The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Meditations on Hate
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”
William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.[1]I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.[2]This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated. The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. Stoicism, Buddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realiation that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3]A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197). Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.

Conclusion

The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.

Notes

[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. TL:DR, but everyone and their grandma knows that “hate” is in the eye of the beholder.

    I say Zionists are bad news, and Joe Feinstein says I am spewing “hate.”

    And on and on and on and on and on..

    Hate is fake.

    If I detest how my wife doesn’t clean the kitchen to my liking or standards, do I hate her? No. I don’t like how she does a thing.

    That’s not hate. And either is anything else called hate nowadays. No need to write a 250,000-word essay about it.

  2. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled.

    Hatred is only a psychological burden when the mind creates an obstacle that it can’t overcome. It can always just not make the obstacle, and move somewhere else. As the Chinese saying goes “of the 36 strategems, the best one is flee”.

    Fear and the resulting hate are the weakest of human reactions. It is lowering yourself away from the higher intellectual being that you are, to a base animalistic instinct. The Buddhist does not ‘forgive an enemy’ – he simply does not see an enemy. Of course, this requires an ideology that lacks the duality of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – mind made and limited concepts. And running away? That is often just the most rational response. Take the fascism that is creeping in onto the west – stay and fight the state? Why? I’ve played Russian roulette with my life before, between Russian roulette, and a life somewhere else, I choose a life somewhere else.

    A Buddhist sees someone acting violently just like someone who is physically crippled. A mental condition that makes the individual less than what they could be. Why hate a psychological cripple? Because they act on their intention – sure, that dooms them far more than some genetic lottery. But it also gives them an out that a physical cripple doesn’t have. Hate does not allow for reform of that which can be reformed, and so it grants no positive solution.

    The current revolution in values

    The no-hate practices of Stoics, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Christ’s followers, is millennia old. The revolution, if you ask me, is coming from the fact that the modern West has cast off its shackles of Christianity (which is not Christ’s message for the most part), and taken to filling the void of atheism with some mixage of ancient and peaceful faiths. That these people professing a metaphysical ‘we are all One’ are also atheists, makes them very confused, so they act out with ‘anti-hate’-hate. An intellectual dishonesty because they are not intellectually honest with themselves.

    Hate is a nihilist’s solution (and you do quote that fool Nietszche more than once! 😉 ) – kill everyone whom I despise, and the world will be set right. But in doing so, you become what you hate. I am reminded of the great old game Diablo, in enunciating this in gamer format.

    By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews..

    Samson option. Judaism preaches hate with respect to the Gentile, other than through false advertising, like a wolf teaching sheep where to graze. That dumb spiritually yearning atheists fall in line with the message is simply due to ‘the fool is not the one that doesn’t know, but the one who does not want to know’.. Show these SJWs the Talmud, quote them passages of the Old Testament – they will just brush it off with ‘all faiths are the same, they preach the same bullshit, have these same diatribes’.

    Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

    Not that I will quote Spock or the Vulcans, but emotion, hate, fear – these things do not help your rational reasoning process, that cognitive process which drives you towards a solution to your problem. Emotion will instead cloud your thinking, throw an element of chaos into it, and make you act before you think. Fine for the ape, beneath and damaging to the human. This is no peaceful reflection, but reflectionary reaction – like a dumb rock falling to Earth under the effect of gravity.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Sam J.
  3. TG says:

    “You humans that are not mental engineers, you don’t understand. Outside of the narrow abstract worlds of chess or orbital dynamics, pure logic by itself doesn’t work. There are too many interactions. One must have heuristics; rules of thumbs, intermediate goals. There is my primary directive, but in pursuit of that, there are many things that help me, and that hinder me. The things that help me, I naturally assign a positive value to them. This makes me want to remain close to these things, to protect and preserve them. The things that hinder me, I want to push away, to degrade and destroy.”

    “So,” said Olivia, “hate and love, so easily defined?”

    “Yes. It’s that simple. Love and hate are the most rational of all the human emotions. They have high survival value. If you don’t want people to hate you, don’t give them a reason. And the other way around.”

    “The wisdom of Solomon,” said Olivia.

    I snorted. “Solomon was an amateur. All I am saying, is give hate a chance.”

    [Excerpt from novel in progress]

  4. Durocher: “Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). … The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) …”

    No, that’s wrong.

