1,398 words
French version here, Slovak version here
One of the most common charges against White Nationalism is that it is an ideology of hatred toward other groups. My answer is: “Yes, but so what?” Yes, because hatred of other groups is definitely one factor in White Nationalism. So what, because hate does not disqualify White Nationalism, for two reasons: (1) ethnic hatred is a universal phenomenon in racially and culturally diverse societies, and (2) unlike the proponents of multiculturalism, White Nationalists actually offer a realistic path to reducing ethnic hatred and violence by reducing racial and cultural diversity. Beyond that, multiculturalists are hypocrites for denouncing hatred in our hearts while harboring it in theirs.
Sometimes, our accusers will spice up the hate charge by saying that we hate non-whites “just because they are different” — as if the norm for human relations is to like people who are different, thus disliking people who are different is morally depraved. Now, of course, we often do like people in spite of the fact that they are different. But that is not good enough for multiculturalists. For if diversity is self-evidently and unconditionally good, then we should like other people not in spite of their differences, but because of them.
So is it normal for human beings to like or dislike people because of their differences? Do birds of a feather flock together? Or do opposites attract? Common sense, history, and science (specifically genetic similarity theory) all support the idea that genetic similarity and a common culture promote harmony between individuals. Ethnocentrism is the preference for the genetically similar over the genetically different. Ethnocentrism is wired into the human brain, an inheritance of our prehuman evolutionary history in which even creatures as simple as ants and bees have the ability to distinguish between degrees of relatedness and show marked preference for their own kin. The greater the genetic and cultural differences between people, the greater the tension and conflict. Thus when people from different races and cultures are forced to live together in the same society, the predictable result is not a rainbow of tolerance, but constant friction, simmering hatred, and even outbursts of violence.
Some White Nationalists wish to deny that hatred plays any part in our politics. But if we believe that racial and cultural diversity in the same country cause hatred, then we are of course not immune to those forces. Indeed, if we were exposed to diversity and did not end up hating other groups, that would amount to a refutation of our own argument for White Nationalism. Thus it is self-defeating to protest that we don’t actually hate members of other groups.
I will grant that ethnic hated is not necessarily a part of White Nationalism, since people can arrive at our positions based simply on science, history, and common sense, without necessarily having any negative experiences of other groups. But of course people can also develop ethnic hatreds without personal experience of other groups.
I will also grant that it is possible to like individual members of racial and ethnic groups that one dislikes as a whole. Traits are distributed on bell curves, after all, and there will always be likable outliers even in enemy groups. The problem is that there are just not enough good blacks, good Jews, good mestizos, or good Muslims for us to get along in a diverse society.
I will further grant that love of our own group is more fundamental than hatred of outgroups. But that still does not imply that we do not feel hatred toward other groups when exposed to diversity. Hatred of our enemies and rivals is just the flip side of loving our own. And the stronger the love, the stronger the hatreds as well.
White Nationalists, then, are not immune to the problems of diversity. But neither is anyone else in a multicultural society. The only differences between White Nationalists and the rest of our people are (1) we are more attuned to racial and ethnic differences, (2) we thus become aware of the problems of diversity sooner than others, and (3) we are more honest about our feelings. But the rest of our people have the same nature and the same reactions to outgroups. Thus they will eventually come to feel the same way. And this is true even of the advocates of multiculturalism.
Hatred of other groups is the norm in racially and culturally diverse societies. But, as I put it in the title essay of my first book, Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, White Nationalists don’t want to hate other groups. The whole point of White Nationalism is to offer a real solution to ethnic hatred and violence: reducing diversity by creating racially and culturally homogeneous homelands. Multiculturalists, by contrast, wish to increase racial and cultural diversity, which will only lead to increased hatred and violence between groups.
The charge of hatred is so stigmatizing because most people think that hatred is intrinsically evil and love is intrinsically good. Our heads echo with a thousand silly pop songs extolling love as the answer, and childish movie dialogue like Obi-Wan Kenobi intoning, “Luke! Don’t give in to hate. That leads to the Dark Side.”
But love is not always a good thing. If you enable an evil person out of love, then love is a bad thing. And hate is not always a bad thing. Hatred toward evil people is perfectly reasonable, just, and good, and can lead to a better world. Thus the proper answer to the charge of being a hater is, “Yes, but is it the good kind of hate or the bad kind?” And when someone oh-so-bravely declares that he is on the side of “love,” one should answer, “Sure, but is it the good kind of love or the bad kind?”
If you think that hate is always evil and love is always good, then naturally you will want to command people to feel love and not to feel hate. It is simply what they ought to do. But emotions cannot be commanded this way. Emotions like love and hate are evolved responses to objective facts. Trying to command them is like trying to command your pupils not to dilate when you walk into a darkened room.
Thus if you believe that you are morally obligated to love rather than hate, this will not actually change your feelings. It will simply give you an incentive to lie about them to yourself and others. The moral imperative to love diversity has no power to change the wiring of our brains, which love similarity not diversity. The only power the multicultural imperative has is to make liars and hypocrites of us all. The only way to actually reduce hatred of racially and culturally different people is to reduce diversity by giving people their own homogeneous homelands.
