142 words / 59:52
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to the CC podcast RSS feed, click here.
Greg Johnson talks to Chris Robertson about his book In Defense of Hatred. Topics include:
- Chris’ intellectual journey
- Matthew Crawford, author of Shop Class as Soulcraft and The World Beyond Your Head
- In Defense of Hatred
- Hatred vs. anger
- Hatred vs. annoyance
- Hatred vs. disgust
- Noise
- Love and hate
- The idea of a hate-free world
- Resentment, bitterness, and spite
- Forgiveness
- The absurdity of thinking that the embittered, resentful Left will create a world without hate
- Why a hate-free world will never happen
- Why material plenty will not create a world without competition and hate
- Fake virtue and fake niceness vs. real virtue and real respect
- Chris’ blog Caffeine Philosophy
4 Comments
The pathologizing of ‘hate’ is simply a way of immobilizing our ability to fight for our interests.
There is a marxist tactic called “Controlling both Sides of the Debate.” This a classic example. The Left claims that there is something very, very bad out there called “hate” which no goodthinker entertains, but which ungoodthinkers (the Right) espouse. This puts the Left on the moral high ground by supporting “love” against “hate” (see the moronic slogan, “Love Trumps Hate”).
But it also morally disarms the Right. Supposing a Rightist were to cuck out and state, “Wait a minute, we’re not haters, it’s the Democrats who are the real haters.” This falls into the trap of arguing on the grounds set by the Left (i.e., that the issue is “hate” against “love”). It also removes a weapon from the Right’s arsenal, as Lemur notes, by stigmatizing the mobilization of animosity against obvious foes.
Leftists, at is all too common, operate by projecting their own pathologies onto their opponents. Consider how the Left vents its spleen by smearing the Right as bigots-racists-sexists-whatever-phobes. Or how Leftists launch witch hunts against celebrities who committed the speakcrime of uttering racial epithets in private. Or the Leftist employment of violence against speakers who espouse even moderately conservative lines. Or Leftist desecration of Confederate monuments. i.e., they reserve for themselves the use of real hate as a weapon to beat down their foes while denying it to the Right.
The real issue here is not “hate” but White advocacy. Nationalists can not allow the Left to frame the debate within terms which are rigged against Whites. There is a principle of agitprop that to succeed, you must seize the initiative and put the enemy on the defensive.
The Alt Right did something like this with its promotion of the Pepe meme. But the initiative needs to be maintained. How do White Nationalists set the terms of the debate?
Consider how opening the gates of White countries to third world mass migration is “love.” Defending White homelands against the invasion becomes “hate.” You can argue that this is an inversion of reality, since it is the supporters of third world invasions who really hate White people and want to see them destroyed. But again, that is getting defensive.
A better approach would be for Nationalists to reset the debate with themselves as “patriots” against “invaders” (as I see some on the Alt Right have already done), with the ultimate foe being the Left (and hostile elites) as “traitors.” The emotive impact of the word “traitor” would throw them on the defensive or, if they embrace it, alienate them from most people. Either way, the Alt Right gains the initiative.
Interesting. With the Muslim attacks–and I’m not sure whether the book talks of this–hatred is not directed towards the jihadists themselves so much, but to the forces that tolerate and actively transport them into European countries. I make the analogy with lions and tigers; I like them in their natural environment; but I don’t want to see them wandering the streets of my hometown! These people are great in Arabia where they can jihad back and forth and whatever they usually do.
Speaking of hatred, John Michael Greer’s recent article, “Hate is the New Sex,” is well worth a read.
http://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/