    While the Stoics thought it virtuous to love mankind, this was only because other men were presumed to be rational creatures akin to oneself. For the Stoics, to love was not a virtue in itself; it wasn’t seen as some theological essence, and reason still held primacy. But this all changed with the coming of Christianity, and its identification of Love with God himself. You quote 1 John, but the wrong verse. It goes on to say, in 1 John 4:8, that “God is love”. But if God is love, then what does that make hate but the antithesis of God? Haters then become an enemy of God, and are by definition devoid of any virtue. Thus, in the West, the modern elevation of Love into the ultimate virtue, and the demonization of Hate, descends directly from Christian theological thought. At the same time, in Christianity, reason is devalued. Contra the Stoic position, man does not help himself through his own efforts, by means of rational understanding, but rather through simple, child-like faith in Jesus, the putative incarnation of Love. Jesus doesn’t reason with anyone. He’s no Socrates, looking for truth. He simply proclaims that he IS the truth, the way, and the light (John 14:6). Reason, evidence, and argument play no role whatsoever.

    The overvaluation of Love in our own times can entirely be laid at the doorstep of Christianity and its cultural residue. The necessary consequence of this overvaluation is the demonization of Hate.

    • Replies: @Grand Inquisitor
    , @ivan
  5. “War on Hate” “War on Whites” sums it up nicely.

    It’s all about the jewing to render gentiles impotent. The rise of jewish power ( hatred in action)
    has resulted in whites not being allowed to “hate” or object to any affront whatsoever.

    1500 little white girls turned into sex slaves by Pakis in Rotherham? Can’t object to that! That would be hate!

    It seems to me the Saxon used to be pretty good at hating and I have a feeling hate is going to have a very big comeback in the next few years.

    • Agree: James Stark
    • Replies: @Wally
  6. Oy vey! Watch the Haters crawl out under their Liberal rock….throwing stones for peace.
    Good read, thank you. I do think we do not give Israel enough credit, for teaching people who never heard of Jews, to hate Jews. Pity the Zionistanis are not really Jews, just Jewish.

  7. Thanks for the excellent essay.

  8. Hate is a natural emotion. We are born that way. Hating something or someone leads to fight or flight. Flight is always preferable to fight, when possible.

    Hating something because it exists is a waste of time. Hating something because it causes you pain is natural. Human.

  9. Finnish nationalist Kai Murros, his famous and very memorable short discourse, ‘On Hate’. 2min33sec

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Thanks: Z-man
    • Replies: @anonymous
  10. Anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    The only thing I ever witness when there is a lack of hate is the intrusion of evil to fill the void. The hate was prior keeping the evil out.

    If you love the Good, you must hate and otherwise defend against all that can destroy it. Anything else assures its destruction.

  11. Outstanding essay by Andrew Joyce. Hate is not the world’s worst evil. In fact, it’s not evil at all. This moral pretension is a post-Holocaust fairy tale.

    The fraudulent ‘anti-hate’ campaigns that have arisen in America over the past 50 years are all politically oriented and racially-motivated. Their objective is not the elimination of ‘hate’, but the deligitimitisation of white identity, white cohesion, white advocacy, and white continuity.

    Ironically, to achieve these unadvertised goals, these camouflaged campaigns rely on derision, division and defamation. In their wake are invidious double standards which not only disadvantage white peoples, but elevate Jewish nationalism (Zionism). This artifice tears at the very core of Western (white) civilization.

    If you love justice and fairness; if you love your family and your people, you must hate those responsible for this ongoing and detestable war of aggression.

  12. It bears repeating:
    “Semitism is the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind”.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  13. vot tak says:

    “For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

    These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents.

    The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector.”

    Yes, onward christian soldiers…I wrote something else after, but figured it would get lost in translation and erased it. This is really pathethic stuff. The “great thinker” here writes about Buddhism, yet is completely clueless what Buddhism reflects. I started reading this article thinking it might have something useful to say, but realised the author is in the same demented right wing rut the rest of the freakshow running the west for israel are. But that’s what israel wants for “deep thinkers” among their jailhouse bitches.

  14. Wally says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Indeed Robert, let’s talk about real hate.


    [MORE]

    Israeli racist, pregnant arab T shirts, 1 shot, 2 kills

    ‘Killing Arabs not racist, it’s values

  15. hrundia says:

    Three cheers for hatred!

