On Hate Hoaxes

Real victims seldom ask for anything. They rather just quietly suffer. They ask God for attention and help, but do not often presume to ask for yours.

When your attention or help are publicly begged, your presumption must be that the beggar is a liar.

Focus your attention and help on the poor sod lying unconscious by the side of the road, and you’ll do just fine.

27 thoughts on “On Hate Hoaxes

  1. Let us not forget that the ultimate purpose of the “hate crime hoax” is to become itself a “hate crime” so as to finally legitimate a criminalization of “hate speech” from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

  2. Pingback: On Hate Hoaxes | Reaction Times

  3. The true hate hoax aims to benefit the hoaxer or the group that is ostensibly hated. But there is a similar phenomenon that I will call the simulated victim, who actually performs a service to the benefactor. Most of us have a natural desire to feel benevolent, but the people “in the gutter” (as you put it) are often very disagreeable. They are not just normal people down on their luck, but rather frightening psychotics who smell like urine and take powerful drugs. So the would-be benefactors “demand,” as it were, fake bums to simulate neediness and play the role of a less disagreeable objects of charity.

    When I lived in a big city, there was a class of what we might call “clean bums.” They were bums, but they were articulate, friendly, educated, and only so dirty as was necessary for authenticity. They did not talk to themselves, or have long strings of snot swinging from their noses, or smell like a mix of old socks and rubbing alcohol. Yuppies were proud to be “friends” with a clean bum, and enjoyed telling other yuppies how they talked with street people and slipped them a couple of bucks.

    Something similar happens with the eleemosynary ethnicities. You will remember that Harry Reed got in trouble for calling Barak Obama “clean,” but everyone understands what is meant by the social category “clean Black.” Like the clean bums, clean Blacks are relatively easy to deal with. They are articulate, friendly, educated, and only so Black as is necessary for authenticity. They are not aggressive, vulgar, or conspicuously given to the more tasteless manifestations of Black culture. The demand for clean Blacks is extremely high, but playing this role seems to take a toll on the performer.

    Housebroken homosexuals fill a similar role. That is to say the subset of homosexuals who are just gay enough to let people know that you do indeed have a gay friend, but are not so outrageously gay as to make people nervous. They also don’t drink too much, since many homosexuals do drink too much. Respectable people nowadays need a “gay friend” to demonstrate their open-mindedness, but gays are rare and housebroken homosexuals rarer still. Of course, the new need for “trans friends” takes this to a whole new level, since the total trans population is tiny, and the clubbable trans population must be minuscule.

    Imagine the trials of a postmodern hostess drawing up a guest list!

    They used to talk about “dining out” on a story. Nowadays some people can “dine out” on their identity. But the ones who actually get invited to dinner are simulacra, since no one wishes to sit down to dinner with the real deal.

    • Great comment, Prof. Smith. I learned a new term from reading it – eleemosynary. In the context in which you wrote it, I instantly understood its meaning. How is the word pronounced, and do you know its origin?

      • I don’t unleash this word very often, and almost never in spoken conversation, but I would say it rhymes with “belly chosen fairy.” It is from the Greek word for alms, and I think our word alms come from the first syllable. As it happens, I remember when I first encountered the word in a book by Aldous Huxley. He spoke of an “eleemosynary saxophone” when describing a street musician who was playing for handouts. My “eleemosynary ethnicities” do not live exclusively on alms, but they are, as a group, substantially subsidized.

      • Funny, I too remember where I first encountered that word, when I was about 13: on the first page of Fielding’s Tom Jones. I have no such memory of learning any other word whatever. Wonder why that one engendered such a vivid recollection.

      • Very good, Prof. Smith. Thank you.

        Kristor: It is a rather memorable word; I think I shall not forget where I was first introduced to it either.

    • Re: ‘…the clubbable trans population’.
      Under the normal processes of English word formation,
      shouldn’t the plural of ‘trans’ be ‘transies’?

