties meted by the federal and state governments.

    The reverse is not true, at least in current practice.

    White straight healthy gentile gringo males are not a federally protected class.

    Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. In effect, the Court ruled that a state may consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim’s status in a protected class.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  11. neutral says:

    Russia is white and hate crime victims are meant for non whites only, so one is allowed to hate Russians.

  12. The liberal war on “hate” is based on a fundamental mistake in reasoning.

    One of the earliest concepts taught in Philosophy is the distinction between appearance and reality. It is a theme that recurs throughout human intellectual history because it is everywhere and all the time present, as evidenced in advertising in the media today.

    The Schoolmen of the Middle Ages were perplexed by this issue and having inherited a framework from Plato, used his conceptual terminology in their struggle for clarity of thought.

    What is the essence of a human being? What makes us human?

    Is it our two-leggedness?

    No, kangaroos have two legs and obviously they’re not humans. And besides, a man can lose a leg in an accident and he still is human.

    Is it our prehensile hands and fingers?

    No, raccoons are about as adept as we are and besides, men can lose a hand and still be human.

    Is it our hair color?

    No, hair can be dyed or shaven off entirely and we’re still human.

    Eye color? Skin color? Political beliefs?

    No. No. No. No. All these are just accidental attributes, not essential to the very core of what makes a human being a human being.

    And by this process of successively stripping away merely physical attributes or casual beliefs, the Schoolmen arrived at the conclusion that what differentiates humans from all other animals is their possession of a Soul. And it is a Soul that is the imperfect reflection–tainted as it is by its having been incarnated in the imperfect material world–of its Divine Origin. And that Soul possessed the capacity to Reason and apprehend Morality. Reason enabled it to understand the Divine Plan and Morality called it to follow.

    By a similar path, the modern liberal convinces himself that skin, eye and hair color are all negligible aspects what constitutes the essence of humanity. All can be altered at will, especially today with dyes, chemical bleaching, implants, corrective surgery and all the paraphernalia of the cosmetic surgery industry. Modern techniques mean that a person can have pink hair if they so desire. They can dial up any shade of skin or shape of nose, lips, vulvas or asses. This PROVES that those qualities are just accidental!

    Or so the thinking goes.

    But are such qualities just accidental? The dedicated Darwinist thinks not–the physical and mental are interwoven. You all know the rest of the story so I won’t bother to repeat it. I just wanted to point out that there’s nothing new under the Sun. The underlying argument used to justify liberal egalitarianism has been around for a long time and it is based upon the process of stripping away attributes until there is nothing left and then calling that nothing, the Essence. If you doubt and question the validity of this line of reasoning, you are a hater.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
    , @Anonymous
  13. Dr. X says:

    There’s actually quite a LOT of hate out there in today’s political climate.

    Hate for whites, hate for straight men, hate for the Constitution, hate for the Founders, hate for guns, hate for whites who defend themselves against black criminals, hate for Christians, hate for business corporations, hate for Russia, hate for the Electoral College, hate for the Trump voter, and hate for non-MSM media and bloggers who speak truth to power.

    And all of this hate is perpetrated by the very same Left that claims to be anti-hate.

    • Agree: woodNfish
  14. JackOH says:

    Randal, my local Ohio newspaper reported yesterday a bill was introduced in the General Assembly requiring companies wishing to do business with the State to formally declare they are not boycotting Israel. Opponents, according to the paper, say that amounts to a restriction of First Amendment free speech rights. (I was floored that some idiot legislator had the temerity to subordinate Ohioans’ rights to the foreign policy interests of another country.)