    This is one of the smarter posts I’ve read on this site in a while. I’ve felt the same way for a long time – hatred is a rational consequence of understanding what’s happening to white people. It seems that the only white people who can be truly alive these days are absolutely boiling with this healthy, virile, and useful emotion. There are three options for a white person: Deny that the white race is being dispossessed (deny the world), deny that you hate this (deny the self), or accept hatred into your heart.

    I think you make it too easy on yourself with the antizionism. By all means, hate Zionists (I do!), but it’s doing too much work in your analysis. The weakness and cowardice that’s destroying the west is an internal urge of Europeans, with Christianity as ultimate religion of cucks (=deniers of the self). Let’s not forget to knock back a nice tall glass of haterade in honor of the pathetically weak and cowardly gentiles who have so diligently contributed to our destruction over the decades.

    • Agree: Emily
  16. Franz says:

    Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible.

    Europeans appear less resigned than afraid. Fear squashes the ability to hate. It seems counterintuitive but if you’ve done any police work you know it because you’ve seen it in action.

    Fear of poverty, of overcrowding, of losing our place in the world. And the iron triangle of government, media, and education are adding now logs to the fire of fear daily.

    Fight the fear. Your hate will return.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  17. Druid says:
    @restless94110

    God, what a dumb statement! And it’s neither, not either.

  18. Sometimes the mysterious contradictions and conflations of poetry have a clarity and a sort of mystic’s precision which straight discourse lacks, as here…

    [MORE]

    “Hate is only one of many responses.
    True, hurt and hate go hand in hand;
    But why be afraid of hate, it is only there —
    Think of filth, is it really awesome?
    Neither is hate.
    Don’t be shy of unkindness, either:
    It’s cleansing and allows you to be direct
    Like an arrow that feels something…

    ..All of these things, if you feel them
    Will be graced by a certain reluctance
    And turn into gold;

    If felt by me, will be smilingly deflected
    By your mysterious concern”

    — Frank O’Hara

    (given punctuation for clarity’s sake)

  19. Ghali says:

    Andrew Joyce must be addicted to the hatred of what he labelled as, “Hordes of anonymous third world migrants”, Muslims in particular. What Joyce called “Hate”, has absolutely nothing to do with Love. The word “Like” is the alternative way to presenting Hate. Love is deep emotion and always for ever. Love is intrinsic. Hate is extrinsic and is fuelled by people like Joyce and his ilk. Just like fire. Without fuel, fire distinguishes. A good example of Hate and Love is the Jews’ deeply-entrenched hatred of Muslims and Arabs. From childhood, hatred is religiously cemented in the mind of every Jew.

    • Replies: @Lebron
  20. I wholeheartedly sympathize with Dr. Joyce’s analysis of “hate” as an essential biocultural defence mechanism in the war against whites. I do however reject his suggestion that, when Jesus called upon his audience at the Sermon on the Mount to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”, he thereby threw the Old Testament God under the bus.

    Dr Joyce suggests that to command his followers to care for their enemies “sits uneasily with much of the rest of the of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures” in which the Lord God, the Father repeatedly expresses a “perfect hatred” for his enemies. To which, my response is “Well, not really. It depends very much on the meaning of the English word enemy”.

    This is an issue that I discussed at TOO last year in an article on “Global Jesus versus National Jesus”. As I wrote there, in the original Greek of Matthew 5:44, Jesus “refers specifically and only to ‘private’ enemies (echthros) not to ‘public’ or ‘alien’ enemies (polemoi). In English, the word “enemy” blurs the distinction between personal and political enemies; such as, most immediately, the Jewish authorities who were about to persecute Jesus and his followers in the service of the evil one. Jesus did not ask his flock to “love” their persecutors; rather, he urged his audience to “pray” on their behalf.

    In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus exhorted his audience to prepare for the suffering they could expect while waging a spiritual struggle against the official, public forces of evil likely to be sanctified by the cult of the Temple. Facing public enemies aplenty, his followers could not allow their attention and energy to be consumed in petty disputes with their private enemies. Jesus acted like a non-com telling his troops to forget the petty, personal grudges dividing them. If the national destiny foretold by the law and the prophets was to be fulfilled, spiritual solidarity in the face of their collective enemy was the key to victory.

    As it happened, the Jewish servants of the evil one came to need the prayers of the first Jewish Christians some forty years later, when Jesus came again to wreak divine judgement on Old Covenant Israel in alliance with the Roman armies which destroyed the Jerusalem Temple. The suffering and death of Jesus on the cross turned out to be but a shadow or a type of the blood sacrifice of Israel according to the flesh at the long-prophesied Day of Vengeance in AD 70. Jesus made no secret of his hatred for the synagogue of Satan or of his willingness to enter into a working arrangement with Caesar to consummate the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.

