WaPo Decries "Anti-Establishment Hate"
1960s anti-establishment folks were hippies, peaceniks, and lovable rebels. Today they're hate criminals.
This week’s False Flag Weekly News, featuring Cody and Aren of the Stranger by the Hour podcast, begins with a roundup of Davos stories. Klaus Schwab’s annual World Economic Forum get-together was roundly criticized, and frequently ridiculed, in the alternative media—hardly surprising given Schwab’s creepy supervillain persona and the WEF’s role pushing a COVID-instigated “Great Reset.”
A key item on the WEF’s agenda this year was “combatting misinformation.” Davos elites describe viewpoints they disagree with as a “clear and present danger.” CNN host Brian Stelter hosted a panel that framed the proliferation of non-WEF-approved views as the central problem of our time. After all, how can the WEF win the Ukraine war, solve climate change, and create a world in which we all are happy owning nothing if people are allowed to disagree with the WEF?
The big viral video from this year’s WEF showed Rebel News reporters dogging Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. (Watch it, and our comments, at the 4’50” mark above.) The reporters asked: “When did you know that the vaccines don’t stop transmission?” Bourla, tight-lipped and miserable, looked more interested in stopping transmission of viral videos than of actual viruses.
Anti-establishment types like Cody, Aren and me enjoyed watching Bourla’s discomfiture. We also enjoyed watching a crowd of New Zealanders erupt into wild cheering at Jacinda Adern’s announcement that she would be stepping down as Prime Minister. (Watch it at the 44’40” mark.)
The Washington Post has a different view. According to today’s top “Worldview” story, Jacinda Adern “became the target of a wave of anti-establishment hate” based on “online misinformation and offline misogyny.” So the people wildly cheering her departure are hateful misogynists—hate criminals, really—who, when they “spread online misinformation,” meaning express their views on social media, ought to be silenced or worse.
Hate Crimes, Hate Speech
The notions of “hate crime” and “hate speech” are relatively recent. The first federal hate crimes law was passed in 1968, arguably the year that anti-establishment hate peaked in the Western world. But it wasn’t hatred of “how many kids did you kill today” LBJ that Congress was worried about. Instead, it established the protected categories of race, color, religion, and national origin.
In 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act added gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation to the protected category mix. (Read Stephen Jiminez’s The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the murder of Matthew Shepard to learn how a gay hustler and drug dealer, murdered by fellow gay hustling drug dealers, was elevated to martyr status on the false pretext that he had been killed by homophobes).
The concept of hate speech, as opposed to hate crimes, seems to have first appeared in 1992, when Congress ordered the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to investigate alleged incitements to hatred and violence. A few years later, the false flag Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 gave Clinton the pretext to demonize his political opponents as “loud and angry voices of hate.” Before long, the concept of hate speech, like the CIA-disseminated term conspiracy theory, was on everyone’s lips and in everyone’s ears.
Anti-Establishment Hate?!
The ideas that hate crimes merit extra punishment, and that hate speech should be suppressed, rest on the assumption that powerless, vulnerable minorities are the victims. That is what makes the Washington Post’s notion of “anti-establishment hate” so bizarre. Is “the establishment” now a protected category alongside blacks, hispanics, and gays? Are people who criticize prime ministers, and then cheer when they resign, just like people who hurl racial slurs at minorities? Are people who ridicule Klaus Schwab or Justin Trudeau or Joe Biden the moral equivalent of racists?
In short, how can the establishment be just another powerless, oppressed minority? Aren’t they the ones doing the oppressing? Something here doesn’t add up.
It occurs to me that there is one group that straddles the categories of establishment and oppressed minority: Jews. Throughout the history of the diaspora, Jews lived as minorities and often suffered what Jewish historiography describes as oppression.* At the same time, at least some Jews have been honorary members of what passed for the establishment across a great many times and places.
Today’s American and Western establishments are probably more disproportionately Jewish than those of any comparable earlier society. When The Saker describes the US empire as “the Anglo-Zionist Empire” he is emphasizing the historical continuity between the somewhat-disproportionately-Jewish commanding heights of the pre-1940 British Empire and the even-more-disproportionately-Jewish commanding heights of today’s American empire.
Since today’s establishment is disproportionately Jewish, and since Jews are the most visible “oppressed minority” thanks to the Holocaust narrative, one could be forgiven for interpreting the new category of anti-establishment hate as having something to do with Jews. If we accept Kevin MacDonald’s identification of Jews as the key proponents of open immigration policies, and then notice that many of the people who “hate the establishment” are nativists who want to preserve the historic ethnic makeup of their countries against immigration-driven demographic change, we can understand why the same people might look askance at (a) the establishment, (b) powerful minorities (Jews and to a lesser extent homosexuals), and (c) relatively powerless minorities (blacks and hispanics).
But lumping everyone who opposes the establishment together as haters who deserve to be censored or even prosecuted is not just unfair, it’s insane. The whole point of having a First Amendment, and a republic based on it, is to not just allow, but actively encourage criticism of the powerful. That’s how we hold them to account.
Today, we need spirited anti-establishment protest—call it “anti-establishment hate” if you must—more than ever. The boomers who voiced their hatred of LBJ in the 1960s were right: LBJ was a psychopath, and the war in Vietnam was loathsome. Today, instead of an exhibitionist president who routinely whips out his oversize male member then publicly defecates to intimidate staffers, colleagues, and journalists, we have a serial hair-sniffer and groper in the White House. And instead of a loathsome war in Vietnam, we have an equally loathsome, and far more dangerous, war on Russia through Ukraine.
In the 1960s a whole generation of politicians and journalists went along with the murderous 11/22/63 coup. Today, a new generation of politicians and journalists, the same ones who hated the establishment in the 1960s, went along with the vastly more murderous 9/11/01 coup—and, more recently, the COVID bioweapon atrocity.
Today’s establishment deserves to be hated. And then overthrown.
Long live anti-establishment hate!
*Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion offers a balanced account of the debate over the details of who was really oppressing whom.