    • Replies: @Randal
  15. 1. thanks to the author for some pushback on this hating on hate…
    2. if you control who i can / can’t hate, you control who i love…
    3. as it turns out, libtards are not above ‘hate’, its just that you MUST hate their approved list of hatees… they call *that* justice, not hate… (former libtard)
    4. stupid shits, do not realize they are fashioning their own handcuffs with this anti-free speech crap, Empire will turn the censorship on thrm when it suits their purposes, and the idiots won’t have a leg to stand on since they insisted on the amputations…
    5. here is a radical concept which is relevant to the bullshit vs actions idea : wtf do i care someone hates broccoli ? ? ? as long as they arent firebombing reataurants who serve broccoli, don’t threaten people who raise and cook broccoli, don’t do ANYTHING illegal to yhreaten broccoli lovers, wtf do i care they ‘hate’ broccoli ? ? ?
    …or -say- whites ?
    …or -say- blacks, or browns, or woman, or kids, or left-handed, red-haired step-children ? ? ?
    am i missing something ? ? ? are there REALLY ‘hate rays’ emenating from my brain, and it stunts the growth of whoever i am hating on ? ? ?
    wtf i care someone hates me either as part of a cohort or as an individual ? ? ?
    (make no mistake, i think it is ‘wrong’ to hate on -say- broccoli, BUT, if i allow that you are free, that implies you are free to hate/love whatever/whoever the fuck you want…)
    this groupthink bullshit is strange…

  16. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Weissberg, you are way better than I, and also many of your colleagues, at choosing adjectives and names.

    Yet “pointless” meaning “devoid of purpose”, is the last word I’d ever choose to define the “war on hate”.

  17. woodNfish says:

    The liberal war on “hate” is based on a fundamental mistake in reasoning.

    Completely wrong. The Leftist war on free speech and your right to association is a planned attack on individual liberty because they are Leftists NOT “liberals”. It has nothing to do with “mistaken reasoning” and everything to do with destroying Western culture and anti-white racism. Leftists don’t believe in liberty. “Liberal” is just a phony label they hide behind, and you help them do it.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  18. woodNfish says:

    Exactly. See my reply to ThreeCranes.

  19. @woodNfish

    “Completely wrong” you say.

    But I say, as few things are completely wrong as are completely right. Even liberals–or “Leftists” if you prefer–are not completely wrong and get many things right. I guess the world isn’t as black/white to me as it is to you.

    Always, we should focus our attention on and fix the what is in worst shape and most in need of fixing. A simple formula, but useful.

    • Replies: @Jason Liu
  20. Jason Liu says:

    Liberals are “right” by coincidence, though. The stuff they are right about falls well within the purview of traditional nationalism, and require no liberalism to enact.

  21. Jason Liu says:

    Of course they’re not going to limit “hate” to behavior, the whole point of the grievance industry is for chicks and hipsters to police speech/attitudes so they can stake out moral and social positions. Think of the social dynamics within a group of teenage girls. That’s what goes on in campuses.

    And most of the “hate” isn’t really anything. An SJW once told me that if someone said “You speak good English” to me, that’s subconscious hate. No it isn’t.

  22. @Joe Franklin

    Hate speech isn’t the same thing as hate crime. Both are unfortunate anti-1st Amendment laws, but hate crime at least requires a non-speech predicate crime. Know your rights! Hate speech laws are still unconstitutional in the U.S. (Many seem not to realize this.)

    But if y’all are serious about defending the 1st Amendment, what do you say about our egregious child porno laws, which make it a felony to have certain material on your computer? Why no outcry? Karlin even harshly attacks Derb for decrying these laws. (On child porn laws, see “Three strikes against the California Supreme Court: Forsaking standards of candor for the sake of political correctness” (section on In re Grant) –

  23. lavoisier says: • Website

    I agree that pointless is not accurate. In truth, the war on hate gives every indication of being a highly planned, coordinated attack designed to undermine Europeans and their civilizations. I might also add that this war has been very effective thanks to the brain dead gentile population that goes along with this coordinated attack by the other against their own people.

    Shame on the lot of them for not seeing the war on hate for what it is–a form of cultural genocide.

  24. From the book/fable TETHERS OF THE SAPIANTS, a main character is accused of hate, and he replies: “Yes, I hate! I hate evil, don’t you?”