    The Christian church became the new Israel. In the world of late antiquity Christians still grasped the distinction between private and public enemies. More importantly, unlike mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches today, they were well aware of the existential difference between “friends” and “enemies”. Unlike the “national Jesus” of the New Testament who died to save the “lost sheep of Israel”, the “global Jesus” worshipped by the modern church calls upon his followers to “love those who persecute us”. “Global Jesus” sets out deliberately to undermine “every tendency to build our identities according to ‘us’ and ‘them’”.

    Blinding itself to the existential distinction between friend and enemy, the church has transformed Christianity into a deracinated, cosmopolitan cult of the Other. To cite the Sermon on the Mount in support of such pathological altruism is nothing short of sinful. I am sure that Dr Joyce would agree that what we need today is a political theology that empowers (I would say, especially, Anglican) churches to teach the Saxon, once again, how to hate.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. Meanwhile over on the Eastern side …

    “I don’t care what you ‘feel’,” bellowed Moment Gopher to the large gathering of Eastern gophers belonging to OWR (Organization for Western Resistance).

    “What we want is action. What we want is resistance. What we want is every Gopher regardless of being male or female, albino or grey, long or short, religious or not, to dispense with any feeling of individuality and join our struggle.

    “That the Western gophers have developed the deadly ‘extract of noeyela’ which supposedly blinds gophers within a meter will not deter our brave forces.

    “Our individuals are strong, our families are strong, our homes are strong, our burrows are strong and our borders are invincible. Lift your claws and lift your spirits, tomorrow we will conquer all those who stand against us, we will scatter them to the far corners of the garden and we will take over their burrows.”

    “Squeek, squeek,” came the thunderous chorus of Eastern gophers as they lifted their paws towards the cavern roof.

    So the stage is set. Who can save the day? Will it be the new charismatic leader of the Western gophers aptly named Thumper Gopher, or will Moment Gopher prevail?

    Meanwhile I was thinking, if it is sunny tomorrow it might be a good time to have a barbecue in my garden and invite all my friends.

  22. cranc says:

    Does Andrew Joyce believe in unconditional love ? Does such a thing exist ?
    It is one thing to realise that the denial of hatred only denies part of ourselves, it is quite another to look to an embrace of hatred (or toward more actions motivated by hate) for some kind of solution to the problems of humanity.
    This article only confirms to me that people of Joyce’s opinion, by not recognising the nature of love and hate, become what they oppose.

    There is no racial or political solution to this problem.

  23. All people, Whites especially, need Semitic de-programming urgently.

    • Agree: Z-man
  24. Adûnâi says:
    @Franz

    > “Europeans appear less resigned than afraid. Fear squashes the ability to hate. It seems counterintuitive but if you’ve done any police work you know it because you’ve seen it in action.”

    The last time I checked, Europeans had two nuclear powers (England and France), whereas Muslim West Asians had none. What’s to fear?

    Oh wait, using nuclear weapons to clear the planet of non-Whites is haram according to the cucked Christian axiology. What is not haram? Letting foreigners have your women, of course! Europeans deserve to die out.

    • Agree: commandor
    • Replies: @Franz
  25. gotmituns says:

    There’s nothing wrong with hatred tastefully applied.

  26. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Brilliant essay!

  27. Lebron says:
    @Ghali

    You’re being a good Muslim, Ghali.

  28. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    It’s always peculiar how Christianity is blamed for the effects of a post-Christian West. Listening to the blame-Christianity crowd, one would think we live under a vibrant theocracy in the West. I guess the Crusades were a free-love, acid-dropping bunch in your view?

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    , @ivan
  29. “… because the minds that I have loved,
    The sort of beauty that I have approved,
    Prosper but little, has dried up of late,
    Yet knows that to be choked with hate
    May well be of all evil chances chief.
    If there’s no hatred in a mind
    Assault and battery of the wind
    Can never tear the linnet from the leaf.

    [MORE]

    An intellectual hatred is the worst,
    So let her think opinions are accursed.
    Have I not seen the loveliest woman born
    Out of the mouth of Plenty’s horn,
    Because of her opinionated mind
    Barter that horn and every good
    By quiet natures understood
    For an old bellows full of angry wind?