      • I think you might be off-beam here, JM. Over the centuries, English spelling has been variable. If we read: ‘The Mending of Life’ (l. 128; 1434 AD) by Richard Misyn, Bishop of Dromore, we find:
        “With swetnes of godis lufe as [he] wer rauischyd in trans, meruelusly rauischid.”
        In the Bannatyne Manuscript of 1568, ‘Christis Kirk on Grene’ (attributed variously to James I and James V, Kings of Scots) we find:
        ‘He playit so schill and sang so sweit
        quhill towsy tuke a transs.”

        ‘Trans[s]’ here is simply an older spelling of ‘trance’, meaning: “A state of mental abstraction from external things…” [OED] – and what better description of the mental state of these poor people is there?

        Finally, if we can describe someone with epilepsy as an ‘epileptic’, why can we not call someone in a ‘trans’, a ‘trans’? ‘Transies’ or ‘transes’ would be perfectly normal plurals.

      • Auberon Waugh used to object to the use of homosexual as a noun, observing that this is properly an adjective. The correct noun to describe a practitioner is homosexualist (as with chiropodist, known to us Yanks as a podiatrist). Transsexual is, likewise, the adjective form of transsexuality, with transsexualist the correct noun to describe a practitioner.

        Despite your impressive defense of “transies,” I remain troubled by its ambiguity with respect to other identities defined by crossing over to some other side. Transcendentalists, for instance. Most of what American students are taught is American literature comes from the New England transcendentalists. Might they begin to think that Emerson and Thoreau were transies in some deeper sense?

        And our colleges are full of “transfer students,” some of whom aspire to be translators.

        I’m sure the cause is lost, but we need neutral term to describe deviant sexual behaviors (deviant used here in a neutral, descriptive sense). There will always be evaluative terms, pejorative and commendatory, but I would like the option to stay out of that fray. As I understand it, homosexual began as such a word. There were many pejorative synonyms and the commendatory “gay.” But “homosexual” was framed as a mean-spirited refusal to used the commendatory “gay,” and is now seen as at least mildly pejorative.

        “Trans” is now commendatory, “tranny” pejorative. This actually permits some sly dissent, since one could say “trans” while mentally intending the old word transvestite, which transsexual was meant to obliterate. I expect this evasion will soon be discovered, and there will be pressure to use the full word, and thus affirm that it is sex, and not just vestments, that have been changed.

      • Auberon Waugh used to object to the use of homosexual as a noun, observing that this is properly an adjective. The correct noun to describe a practitioner is homosexualist (as with chiropodist, known to us Yanks as a podiatrist). Transsexual is, likewise, the adjective form of transsexuality, with transsexualist the correct noun to describe a practitioner.

        In the spirit of this post of JMSmith’s I’ve been trying my darnedest to call practitioners sodomites. There is the difficulty of what term to use for those who are inclined/tempted toward the practice but (sometimes heroically) resist nonetheless. I don’t wish in the least to use that term for them. In fact I don’t wish to talk about them at all in reference to the practice, but it seems everyone else does.

      • @JM
        If we affirm that it is sex that has been changed, we are also in a trance. Sex is the very thing they cannot change. If you take the lid off a box of biscuits and affix another that says ‘sweeties’ (or ‘candies”) you still have a box of biscuits. No matter what surgery they may have had, when they stop taking the drugs, their bodies will try to assert the sex that their DNA says they are.

        @buckyinky
        As Gore Vidal observed, there are no such things as homosexuals. There are people who perform homosexual acts
        As the priest who baptised me pointed out, no one can control what thoughts will occur to him. What he can control is what he does about those thoughts when they occur, whether he accepts them and acts upon them ot whether he rejects them and refuses to act on them. So, those who resist sodomitical thoughts that occur to them are not sodomites. They are just people.

      • So, those who resist sodomitical thoughts that occur to them are not sodomites. They are just people.

        I understand what you’re saying, but cannot agree wholly. I’m not so sure that “sodomitical thoughts” ever enter a man’s mind without prior external exposure to them in the first place; and in the second, under whatever circumstances such thoughts do initially enter a man’s head, if he is not instantly revolted thereby, something is terribly haywire. If such unnatural thoughts recur in a man’s mind, it is an indication that he is unnaturally inclined to think and entertain them. Such a man cannot ever be fully trusted; yes, he is just a person in a sense, but he is also a potential sodomite. And it’s best to never forget it.

