Love and Hate, Part IV- the Psychology of Anger and Hate

Lawrence Auster has died, RIP. I read his blog but I never got what the fuss was about. I think he had a certain niche staked out that was daring enough to be exciting, but not so far out as to be toxic. His Jewish background gave him some cover for race realism. He used his own name which appears brave but he seemed to have had some independent source of income. He had no job, no wife and no kids so he didn’t have any social or economic risk.

Auster was a weird dude. Mainly he was angry. He was angry about a lot of things and angry at a lot of people. He had a very narrow definition of what a “real” conservative was, which mainly consisted of agreeing with him on everything. His opinions were not terribly interesting or original so I can only conclude that it was the anger itself that made him popular. In the world of impotent conservatives and bemused, detached reactionaries this passes for passionate commitment.

And yet Auster led a pretty pointless life. What he was, and all he was, was an angry blogger. I’m a blogger, an angry one sometimes but I don’t make an identity of it. As an angry, race-realist neoconservative anti-anti-semite he was not only not a threat, he was almost an endearing crank.

We may note that while hate is taboo, anger is not. You can be as angry as you like about anything leftists do, and they really don’t care. If you hate what they do, you have crossed a red line and may get classified as belonging to a hate group or holding a hate philosophy. There are official lists of haters and you don’t want to be on them.

Why is anger permitted, but hate taboo?

As I said previously, anger is brief and hate is long. Anger is a briefly experienced emotion that motivates a person to take action to correct a wrong. Anger is a cognition, but mostly an emotion. If it is not quickly resolved, it becomes debilitating. Hate is an emotion, but mostly a cognition. It can go on for an indefinite amount of time- in God’s case, eternally. As I said in Part III, anger must be resolved into hate if the injustice is not rectified.

Permitting someone to be angry, but forbidding them to hate is deeply degrading and harming. This is usually accomplished by threatening and humiliating them but withholding the intellectual resources to understand the situation. The first part is well understood; the second is not generally understood explicitly.

Turning anger into hate requires expanding the basic cognition that something is wrong into a complete understanding of the situation and some kind of strategy for dealing with it. Incorrect conclusions include such ideas as conservatism, constitutionalism, traditionalism, and intellectual reaction. Because these ideations are ineffective at dealing with reality, they are unable to resolve anger into something that the mind can sustain over a long period of time.

Ideations that will allow the mind to effectively deal with the basic reality it perceives include realizing that the races are fundamentally different, that the white race is threatened by some other races in some situations, that the elite uses this situation to maintain control, and that political solutions are not available to non-elite whites. To think these at all is not permissible, and the more conformist crimestop this crimethink. To hold these thoughts, but not admit to oneself that one does, is more in the capability of the average person, and this is the mental state commonly found among conservatives. To think them, know that one thinks them, but not admit to anyone else that one does, covers another set of people. These people will have resolved anger into something sustainable, but as long as they keep their mouths shut they will not be a threat.

To speak of these things however is to encourage people to move from inadequate ideations that leave them experiencing fear, impotence and helplessess- anger, in shorthand- to an adequate ideation that allows people to form strategies to hopefully cope with the situation- a comprehensive intellectual and moral judgment that orients people towards future action that may or may not produce results provides a mentally healthy future orientation. Since this intellectual and moral judgment is negative rather than positive, it can be simply described as “hate”.

The “double bind” is an intellectual concept that describes the deleterious effect of mixed communications. It’s hardly necessary to describe the induced insanity of leftist culture, which might be described as just a bind. People are expected to consent to lies even when the truth is right there. Older systems of mental control at least tried to conceal the truth, so people could believe lies with some comfort.

Truth and lies can’t coexist. A version of truth that tries to be compatible with lies- modern conservatism and libertariansim, for example- is going to be a lie. There is no such thing as “half-truth”. Embrace the truth, because the truth will set you free. It will be scary but you will feel a lot better.

Advertisements

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Love and Hate, Part IV- the Psychology of Anger and Hate

  1. mindweapon says:

    I think I have a explanatory model for what is going on, and how to direct our hate.

    1. The ruling elites understand the problem of “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations” or the dynasty problem. The children of the elites won’t be able to take over, and there will be a succession of power. The current ruling elites want to hold back this day as long as possible.