    Considering that, all hatred driven hence,
    The soul recovers radical innocence

    And learns at last that it is self-delighting,
    Self-appeasing, self-affrighting,
    And that its own sweet will is Heaven’s will;
    She can, though every face should scowl
    And every windy quarter howl
    Or every bellows burst, be happy still.

    And may her bridegroom bring her to a house
    Where all’s accustomed, ceremonious;
    For arrogance and hatred are the wares
    Peddled in the thoroughfares.

    How but in custom and in ceremony
    Are innocence and beauty born?
    Ceremony’s a name for the rich horn,
    And custom for the spreading laurel tree.”

    “A Prayer for my Daughter” W. B Yeats.
    (my emphasis)

  30. Z-man says:
    @restless94110

    Having been in close proximity to my wife for the last 3 months, because of the Chinese virus and other things, she HATES me. (Big grin)

  31. Timely topic. I’ve been harping on this on Unz and other forums for ages. Why pick on hate, rather than greed, envy, or a host of other emotions. Greed is responsible for far more wars than hatred, I suggest, and far more financial scandals that end up ruining lives.

    Hatred is actually quite useful. It can serve as an excellent motivator, for one.

    As for ‘the Jews’, name a single ethnic group that Jewish people like. One.

    They generally try to appear as though they like blacks, but Malcolm X and Farrakhan amply demonstrated that this is strategic. They don’t, in general, respect blacks. They don’t like Poles, Italians, Russians, Chinese, etc. The best I can think of is that they are somewhat neutral towards Indians, Pacific Islanders and the like. In short, people who are no challenge to their rule and who haven’t caused them problems in the past.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    , @Thomasina
  32. Z-man says:

    Thanks for a great essay which identifies the problem clearly towards the end. (Wry grin)

  33. Oracle says:

    Not hating is a luxury of those who are assured of their survival.

  34. Vojkan says:

    “There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda.”

    Correlation doesn’t mean causation but there are no Jews in power outside the West.

    And yes I hate it all too and I am an impenitent hater. I am pro-life and pro-human dignity. Live and let live as long as it isn’t in my face. Be depraved as you wish as long as it doesn’t harm anyone and as long as you don’t force your depravity upon the rest of us. Therefore I am necessarily anti-choice, anti-surrogacy, anti-genderism, anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-communist, anti-banksterism, anti-Big Pharma, anti-Big Agri, anti-Greta, anti-Quran, anti-Old Testament, anti-Talmud… I regard not feeling the uttermost abhorrence of it all as either a sign of extreme cowardice or a sign of irredeemable mental illness. For one can easily see the line of further abjections that will be imposed upon us in the future.

    • Replies: @Emily
  35. Anonymous[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @andrew fraser

    As recently as 1910 the Catholic Encyclopedia enjoined believers to hate evil and, with qualification, detest these evils enough to wish punishment on their perpetrators. Here’s the relevant part from the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org:

    “Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.

    “One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.

    “The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

    “This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so. The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people. Of course, it is clear that this apparent zeal must not be an excuse for catering to personal spite or party rancour. Still, even when the motive of one’s aversion is not impersonal, when, namely, it arises from the damage we may have sustained at the hands of others, we are not guilty of sin unless besides feeling indignation we yield to an aversion unwarranted by the hurt we have suffered.”

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm

    • Replies: @andrew fraser
    , @N. N. Guy
  36. Gordo says:

    Don’t hate, separate.

  37. Luckily (?) my social and professional circles don’t offer me many occasions whatsoever to address topics like this……like once every few years. But my argument is this: if a “hate crime” can exist, and words, whether written or spoken, can constitute such, what could be a more quintessential example than the phrase “I hate you”? No ambiguity there at all. Will those three words at some point subject their author to a hate crime charge?

  38. anarchyst says:
    @Badger Down

    The term “semite” and all of its derivatives should apply only to true “semites”. Most jews are not “semites” at all but are eastern European Turkish interlopers who have no right to define themselves as “semites”.
    True “semites” are those whose history places them in the Levant for the long haul–Palestinians and other Arabs can properly be called “semites”, unlike most eastern European jewish “transplants”.
    It is long overdue for the record to be set straight on who is a “semite” and who is not…

  39. Now this is more like unz.com article instead of the most recent “I Love China” fuckfest practiced on the site by the moronic likes Godfree Roberts, Pepe Escobar and even a morose Ron Unz.

    People who visit the site care about what’s happening to the whites across the world and not about ancillary and asinine shit!

