Your Two-Minute Hate In The Name of Love
A hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.
George Orwell, 1984
I’ve known a lot of Christians in my life (starting with my parents and siblings, of course…I’m the only heathen in my family, as far as I know), and I think Christianity is one of the most powerful, beautiful and astonishing expressions of human spirituality in existence. I don’t mean those bureaucracies called “religions”: I mean Christ’s teachings and the treasury of ethical and moral thought they’ve inspired. The concept of a moral universe powered by an engine of love is an astonishing idea.
So it’s always suprising to me how little impact the core idea behind Christianity seems to have on its loudest proponents in the blogosphere. Does it strike anyone else as odd that the folks who label themselves with their religion, or who claim to be its proponents and defenders, are inevitably those who come closest to mimicking Orwell’s “two minute hate”?
Three recent samples. Judge for yourselves.
The self-proclaimed Christian Canadian Sentinel, on China:
“Hey, you pathologically lying, butcherous, barbaric (and now, according to a reliable source of mine and according to the book that sparked 22 million defections from the Communist Party since 2005, cannibalistic, meaning that people eating people is a value of the Chinese Communist Party) Chinese Commies… clean up your own backyard before opening your foul mouths about anyone elses’ backyards! Such evil as the SinoCommies do… cannot remain under wraps forever. And will not! Yes, I’m talking about you, the Chinese Communist Party and its unrepentant, nonconsciential current members!”
Girl on the Right, on Islam:
“They are brutal monsters, and the sooner we can abolish the religion of Islam the better. I do not need social reprogramming to become more tolerant – they do. Let’s rescue them from their disgusting sex/death cult. Maybe then they’ll have a chance to live side by side with other religions and cultures without resorting to murder. In the meantime, though it shouldn’t need to be said, keep your goddam daughters away from these animals.”
And of course, Prolapsed Catholic, having a tantrum because (I think) her hubby-to-be is having trouble getting his first marriage annulled.
Those of us who “think” are, as far as I’m concerned, not under the authority of those who don’t, those Euroweinie time-serving three-hour-lunch jackoffs in the Curia. See, this is how Leopolds and Loebs are made. I refuse to follow dumb rules and dumb procedures made up on the fly by dumb people. I’m smarter than they are. I work harder and more efficiently. Therefore I refuse to acknowledge their authority or participate in their reindeer games. This here Rudolph’s got a cooler nose, anyway. Hope they all like the view of my butt. My vocation as an outsider, one I’ve always known was mine and have by turns rejected and embraced, is confirmed yet again. There is no room for me in the Catholic Establishment (and a petty, toffee nosed little club it is too) as recent events have made clear. But the secular world with its brainless Church-bashing is just as bad…I am forced to “marry” — like some half-drunk cross dresser on a whim — within the walls and halls of our city’s monument to bien pensant socialism and brainsucking paperwork because my Church is an ass.”
Heh. Can’t you just feel the Love?
Heavens.
“I get to make up the rules because I’m smarter than anyone else.” Gee, that reminds me of someone named Dick.
Whatever happened to “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”?
Oh, dude, that’s SO 33 A.D.
What in God’s Holy Name does “marry like some half-drunk cross dresser on a whim” mean? Do transvestites marry on a whim differently than the rest of us? Are there more transvestites getting married on a whim than otherwise? (Is she aware that transvestitism is often a straight man’s game?)
If she wants drunken, oddly clothed weddings on a whim, she’s got to get her ass to Vegas.
And why do people on the right seem to think they personally define “smart” and “hard working”?
Aw, I kind of liked Shaidle on this one occasion–it was a great rant, almost left-wing at times.
Once again, from the Eight Principles of Incompetence:
“Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.
Because of the previous four principles (Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth; First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence; Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired; and Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability), incompetents never take responsibility for their wrongdoings, or those of other incompetents within their “circle”. This is what I wrote before: “Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others“. Here’s something else that I also wrote previously: “They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.” For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness – never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity – they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their “accusers”. I call this: “Lie and Cry“.
Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.
(This axiom originates from the works of Isaac Azimov). Here is what I wrote before: “Intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child or adolescent. One who searches for easy and absolute answers (…) And such intellectual sloth, through the fear which it causes in those people guilty of it, eventually brings in turn the incapacity (or lack of willingness) to deal face-to-face with the unknown and the uncertain. Thereafter, the table is set at last for intolerance and hate to arise: the eternal and real justifications (although never self-admited) behind violence in any of its shapes or forms“.
To this, I later added the following: “Ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence (…) when will we acknowledge the fact, once and for all, that it is the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything? (…) we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence – other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger – invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence … including our very own for embracing such mendacity.” Ergo: violence is the last refuge of incompetence.”