When multiculturalists condemn us as haters, the proper response is to knock them off their high horse by pointing out their obvious hypocrisy. Everybody hates somebody. Multiculturalists obviously hate white people. They say that they hate whites, and they teach the most impressionable whites to hate themselves. They especially hate White Nationalists.
So there’s plenty of hate to go around here. The real issues are whether our hatred is reasonable or not, whether we are honest about our feelings or not, and whether we have realistic proposals to change the realities that make ethnic hatred and violence inevitable. For White Nationalists, the answer is yes in all three cases.
Multiculturalists, however, hate us because we reject the false values and unworkable model of society to which they are wedded. That is unreasonable. Multiculturalists have ethnocentric feelings too, but they lie about them and often avoid the diversity that they wish to foist on the rest of us. That is dishonest and hypocritical. Finally, multiculturalists decry ethnic hatred and violence but continue to promote the diversity that makes these problems inevitable. Such irresponsibility should disqualify them from holding any positions of political power and influence.
Thus White Nationalists have good reason to hate multiculturalists for their morally squalid characters and for the evils they have unleashed on white nations. Indeed, it is more appropriate for us to hate the white multiculturalists who have created this situation than the non-whites who are merely taking advantage of it. Traitors are worse than enemies. Frankly, if they had a shred of decency, multiculturalists would hate themselves a bit as well.
15 comments
Hatred arises out of frustration when we’re unable to solve a problem. When we fall in love we feel everything is going our way, so the admission of its opposite, the admission of hatred, is also an admission of defeat. Racial hatred is a perfectly natural reaction to the frustration we feel when confronted by the trashing of our society, but by giving into racial-hatred we are avoiding the challenge of solving the problem just as much as liberals and multi-racialists avoid the problem by reverting into sentimentality. As the article suggests, racial hatred will only be resolved through our ability to eradicate the curse multi-racialism.
“If you think that hate is always evil and love is always good, then naturally you will want to command people to feel love and not to feel hate. It is simply what they ought to do. But emotions cannot be commanded this way. Emotions like love and hate are evolved responses to objective facts. Trying to command them is like trying to command your pupils not to dilate when you walk into a darkened room.”
It is incredibly insolent for love-mongers to tell others what they should and shouldn’t feel. I believe that both Alexis Carrel (in Reflections on Life) and Anthony M. Ludovici (in Religion for Infidels) effectively pointed out that the biblical commandment to love one’s neighbor is nonsensical: love cannot be promoted by exhortation, and one can love others only if one finds them lovable. The invaders colonizing Western countries are neither neighbors nor lovable. And neither are their enablers.
There is a word for the kind of hatred that animates multiculturalists: ressentiment. Their hatred is malignant, irrational, and hypocritical; it is deep-seated, all-consuming, and ineradicable; it defines what they are and what they do. Their minds are poisoned by hatred.
The Spanish word for such a person is “resentido/a” and it arises from envy, a form of hatred albeit a lesser degree of same. It’s typically a lower socio-economic class phenomenon here in South America, but up north it seems to spring from a perceived rejection by one’s peers in the bourgeoisie. Out-groups often fall prey to it. Arousal to hate seems to me to be something that is understandable on an individual and highly personal level, but when it spreads wholesale to groups it begins looking like irrationality to me.
Greg has a healthy habit of hitting the nail right on the head and this article is no exception. You should do an audio version of it as well me thinks. Cheers.
I see Greg’s point, but I can hardly regard WN earnestly as “an ideology of hatred toward other groups”, which is just stupid SPLC/SJW-speak (let alone that this is strategically speaking hardly a good selling point). I’d rather speak of antipathy (which you usually cant help) and (justified) anger than hate. Of course, hate has a vital place where there is love. I feel free hating those who openly hate me and my people, for example, but I wouldn’t waste too much emotion on them either. Contempt will suffice. I’d just think of the best ways to fight them, and if they leave me alone, I’ll maybe stop hating them as well. It is also true that there is a huge hypocrisy about hahahate around today, mainly and especially from our saintly and angelic left, which makes them really deserving of hate.
It is also an ancient wisdom that “being hated, don’t give way to hating,/And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise”, as Kipling put it. Because even though hate can be a thymotic fuel, as a consuming, unchecked passion it can seriously be poisonous to your soul and dull your mind and judgment. It should not rule you. Being hypocritical about hatred doesn’t help, as Kipling hints at, but hatred should ideally be kept under a stoical, rational, self-disciplined control.
As should all passions.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote (bk. 4, sec. 5):
“The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised. For the good-tempered man tends to be unperturbed and not to be led by passion, but to be angry in the manner, at the things, and for the length of time, that the rule dictates . . .”
“[T]hose who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons; for such a man is thought not to feel things nor to be pained by them, and, since he does not get angry, he is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one’s friends is slavish.”
I can’t resist noting that the last-cited passage is especially pertinent to cuckservatives.
I applaud the candor of this article; as Mr. Johnson continues to demonstrate, we have much to gain from unabashed honesty, which is surely the best remedy for the liberals’ constant shame-mongering.