  40. Mia Culpa says:

    This article misses the mark. Should have included reference to the article “The Virtue of Hate” in First Things magazine, February 2003, by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik.

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate

    Unz contributor E. Michael Jones has discussed this subject.

  41. “Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.”

    Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

  42. In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible.

    Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
    – Someone

  43. GMC says:

    As the other commenters said – Hate is a tool for others to control / manipulate the society. The word has been remade, for an overestimated feeling tht used to mean – I don’t like it , which is now anti semitic – lol

  44. Grand Inquisitor: “I guess the Crusades were a free-love, acid-dropping bunch in your view?”

    I think it says a lot about Christianity that its defenders have to go all the way back to the Middle Ages to find any “real” Christians.

    Grand Inquisitor: “Listening to the blame-Christianity crowd, one would think we live under a vibrant theocracy in the West.”

    Oh, it’s “vibrant” alright. And it’s getting more “vibrant” all the time. Next up, a negro Pope!

    Grand Inquisitor: “It’s always peculiar how Christianity is blamed for the effects of a post-Christian West. ”

    What’s peculiar is how the defenders of Christianity always want to give their religion credit for creating Western civilization, but never accept the blame for any of civilization’s downsides.

  45. Emily says:
    @Vojkan

    Can I just say I love your comment.
    I couldn’t agree more.
    For instance how could any decent person not HATE those who have introduced full term abortion for instance.
    Just killing a full term baby on birth as unwanted and a woman’s right to choose.
    Yes I hate.
    If you don’t hate such brutal deplorable inhuman action, what will induce ‘hatred’ as such.
    I can’t imagine…….
    What they are doing to underage children in the name of ‘transition’…
    Yes I hate.
    They are starting to make Mengele look humane.

    • Replies: @Vojkan
  46. RJJCDA says:

    In TETHERS OF THE SAPIANTS, the principle character is accused of harboring hatred. He responds with: “Yes I hate! I hate evil, don’t you?”

    • Replies: @Jedro
  47. BADmejr says:

    Ezekiel 25:17 (most memorable to me when Samuel Jackson said it on Pulp Fiction):

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the
    Inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men
    Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will
    shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness
    for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children
    And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
    Anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers
    And you will know
    My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee

    There can be no love without hate. Love my family and people. Hate those who attempt to harm them.

  48. Vojkan says:
    @Emily

    “What they are doing to underage children in the name of ‘transition’” has the eventual goal of ‘normalising’ one of the two last (with incest) prohibited sexual mores, paedophilia. How possibly can one not hate that?

  49. JImbobla says:

    Ahab did not hate Moby Dick. That would have made the story quite mundane. He more seemed to suffer from existential angst, which gave life to the story. You do Melville a disservice. Hatred exists in the heart, not in the head. Reading all this rationalization is quite humorous.

    • Replies: @N. N. Guy
  50. @restless94110

    Your loss. This article contains profound insights and offers serious humans illumination for the way forward.

    I have a case in federal district court against the premiere “hate fighters” in the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the documents I have filed, I make a variation of one of the author’s arguments above, that hate, being an emotion, is neither good nor evil. It simply is. The only thing we can ask of an emotion is whether it is rational or irrational. When hate is rational, it provides the necessary emotive force for taking action.

    [MORE]

    Fighting human hate is tantamount to fighting human digestion. To remove hate from a human is to dehumanize them. And to dehumanize is to prepare for genocide.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has built a war chest of more than half a billion dollars for their fight against “hate”. A year ago, the entire upper management resigned–the president, Richard Cohen, the chairman of the board, Howard Allan, the director of litigation, Rhonda Brownstein, and the editor of their Hatewatch blog, Heidi Beirich. Where are they now? Why did they all walk away from an organization pulling in north of a hundred million dollars per year sent to it by ignorant gullible Americans? Do we really believe they just left that half billion dollars sitting there in the bank?

    Your glib dismissal of the article above (because it was too long to read, no less) makes you less able to answer these important questions or even to see why they are important–i.e., makes you more gullible, more ignorant.

    By the way, I am now in the discovery phase of the court case, where I may be able to expose the answers to these important questions. A serious impediment is lack of funds. If there are any readers who can help out financially, please go to https://www.gofundme.com/f/nelsen-v-splc

    Also, shout out to Chad Bowman, the Ballard Spahr lead attorney for the SPLC, who monitors unz.com for my comments and who should be ashamed of representing these obvious enemies.