  25. Wally says: • Website

    “In 1941, Hitler the moron attacked the USSR, and the German-Russian unity was lost.”
    Seriously? What unity?

    What an uninformed sucker you are.

    Hitler had no choice, the Soviet onslaught was about to begin against Germany & Europe and Hitler was left with no choice. This is not new information.

    Read the facts and debate here if you have the nerve:
    ‘Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack’

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Sam J.
  26. Wally says:

    Here it is, the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”

    related, see recent:

    Fake News Versus No News
    How Russia is pilloried while real news about Israel goes unreported
    Ron Paul: The War On “Fake News” Is A War On Free Speech

  27. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If Hitler killed your mother, you’d make excuses for him.

  28. Hibernian says:

    It has no rational point.

  29. Anonymous [AKA "anonomouse3"] says:

    “And by this process of successively stripping away merely physical attributes or casual beliefs, the Schoolmen arrived at the conclusion that what differentiates humans from all other animals is their possession of a Soul. And it is a Soul that is the imperfect reflection–tainted as it is by its having been incarnated in the imperfect material world–of its Divine Origin. And that Soul possessed the capacity to Reason and apprehend Morality. Reason enabled it to understand the Divine Plan and Morality called it to follow.”

    This opinion was the result of a lack of understanding of the differences between hardware and software. Coupled with the inclination to self aggrandizement (almost gods, better than the other animals), it’s easy to see why they needed to create the concept of the soul. It’s what went to heaven when you expired. A lifetimes accumulation of memories, some true, most inaccurate, many simply false. The essence of the soul. To be saved forever in heaven,

    But only if you were “saved”. That required following the dictates of the salvation salesmen. Some people had a monetary interest in selling a product that could not be questioned, nor proven. The ultimate eternal life insurance policy. Not bad, Huh?

  30. Randal says:

    I believe such laws aimed at preventing any boycott of Israel are fairly commonplace in the US are they not? I don’t know how they’ve faired constitutionally speaking in the courts, but I seem to remember hearing of several.

    It would be nice to think that the “land of the free” would leave such matters up to its citizens and their institutions and businesses, but evidently there’s too much risk they would make the wrong decision.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  31. conatus says:

    The Left operates like a pitching machine at an amusement park.
    The ball(Hate phrase) plops in the holder, the machine winds up and splat! against the wall of the public forum it goes.
    Then the Leftists huddle up and have a Guilt colloquy
    “Will the accusation stick?”
    “Will it stick?”
    “Are they going to feel guilty?”
    “Watch their eyes and see if they dart!”

    If it does not stick the Left winds up again and throws more sh*t against the wall to see if it will guiltstick. if it does stick they harp harp and harp endlessly on whatever it was. Otherwise they try again. Splat! recount. Splat!t Russia. Splat! Racism

    It was that way with Trump’s ‘pussy’ comment. It stuck at first and then people said, “Hey wait a minute, all it was was talk. Every guy in the world has done it and it was 11 years ago.”
    At first it stuck and they ran with it, as did all the traitorous Goppers Trump now works with(Paul Ryan).

    Also I would bring up Lee Jussim’s work when it comes to hate. His basic point is this: Stereotypes are true.
    In ‘Behavioral Confirmation’ entry in Wikipedia they say:
    “A strong criticism by Lee Jussim is the allegation that, in all previous behavioral confirmation studies, the participants have been falsely misled about the targets’ characteristics; however, in real life, people’s expectations are generally correct. ”
    I think he has been ignored becasue his basic point destroys so much of the foundation that the Left bases its Splat! guilt accusations upon. Why isn’t there a dedicated entry for him in Wikipedia? They want money but barely mention his unfashionable research?

  32. Sam J. says:

    “…Hitler had no choice…”

    You are correct. Read Icebreaker (Suvorov). There’s free pdf copy online. He has an expanded updated better version called “Chief Culprit Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War I”. It’s very good.