      • ‘…without prior external exposure to them in the first place’.
        Hollywood, television, schools, ‘modern’ churches and so forth are putting these thoughts into childrens’ heads, under the auspices of adults who have charge of them when they do not know enough about, well, anything really. It is this indoctrination that is haywire.

        ‘If such unnatural thoughts recur in a man’s mind, it is an indication that he is unnaturally inclined to think and entertain them. Such a man cannot ever be fully trusted’.
        Which of us has never had urges to take what does not belong to us when the chance has offered and no one is looking? Which of us has never shouted: “I’ll kill you” to someone who has annoyed us? Are we all then potential thieves and murderers? And can none of us ever be fully trusted?

        It would be a bleak society we would be living in then, would it not?

      • Potential, yes, since the thought is the first step towards the act. If I say that I have sexual thoughts “that I would not dream of acting on,” I am speaking nonsense. The thought is itself a dream of the action. When I say it is the first step towards the act, I do not mean the thought brings me to the very brink of the act, only somewhat closer than I would have been had the thought never occurred to me.

        With that said, I think it should be obvious that most men (and women) have sexual fantasies that they would positively hate to enact. Female rape fantasies are a case in point. These seem to be relatively common, and yet most of these female fantacists would hate rape in any form. It is one of the profound peculiarities of sex that many of us are aroused by thoughts that would repel us as acts. I would be happy to see just about any other daydream become reality, but many of my sexual daydreams would shock and appall me in life. The only thing that comes close are daydreams of personal heroism, because you cannot have heroism without danger. But the point of such fantasies is that the danger does not harm me. It would be glorious to carry children from a burning orphanage. To actually experience many sexual fantasies would be disgusting.

      • If a man tells me he has recurring sodomite sexual fantasies that he “wouldn’t dream of acting on,” I should hope it goes without saying that I would never consider asking that man to babysit my kids, for example; if a man tells me he fantasizes occasionally about raping and sodomizing women, but would never dream of acting on those fantasies, I should hope it goes without saying that, be that as it may, I would never permit him to be alone with my wife or one of my daughters for any length of time more than about thirty seconds.

        Speaking of which – if a young man listens to the kind of “music” that denigrates women and glorifies sexually assaulting them, I am going to do all in my power to keep my wife and daughters, and other female relatives and acquaintances, as far away from that young man and his demons as is at all possible. And I don’t particularly care how “racist” or “bigoted” anyone thinks I am for having done so.

      • @T Morris
        I would never dream of asking a man (any man) to babysit my kids. Perhaps that is my natural Scottish mistrust. Nevertheless, I would have to trust whoever I asked, otherwise I wouldn’t (couldn’t) ask them. However, there are (and can be) no general rules applicable to everyone. There may be laws, there may be guidelines, whatever – but in every case it comes down to the particular people involved at the particular time.
        But, when you say: ‘Such a man cannot ever be fully trusted’, I ask: Have you ever heard of Myra Hindley? Have you ever heard of Rosemary West? If you googke these, you will see that it is not just men who are the problem.
        Nevertheless, without trust we cannot have a civil society.
        We have to take chances from time to time.

      • “Without trust we cannot have civil society,” but without civil society we cannot have trust. By civil society, I mean of course a society in which there is respect for fellow citizens and hospitality to well-behaved strangers. Fellow citizens can cheat each other, but republican culture in its prime seems to promote a high level of honesty and trust. My suspicion is that high trust societies attract werewolves because they are full of unsuspicious sheep, and that the depredations of the werewolves eventually destroy the trust.

      • Thanks, Brian. I might Google those names just out of curiosity, but you’re preaching to the choir when you point out that the problem isn’t just with men. I don’t expect you read all of my comments here, but I have nevertheless mentioned female depravity (sexual and otherwise) any number of times.

        I don’t know how things are in your part of the world across the pond, but in the good ol’ US of A rarely a week goes by that a female public school teacher isn’t caught having sodomite sex with her twelve year-old (give or take) student. In point of fact, a teacher in Clinton, OK used the occasion of the teacher strike last year to have sex with one of her male students. Her husband caught her and later turned her over to the authorities.

