top of page

Is Idaho really "Too great to Hate?"

Updated: Jan 5

Sometimes I can't believe we need to talk about these issues. I guess it really isn't that we don't talk about them specifically per se, it is more why we don't talk about this topic more completely and intellectually rather than adhere to the bogus emotionally, intentionally driven narratives and we don't ask or know how ridiculous and hypocritical it is? I don't mean that hate is ridiculous or even hypocritical, I want to make clear that we understand what is driving it. Let me offer a perspective.

First, let us consider human nature, there are things that no matter how much we want to change or how much we are told to change, we won't and can't because there are just some things inherent in who we are as a species. One could ask, "Do you hate?" or "What do you hate?" Knowing everyone hates or has strong disdain for a thing, how would we stop it if we wanted to? Knowing this, is the move to try to abolish hate (that which is inherent in who we are) a good thing? If it is, how far should one go to abolish it and the bigger question is who or what entity should be given charge over such abolition? (Population control is another consideration on this topic.) Worse yet, is hate really the issue or was it contrived for a particular end and is there something more sinister behind this "humanitarian abolition attempt" to "perfect society?" I mean should we go so far as to adhere to the United Nations World happiness Council? (Yes, it is a real thing.)

I believe there is something sinister and would even boldly say, we don't have as much of a hate problem as we do a moral problem as a people as individuals and government as a collective will of immoral, self-centered, proud, unrepentant, agenda driven people. There are many that think we should elevate/protect certain classes of people (and allow the government to do it) but in reality, I see it as the government controlling us all. The sad part is that only those that don't seem to buy the racism, hate narrative seem to see it.

Did Christ hate? Yes. Are we warned about hate in the Bible? Yes we are and even as Christians that speak against hate, they hate and they can't see their own hypocrisy and that it isn't so much a Christian thing, it is a human nature thing. Inherently we all know we would prefer to be loved and not hated but we are so much more willing to point out something that offends others rather than loving on them. While we are at it, why do people use words and not seem to care about how such words are defined?

Is it lawful to hate? Well, let's just say it isn't unlawful to hate and why is this? Because if hate is unlawful, one that hates can be punished while exercising freedom of speech, freedom of religion and free thought. My point is that we cannot be free to think and feel and be told we can't think and feel so where does one draw the line? I would suggest there are two areas. One is the court of public opinion where one can say whatever they want and they may be condemned by those that may be offended. This is a self-check in that one would need to give some consideration on what they wish to say and how people will react to it or if it is better left unsaid. (Like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre- it isn't unlawful but should you?) The other of course is Judicial where a law is created against freedom of speech, religion and thought to control what people can and can't say that is a blatant disregard for ones ability to think and say what they wish to in our contitutional republic that is repeatedly rejected in favor or Democracy?

What is worse is that if a government is the entity given such control, where does it stop? Shall we agree to give the government the authority to control speech and thought because people think it will keep people from hating? This thought is delusional because we all know when the government gives itself or we give the government the authority to do a thing, it is used as an excuse to control a thing and using that thing to gain more control that usually incorporates that thing while increasing its control in areas deeming that all parts that were and are a part of that thing has led historically to totalitarian governments. (Doesn't this explanation sound just like govenrment?) Afterall, look what the govenrment is doing with guns and the Second Amendment? Rights? Speech, religion, right of redress, balooning the administrative state as somehow constitutional and more. The lunacy of arguments like these, I can only assume are to appeal to the ignorant because our Founders said "we could not be ignorant and free." On this note alone, I hope what I say is worthy of discussion and reprimand or caution by those that wish to implement such draconian ideas.

So, what does hate mean? I think we can all agree the definition has changed over time (like words like gay and Fascist) but no one seems to think about who controls the definition of words? Is hate a verb, adjective, noun and and is it an action or a thought or feeling?

What does love mean? Well, I think we all know this word has been redefined from Biblical love (that has even been redefined), to "if you can't be with the one you love honey, love the one your with" to "love is love" as in love is an action and a feeling that one thing can have for any other thing and apparently there is no deliniation? A man and woman can love, and we seem to understand what that means but can two people of the same sex love or can a person love a thing or another animal and do the same natural laws apply? Apparently not, but no one seems to talk about that and if you do counter the narrative, the govenrment is there to control how you feel and what you think about it all and if that isn't enough, they now control the "court of public opinion" to force compliance and even worse, the government now has multinational corporations and NGO's to aid in such reinforcement? Are we excited for the rollout of ESG scores yet? That is what it is all about, you do know that right? How comforting... as if the point hasn't been made about the dangers of government authority, I believe a free people's main concern before considering anything else is asking themselves about lawful authority of government, increased govenrment control and why and now need to contend with the collusion between corporations, NGO's and government to maintain ultimate unrelenting control all marching toward world government.

Love and hate don't just pertain to people and things, they apparently also include nations? Ever notice if you counter the narrative you automatically hate? How can this be possible? Isn't it possible and smart to question everything without being put in a box as if you support one thing you automatically oppose the other thing or hate the other thing and are therefore a "hater?" This is sheer lunacy, can you see it? Every instance can be proven to make my case, the most recent being Isreal. If you question what is happening, even as a Christian, you are boxed (even by the church) as an anti-semite or pro-palestinian...again, and nothing more. So we can add churches to the list of those controlling the narrative. There are only two "sides" and in our free country you better not question the narrative or you will be outcast even though you may know more about an issue than those casting you out because logic, consistency, and knowledge of a thing no longer matter, feelings matter (and not just Democrats) and if that is the case, this country is done and people that support this are the problem, not those of us fighting to prevent it!

Allow the UN to control your happiness and say good bye to your freedom you think you love and love owning nothing because Klaus Schwab says you will be happy, Afterall "love is love" right. If they tell you to love don't ask what that means just parrot the narrative! What we should consider here is that words like hate, love, extremism and all words used to divide, to implement an agenda and use ignorant people as pawns just like they always have. Therefore words are not racist, bigotry, or anything else, they are used as a form of mind control and that, regardless of where you stand politically should bother you greatly.

I think you would agree that at some point, we just need to accept there are just some things that can't change, unless the people as individuals make that choice voluntarily and not by force and I would argue that when attempts are made to use force, it only makes the hate and discontent worse and maybe, this is also intentional.

Ever wonder why the narrative that people always hate eachother and people hate the govenrment are the enemies but the govenrment is free to hate those that speak the truth and criminalize them for things that are not unlawful? There's a thought.

Welcome to totalitarianism in your free country. If you see it and want to do something about it and aren't or just want to chat, let's talk.

52 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page