We often hear definitions of hate speech bandied about by the media and governments and academia, they say it is speech that is hateful towards people on the basis of their personal characteristics, hate speech is treated as if it is something that is entirely objective in nature, something that is self evidently evil and wrong and always has been. Of course this characterization of hate speech is a lie; hate speech has not always existed, it is a made up concept that is really only a few decades old, used by the left to disallow criticism of group and structures in society by the white majority.
An easy way to show that the establishment’s own stated definition of hate speech is false is to analyse the way it is used in practice, as we can easily determine by looking at what is and is not defined as hate speech by its arbiters. For example the fact that saying “it’s ok to be white” is considered hate speech tells us everything we need to know about its true meaning. The statement itself contains absolutely no hatred of other groups, simply a self affirmation of the basic value and worth of white people, and yet the media’s response to it was utterly hysterical.
Fundamentally then, the concept of hate speech has nothing to do with hate in general, it has to do speech which challenges the hegemony of the current post-1945 political and moral order; it is specifically designed (counter to democracy ironically) to suppress certain political viewpoints and types of moral thinking. (see Greece and the American Jewish organisations that specifically ordered the Greek government to enact hate speech in order to prevent the political ascent of the democratically elected Golden Dawn party for example). Its specific point is nothing to do with protecting the weak; it has to do with suppressing political dissent, and protecting the truly strong; those who run our societies and implement the current moral order.
As a result, it’s perfectly acceptable to be as hateful towards groups that are not vital to the agenda of current political order of population replacement and civilizational disintegration as you want. For example incredibly weak and marginalized groups like the poor and children in foster care can be mocked without the label being applied or any criminal sanction under hate speech laws in most European countries being applied. If however one dares to discuss a group such as immigrants or non white people or Muslims, suddenly it’s hate speech again, despite their being much less objectively oppressed than groups like the poor or children in foster care are.
So, how do we challenge the concept of hate speech in practice? Firstly, reject it in itself as a “social construct”, highlight the fact that it is a weapon of the left, note the inconsistencies in the way it is applied to protected classes (such as race and sexuality), as well as the fact that it is not applied at all to other groups.