    • Replies: @Wally
  33. Sam J. says:

    It’d very nice of Mr. Weissberg to bring this up but he’s about 30 years too late and the horse has left the barn. If the Republicans had any balls they would mass convict the Left for hate speech. All the laws they passed to attack Whites should be turned on them. All the diversity seminars people are forced to listen to are no more than hate speech directed towards Whites and even more so to White Men. I bet the curriculum used in most corporations could get convictions. The same with college courses. All the colleges should be constantly under attack and close to financial ruin. After all if you can force Christians to bake cakes for homos then you can force the Left to teach about the trail of millions of bodies the Jews left in (Spain, Russia, the Ukraine, etc), Nazi Socialism and White superiority in schools. Will it ruin free speech? Too late for that. The Left and primarily the Jews will never let up until it cost them dearly. All the top schools should be financially ruined for having too many Jews. They can either hire more White Men or go out of business. We’re the underdogs now and we have nothing to lose. If the colleges and the left refuse to relent then burn the damn things down financially through lawsuits and fines.

    • Replies: @imbroglio
    , @Anonymous
  34. JackOH says:

    Randal, am not sure of the prevalence of such laws in the States. I have little interest in news of Israel, AIPAC’s influence, and so on, so my bias is towards indifference.

    But, I damn near fell out of my chair when I read that short piece that was tucked in with other legislative items. I’ve thought the First Amendment a legalistic formality, but rock solid withal, sort of ingrained in the American DNA. I guess I may be mistaken about that. There needs to be a strong challenge to this sort of rubbish.

    • Replies: @Randal
  35. imbroglio says:
    @Sam J.

    When I tried to get a university job years ago, I got repeatedly and explicitly turned down for being white, and I ain’t a Christian. Too many Jews? You should be a Jew. Today you’d be hanging on the unemployment line.

  36. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    First they came for the Germans, but I was not a German, so I remained silent.
    Next they came for the Palestinians, but I was not a Palestinian, so I remained silent.
    Then they came for the Iraqis, but I was not an Iraqi, so I remained silent.
    Then they came for the professors, but I was not a professor, so I remained silent.
    Then they came for Christians, and my Christian beliefs taught me to be tolerant, so I remained silent.
    Then they came for white men, and I had to hold onto my job, so I said nothing.
    Then they came for my job, and I ended up too poor to say anything.
    Then they came for my children, who they force to believe in their religion of holocaust.

    Rialto Unified Holocaust assignment, one year later


    May 2, 2015 – One year ago this weekend, the news broke that Rialto Unified asked its 2000 eighth-graders to do an in-class assignment on.
    Rialto Unified Holocaust assignment: \$160k, 6 months later, few ……/rialto-unified-holocaust-assignment-160k-6-months-later-few-ans…
    Nov 1, 2014 – Rialto Unified: Legal Spending. … RIALTO >> Despite spending \$160,000 in legal fees over the past six months, Rialto Unified school district still won’t say how a controversial assignment in which middle school students were asked to debate whether the Holocaust really happened …
    Rialto Unified teachers on second Holocaust assignment: ‘There wasn ……/rialto-unified-teachers-on-second-holocaust-assignment-there-was…
    Dec 11, 2014 – RIALTO >> Ninth-graders’ second time studying the Holocaust in a less than a year was harrowing but ultimately rewarding, according to three …
    EXCLUSIVE: Holocaust denied by students in Rialto school assignment…/exclusive-holocaust-denied-by-students-in-rialto-school-assignme…
    Jul 11, 2014 – Dozens of Rialto eighth-graders questioned whether the Holocaust occurred in essays written for an in-class assignment this spring.
    Was Rialto Unified School District’s Holocaust Assignment Really …
    Aug 5, 2014 – Although a great deal has been written about the “critical thinking” assignment given to eighth graders in the Rialto Unified School District on …
    Rialto school assignment on Holocaust ranks as one of the dumbest …
    Jul 17, 2014 – The Rialto school district, after assigning eighth-grade students to read a few sources on the Holocaust and write about whether it really …
    Rialto school officials apologize for Holocaust assignment – LA Times
    May 7, 2014 – What started as an eighth-grade critical-thinking writing assignment has become a source of relentless controversy for Rialto school officials, …
    Rialto Assignment Asking Students to Question Holocaust to Be ……/rialto-assignment-asking-to-students-to-question-holocaust-to-be-revised/
    May 5, 2014 – The Rialto school district planned to revise an eighth-grade assignment that raised red flags by asking students to consider arguments about …
    After Holocaust assignment, Rialto schools must eliminate all bigotry ……/after-holocaust-assignment-rialto-schools-must-eliminate-al…
    Jul 15, 2014 – District must eliminate bigotry of any kindOver the past several months, I have been reading articles related to Rialto Unified School District.
    Rialto Unified School District under fire over Holocaust assignment …
    May 4, 2014 – The Rialto Unified School District has come under fire after assigning 8th-grade students a controversial writing research project. In an essay …

