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.