        I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but my sense is that this sort of thing most usually involves a female teacher and a male student. But there have been a number of cases in which it was female on female as well.

        I read about a teacher in TX (I believe Ft. Worth ISD) sometime back who was dismissed for showing pictures to her class of herself and her lesbian lover embracing. Of course a lawsuit was filed in her behalf against the school, and my recollection is that she was re-instated at another school in the same district. I don’t know if any other damages were awarded her, but the point is that if distrust and discrimination against such people (men or women) is uncivilized, then I suppose civilization is not my cup of tea. I do know it is un-American, or so I am told. And here again, if being “American” means what it seems to mean in the way of subsidizing sodomy and handing my kids over to the predators, then you can count me out.

      • One or two such stories appear in our local news every year. Our local news covers the deeds and misdeeds of around 250,000 people, which includes something like 4,000 male high school students. Assuming some horny homeroom teachers are not caught, and some who are caught are not rookies, the chance that a male high school student will have sex with a teacher is probably under 1:400. This might look like long odds, but we can probably get it down to 1:40 by eliminating boys who are immature, chaste, homosexual, or supplied with a girlfriend. This is all back-of-the envelope calculation, but it looks as if something on the order of 2.5 percent of mature, promiscuous, heterosexual male high school students have sex with female teachers. Or, to turn this around, there are something like 350 female high school teachers in our local news area, perhaps 100 of which are younger than 35. As you point out, marriage is not an absolute bar, but removing the faithfully married and lesbians probably reduces this number to 50, and raises the frequency to something like ten percent.

      • On the subject of sexual predators of children, a documentary called: ‘Leaving Neverland’ airs on Channel 4 (UK) tv this week. It alleges multiple counts of child rape against Michael Jackson. These were on children whose parents let them sleep in the same bed as him.
        On the truth or otherwise of these allegations, I have no knowledge. Nevertheless, no child of mine would have been permitted to sleep in his bed.

      • Yeah. I was thinking more in terms of female teachers on pre-HS adolescent boys, but HS aged boys too of course. And you are right to exclude women above 35 as a pretty good upper age limit.

        As you say, marriage is not an absolute bar on this, and nor is the combination of marriage and religious profession, for that matter. The Clinton teacher I mentioned is a prime example. But that is really just an aside in any case since this is all well known to most of us who don’t go through life with our heads in the clouds.

        As Archie Bunker so eloquently stated it, “a bird that flies around in the fog is called a dingbat.” Lots of Edith’s in the world. Lol.

      • Brian: Yes, I read something about that documentary awhile back. If you haven’t already seen or heard of it, a black American comedian (whose name escapes me for the moment) addressed the Michael Jackson child predator issue a few years back in a sort of stand-up monologue on the subject, citing the reaction of 60 Minutes interviewer Ed Bradley to Jackson’s answer to his question of whether it was appropriate to sleep in the same bed with adolescent boys. The comedian’s take is very funny in its own way, but it’s also very serious. A kind of “dark humor,” if you will.

        When I said something about men ‘babysitting’ my kids above, I was referring to circumstances in which I might ask a neighbor to watch them for a few hours while I tended to an unexpected emergency situation. Truth be told, I have rarely asked *anyone* (male or female) to babysit my kids. On the very few occasions I have, it was always a well-trusted friend or relative.

  4. Our Victim culture is rapidly reaching the point of absurdity, if it hasn’t already been reached. I believe you’ve used the term ‘holiness spiral’, or ‘virtue signal’ or what have you: The only unblemished lamb left in our society is the victim. He who seeks to proudly display his victimness is clearly not suffering so much that he doesn’t have time for self promotion.

    In the recent case, I have merely an iota of sympathy: As a godless nihilist, he sought out the most powerful force he knew, the Cult of Victimhood. By seeking to forcibly enter the cult, and to do so publicly, he was thrown out. REAL victims grew in ‘holiness’ by his disrespect. Now everyone must speak with quiet reverence of the true victims out there. None trust God to deliver the poor, the weak, the suffering. To hear them tell it, only by our quiet and inert contemplation can they be delivered.

    Nihilism does indeed annihilate the soul.

  5. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 03/03/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.