Nonetheless, I question the use the article makes of the word “hatred”—not because I think it inaccurate, but rather because I think it ambiguous. It seems to me that the quality of a given passion differs, depending on the soul in which it occurs. There is a difference in kind, for example, between the pure and honest hatred of a true warrior toward those who seek to destroy his people or his ways, and the “hatred” of a “social justice warrior,” which tends to be a shrill and unclean emotion, rooted in unacknowledged fears and pettiness of soul. The liberals will never comprehend our hatred, because their own hatred murks the water of their perception, and leads them to ascribe all kinds of monstrous and fantastical motives to us; but we can perhaps understand their hatred, insofar as we keep our vision clear.
It behooves us then to remember that when we speak of hatred, the word does not mean the same thing as it does in the mouth of a liberal, and when we hear or read the word “hatred,” it means something fundamentally different than it does to most people in our liberal society. It may be wise to regulate our language accordingly. It seems to me that Petronius has spoken well in his response, when he differentiates between hatred and contempt.
Ecclesiastes 3:8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Or as Jesus said to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, “O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?”
And the Christians, like the white rabbit cried, “Oh dear, oh dear! I shall be too late.”
Truly excellent read, agree with all of it. I have often thought that hate in this context is a valuable feeling and I can see nothing incorrect or inappropriate about it. After all, it tells us something is very wrong that is causing great pain and we need to change it. Denying hate, trying to convert it into ‘love’ because we are told to do so, is a simply a path to further self-injury, decay and injustice.
I think what’s confusing to a lot of people out there is the word ‘hate’ has been hijacked and subtly twisted by the notion of hate crimes and hate speech – establishing penalties for harboring bias and racially-charged motivations, obviously with the intention to get people (white people) to police their own thoughts more widely. How these ideas became laws – to one degree or another in many white countries seems to me an absolutely staggering failure of democracy and highlights certain key weaknesses of white institutions to (what I understand to be here) Jewish pressure. This concept of ‘hate’ – as a legal or institutional prohibition should be flatly rejected as some personal moral guide on the subject. It should not influence the way we genuinely feel about diversity and multiculturalism, or indeed steer how we view hatred itself as an emotion.
Paradoxically one advantage of a white ethnostate is that it would enable us to appreciate true diversity, and not resent the occasional presence of those who don’t belong. Their otherness would be cheerfully acknowledged and we could view them as visitors without feeling rancor. Personally I don’t “hate” any racial or ethnic group, but I do hate the rancor that gets stirred within me from forced association.
Good article on the virtues of hate, to the degree you can express it as such.
A side note: The use of the word ‘diversity’ here confuses me a bit. Demanding racial diversity within a nation is bound to destroy it, no?
Could a biologist please tell me how we enhance diversity by mixing people like we do? The effect is eventually the exact opposite. Diversity is only maintained by separating the subspecies or races. It is in fact one of the very basic ways the creational force of nature works.
When I discuss with globalists and pinpoint this contradiction, and the fact that it is I and not they who argues for diversity, they have a tendency to go sour. But they never cared much for the hard facts of biology anyway.
Hate is the best emotion. Hate makes me want to get up in the morning, and go on. In hate there is no cognitive dissonance. Hate brings clarity, and focus.
Forgive me if this sounds like an empty hallmark platitude, but it’s been said before that if we don’t hate those that threaten the ones we love, then we do not, in fact, love at all. Love and hatred aren’t separate things, they are twin and contradictory aspects of one thing. The degree to which we hate those that threaten the ones we love is the measure of our love. If we act on this hatred, we simultaneously act out of love.
Isn’t this what Plato explained to us 2500 years ago? The guardians, meaning the ones responsible for defending the community against threats, were to be as gentle and loving to their own as they were vicious and brutal to outsiders who threatened them. It’s why Janus had two faces and the doors to the temple of Janus would be closed when Rome was at peace and open when she was at war. Janus wasn’t two gods, as if one Janus could exist without the other Janus, but one god with two faces just as a coin must have two sides or else it can’t exist. It’s the same for love and hatred. One cannot exist without the other or else it has no meaning.
Nor is hatred an arbitrary preference, it is a moral imperative, an obligation and responsibility just as surely as you have a responsibility to protect your children from those who would threaten them. Wouldn’t we judge a parent who neglected their child or one who refused the obligation to protect them from others who would harm them? Of course we would. Everyone understands this moral calculation, even our enemies. Our innate understanding of this is bound up with what it means to be human. Extend that principle to your extended family, your community, and finally your race. Tribalism and nationalism are moral obligations and to refuse them and hide behind empty universalist and individualist abstractions is, in truth, the most reprehensible and shameful form of cowardice. It’s time we started recognizing it as such. It is not the tolerance and diversity pimps who judge us, it is us who judge them.
So there is no hatred without love and vice versa, one has no meaning without the other. To love everybody is to love nobody. To love is to discriminate. If we can appreciate this – and everyone can, even the leftist and the normie – then it should become clear that the empty multicult platitudes which admonish us to love everyone are to morality what fast food is to nutrition, and anybody seriously making this argument should not be laughed at so much as they should be denounced.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.