    They are brainwashing my kids and I’m paying for it.

    What will it take for me to speak up?

  37. Randal says:

    I agree that there needs to be a strong challenge – I’ve said before that the “hate speech” issue is currently the front line in the defence of liberty in the societies of the US sphere. Freedom of political discussion is absolutely the bottom line.

    These kinds of infringement do fly under the radar if you aren’t focussed on the particular issues, though. I note Wikipedia suggests similar proposed laws to the one you mentioned in Illinois, South Carolina, Indiana and New York State. I suspect there are others.

    These kinds of laws are pushed by paid lobbyists and single issue obsessives, and they never sleep.,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Official_government_responses_and_legislation

  38. Anonymous [AKA "Queen Elizabeth"] says:

    Bravo, Dr. Weissberg! I agree 100%

    At one time in this country, virtue meant doing the right thing. It meant living a life of personal integrity. That’s not true anymore, especially in liberal circles. It’s easy to be considered virtuous today because all you need to do is talk the talk, not walk the walk. You can live your life in blatant contradiction to your purported ideals, but that’s okay, because everyone else does the same thing. You don’t even need to really believe what you say or write, just pretend to. So, because we no longer believe in walking the walk, people feel free to utter the most lofty moral sentiments because that’s all there is to their talk: cheap virtue-signalling, or, as I put it, cheap moral posturing or moral exhibitionism.

    I remember back around 1986, when the homelessness was the fashionable cause, George Will wrote a piece about “Hands Across America”; he remarked that it was the liberal equivalent of an Easter Parade: “look at me, I’m so pretty.” Rush Limbaugh coined the term “symbolism over substance” regarding the same moral posturing. I think that he was talking about people wearing AIDs ribbons to show that they were aware of the AIDs problem and cared.

    I also notice that the scummier a person is as a human being, the more he or she may seek to compensate with lofty moral posturing: wailing about the poor and oppressed and accusing others of an ever-lengthening list of liberal sins such as “racism” or “islamophobia.”

    Note the condemnation of Donald Trump and his supporters for being “bigots.” Hillary Clinton’s undeniable monstrous corruption and just plain nastiness is tolerable, but being a “bigot” isn’t.

    In recent years, what passes for “conservatives” have gotten into the liberal game, saying that “Democrats are the real racists,” “Democrats founded the KKK,” blah, blah, blah. Threads involving abortion bring out the conservative moral exhibitionists: Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate blacks, anyone who isn’t 100% opposed to abortion is a Nazi and wants to kill babies, blah, blah, blah.

  39. Wally says: • Website
    @Sam J.

    Read it.

    Thanks, see the links I gave and join in the fun of demolishing Zionists / supremacist Jews and their hapless shills.

    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Forum

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert Weissberg Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.