    2. the ruling elites method for delaying succession is dumb down everyone else, so there chlidreen will have a chance in hell of holding oin to power.

    3. The revoluitonary path is to refuse the dumbing down, and do the opposite — Devote our energy and resources of our lives into helping White Nationalist Mindweapon Homeschooling families to raise teh children who will overthrow the current ruling elites, either by having the families yourselves, or financially supporting such families and/or providing teaching to them ,especially in math and science and technical skills and to a lessert extent, foreign languages.

  2. Who? says:

    Let us not speak ill of the (recently) dead. Auster was an OK guy and 80% or so of what he had to say was good. People are people and have their weird ways, I took what I could from the guy and discarded what I didn’t like, as we all do. RIP Auster.

    That said, mindweapon has written some interesting stuff above. Very nice.

  3. Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

    I think the system loves anger for the same reason that pro-wrestlers like Gorgeous George courted the disdain of the fans in the bleachers. It put butts in the seats, and highlighted the powerlessness of the masses versus the power of the despised wrestler (or, in this case, the politician). This is the reason why a Huffington Post moderator will let through a comment saying “Obama is a Kenyan Muslim communist” but might fisk or a remove a comment stating that some food bill Obama passed was drafted by a Monsanto honcho.

    This is also the reason why people who actually have some understanding of who Obama really is (like say, Steve Sailer) are more amused by him than enraged (i.e. the Tea Partiers blathering about how Obama is like Hitler/Stalin).

    When Jan Brewer or Joe Wilson lost their cool on Obama, you could see Obama’s barely concealed grin as he tried to suppress it, which reminds me of the baddie wrestler cupping his ear to bask in the boos of the fans who despise him.

    Re: Auster, I have seen him qualify himself, admit his wrong, etcetera. He was a control freak regarding his commenting policy, but almost everyone across the spectrum from Tim Wise to Kevin Macdonald has shut down their commenting feature at this point.

    As the commentor above me said, Auster was right about 80% of the time. R.I.P.

  4. It’s not accurate to call Auster a neoconservative. He was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War and other similar foreign policy adventures.

    • Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

      Auster could invoke plausible deniability (as well as Christianity) but at the end of the day, when the subject came up, even qualified with the most tepid of dissent, it was Israel Uber Alles or the highway with Auster. I’ve followed Auster since recommended “Path to National Suicide,” and have been a regular reader and commentor over at VFR for some years.

      Please humor me and answer this question as honestly as you can: If, hypothetically, Dear Successor was going to launch a nuclear warhead at either the USA or Israel, and Auster had to make a “Sophie’s Choice” what do you honestly think he would have done?

  5. Ryu says:

    Good work. I support hate and recommend it for others. It is a powerful motivating force.

  6. Bobbye says:

    Love and hate are not opposites, they are complementary. You hold on to what you love and push away what you hate. The opposite of love and hate is apathy. Clinical depression is characterized by apathy. You don’t care if your wife leaves or has an affair, don’t care if your children drop out of school and become crack dealers, don’t care if you lose your job, etc. The problem with hate is that it is only good for destroying. Sometimes things need torn down. But hate cannot build anything. Love builds stuff; like families, communities and even businesses. Anger, if controlled, can help keep a man on an even keel.

    • Hate is a negative motivation but that doesn’t mean it is bad. Understanding that you hate one thing leaves you free to love something else.

      • Bobbye says:

        You don’t need to hate anything in order to love. Yes some things need destroying and hate can motivate. Hate cannot build anything. I made no moral judgements at all about love or hate. But apathy is despicable.

      • Mavrick says:

        That’s the pefrcet insight in a thread like this.

  7. Ambrose says:

    You say Auster was “not a threat”, but then you say that it’s crimethink to think that “the races are fundamentally different, that the white race is threatened by some other races in some situations, that the elite uses this situation to maintain control, and that political solutions are not available to non-elite whites”. Auster believed all these things and argued for them openly and consistently under his own name. He certainly was not seen as “an endearing crank” by the system or by leftists or liberals. (And as an earlier commenter pointed out, he was certainly not a neo-conservative — not on a lot of key points, anyway, such as feminism and race politics and immigration and religion…) Anyway, you’re either contradicting yourself here or you haven’t read his blog with any care.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s