You must LOVE Big Brother, not HATE him!

[PetrChelcicky]

Some eight years ago I found that the French had, to the conventional phobia's like antisemitism, homophobia etc., added a new one: "élitophobie". My gut reaction was that elites are well a minority, but not a particular "vulnerable" one. And in France there were some sarcastic commentaries, comparing modern elites to the aristocrats which in the later 18th century also suffered from popular "elitophobia".

But I also felt that this concept would become attractive to journalists and political scientiists. And over the years, this seems more and more so.
The most advanced use of it is by the Southern "Poverty" Law Center. They are listing hate groups - a list regularly consulted by Democrat politicians - and on their list they have now a new kind of hate, neither against Jews nor against gays but against "the government": "anti-governmental" hate.

This seems the final point. Even in the German Democratic Republic they had crimes only against the "Republic" or against "Socialism" etc. Of course this tended to become a mere pretext; e.g. "Socialism" was whatever the Socialist Party promoted (in the same way nowadays a lot of Americans seem to think that "Democratic" is the name of a party and means whatever that party promotes). But it was at least pretended that there were higher ideals at stake than the mere wellbeing of the government or the governmental party.

The examples for "antigovernmental hate" are, by the way, the Parents Rights Groups like those in Virginia. They were indeed bad for the wellbeing of the former Democratic government. But with a little help from the SPLC all Americans will soon be convinced that such actions are really sinful.
Source: https://www.amren.com/news/2023/06/sout ... -hate-map/

[Ken]

Some eight years ago I found that the French had, to the conventional phobia's like antisemitism, homophobia etc., added a new one: "élitophobie". My gut reaction was that elites are well a minority, but not a particular "vulnerable" one. And in France there were some sarcastic commentaries, comparing modern elites to the aristocrats which in the later 18th century also suffered from popular "elitophobia".

But I also felt that this concept would become attractive to journalists and political scientiists. And over the years, this seems more and more so.
The most advanced use of it is by the Southern "Poverty" Law Center. They are listing hate groups - a list regularly consulted by Democrat politicians - and on their list they have now a new kind of hate, neither against Jews nor against gays but against "the government": "anti-governmental" hate.

This seems the final point. Even in the German Democratic Republic they had crimes only against the "Republic" or against "Socialism" etc. Of course this tended to become a mere pretext; e.g. "Socialism" was whatever the Socialist Party promoted (in the same way nowadays a lot of Americans seem to think that "Democratic" is the name of a party and means whatever that party promotes). But it was at least pretended that there were higher ideals at stake than the mere wellbeing of the government or the governmental party.

The examples for "antigovernmental hate" are, by the way, the Parents Rights Groups like those in Virginia. They were indeed bad for the wellbeing of the former Democratic government. But with a little help from the SPLC all Americans will soon be convinced that such actions are really sinful.
Source: https://www.amren.com/news/2023/06/sout ... -hate-map/

Anti-government hate is nothing new. And it isn't something "invented" by journalists or political scientists.

Timothy McVey was consumed by anti-government hate and blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City which killed 168 people and injured 680 more including 19 children who were in the daycare in the ground floor of the building. That was 28 years ago.

This is what anti-government hate looks like.

[Josh]

This is what anti-citizen hatred from the government looks like:



Many children were burned alive in the above photo. The government decided it was best to set the building on fire with all the children in it.

[Ken]

This is what anti-citizen hatred from the government looks like:

Many children were burned alive in the above photo. The government decided it was best to set the building on fire with all the children in it.

Right. A crazed apocalyptic doomsday cult that deliberately set themselves on fire (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... -doomsday/) after the government spent 51 days pleading with them to come out is an example of anti-citizen hatred?

There is anti-citizen hatred in this country but it looks more like this example in Louisiana's "cancer alley" where the local government deliberately concentrates pollution in poor and minority communities and as a result, kills its own citizens.

[Josh]

Right. A crazed apocalyptic doomsday cult that deliberately set themselves on fire (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... -doomsday/) after the government spent 51 days pleading with them to come out is an example of anti-citizen hatred?

Generally speaking when the FBI lobs tear gas and other incendiary devices into your home, that's not the same as "deliberately setting yourselves on fire".

The local law enforcement said they were familiar with David Koresh and could have arrested him anytime (with a warrant). The FBI never even asked.

after the government spent 51 days pleading with them to come out

The government can plead all it wants to, but people have a right to stay in their homes and refuse to talk to federal agents.

For another example of anti-citizen hatred, the FBI decided it was a good idea to shoot a mother holding a baby for the "crime" of someone whose husband hadn't answered a request to appear for which he was later found to be not guilty of anything anyway.

I think it's good for the government to not burn children alive, shoot them, or shoot their mothers.

[Ken]

The Branch Davadians set themselves on fire and were caught on tape doing it. But I guess that doesn't match your narrative: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/t ... -fire.html

Listening devices placed inside the Branch Davidian compound during the standoff with the religious sect last year seem to support the Government's contention that cult members started the fire that raced through the building, transcripts released today in Federal court showed.

In one passage recorded at 6:05 on the morning of April 19, the day the compound burned to the ground and 80 people were killed, an unidentified man asks, "Pablo, have you poured it yet?"

"In the hallway," comes the response.

The first voice then says: "Things are poured, right? Need to get the fuel out." Talk of Pouring Fuel

In another part of the compound, at 6:16, several unidentified men have the following exchange:

"They got some fuel around here?"

"Yeah, they even poured already."

"Poured it already?"

"He's got it poured already."

At 7:23 another unidentified man says: "Is there a way to spread fuel in there? There."

Another male voice responds, "So we only light them as they come in, right?"

"Not if they (unintelligible)." 11 Devices in Compound

A voice says: "Well, that's the fuel. We should get more hay in here."

At another point in the transcript, around 9:45, an unidentified man talks with someone on the tapes and asks him to recover a telephone thrown from the compound earlier because, the voice says, "We need to say one last thing to them."

Unidentified voices are heard at 11:40 saying, "I want a fire around the back," and "Let's keep that fire going."

[Josh]

Who claims that happened?

Oh, right, the people who had the compound under siege for a month.

The same people who think it's a good idea to shoot an unarmed mother with a baby in her arms.

Got it. I'll just take their very credible word for it. By the way, Janet Reno's missteps in that drastically changed the view many Americans had of federal law enforcement and destroyed a lot of trust that had been built up over the years. One of the results of that was the cessation of the foolhardy "Assault Weapons Ban".

[Ken]

So are you denying that anti-government hate exists?

Or are you saying that it is justified?

[Josh]

So are you denying that anti-government hate exists?

Or are you saying that it is justified?

I'm saying that govenrment routinely engage in anti-citizen hate. If you think there is a problem with "anti-government hate", then a good place to start is for the government to stop doing things like oppressing the citizenry, and enforce laws fairly and focus on actual criminals, not trying to use informants to goad people into crimes they don't even want to commit.

[Ken]

So are you denying that anti-government hate exists?

Or are you saying that it is justified?

I'm saying that govenrment routinely engage in anti-citizen hate. If you think there is a problem with "anti-government hate", then a good place to start is for the government to stop doing things like oppressing the citizenry, and enforce laws fairly and focus on actual criminals, not trying to use informants to goad people into crimes they don't even want to commit.

You are repeating Timothy McVey's rationale almost word for word.