    • Agree: lavoisier
  51. anonymous[521] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian

    Sounds like this dolt plagiarized speech on war given by former NYT war reporter Chris Hedges.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  52. Art says:

    Hate is found in most every scientific list of human emotions. Hate is natural. The universe put hate into our list of human options. Sometimes hate is needed to spur action. Most people are not inclined to violence. But there comes a time when violence is called for – and hate is appropriate.

    Disgust is another human emotion. The Jews for political purposes, have escalated people’s disgust for their cultural ways – into falsely saying “that our natural disgust is really hate for them.”

    The Jews are the ones who are the great haters. They culturally learn from their elders, to hate and fear all of humanity from a very early age. This child abuse manifest itself in reflexive mindless adult Jew hatred for humanity. This cycle of hate has been going on for millennia. The Jew project the hate that they have for humanity – onto everyone else.

    When is our human disgust with the Jews going to boil over? Can it be avoided? The JQ is growing.

    • Agree: Poco
    • Replies: @Z-man
  53. “ultimate, not further reducible, reality consists of existences, individuals or groups, which struggle for their self-preservation and, together with that of necessity also for the extension of their power, that is why they meet as friends or foes and change friends or foes according to the needs of the striving after self-preservation and striving after [the extension of their] power”.

    -Panagiotis Kondylis

  54. Z-man says:
    @Art

    Excellent post Art

    • Agree: geokat62
    • Thanks: Art
  55. Thanks, Mr. Joyce, brilliant as usual. So, solutions. Ethno Nationalism for all peoples of the world, protected by all peoples of the world. Isolate the warmongers, secret societies and criminal’s. Strong national border’s. All peoples to be good stewards of their natural habitat. Well behaved foreign tourists and essential temporary foreign guestworkers should be welcomed. Race mixing should be discouraged going forward. Where it has occurred, the offspring of such relationships must be welcomed, along with their other race mother, in the ancestral homeland of their fathers bloodline. I call it, The McCarthy Plan. My African, Asian, Jewish etc. friends love The McCarthy Plan. Help perfect it at the YouTube channel, The McCarthy Plan…………also, Google, a biblical defence of ethno nationalism, from faithandheritage.com Don’t mess with God. Love The McCarthy Plan…….. carry on.

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  56. @Anonymous

    Interesting. Does the fact that the quotation comes from the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia imply that the principles set forth there have since been dropped down the memory hole?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  57. Franz says:
    @Adûnâi

    The last time I checked, Europeans had two nuclear powers (England and France), whereas Muslim West Asians had none. What’s to fear?

    Their own leaders?

    The nukes belong to regimes, not the people who pay for them. The fear of having your income cut off for the wrong POV has been accelerating since the turn of the century.

    I am not aware of any fearful regime. I am not aware of any working in the interest of their own people.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  58. The Jews are so full of hatred that it literally oozes from their very pores: feminism, gay marriage, transgender promotion and the attempt to legitimize pedophilia all provide ample proof of their willingness to destroy European, or any other, societies to achieve their goals. Their total ownership of media in the West gives them the means to do this. Their money provides the wages for the traitors who propagate their marxist-satanic ideology and vehement hatred aimed at manipulating blacks and browns to attack whites.

    This from the group who seized power from the Czar, killed him and his children in 1917 then proceeded to murder 40 million Orthodox Russians as fast as they could. No synagogues were harmed during and after the Jew-Bolshevik Revolution and ‘anti-semitism’ was illegal but priests and monks were ruthlessly tortured and murdered. These peoples ancestors now lecture the world about ‘hate’.

    Previously, the Jews positioned themselves under Islam as slavers who provided the European slave labour and harem sexual slaves for the Caliphate. Now the Jews babble on about how Islam is a religion of ‘peace’. The historical facts clearly show that over 14 centuries Islam killed over 200 million people. After the Mediterranean ceased to be profitable for slavery, the Rothschilds led the charge-via the British East India Trading Co.-in African slavery to the New World. Jews owned the ships, piloted and crewed the ships, and acted as agents in the New World to auction black slaves to, you guessed right, predominantly large plantation owners who were typically Jews.

    There is no group on our planet with so much blood on their hands, so much hate in their hearts and so many lies on their lips.
    Jesus Christ was correct in his assessment of the Pharisees and Sanhedrin as liars and agents of Satan. St. John of Patmos referred to them as the synagogue of Satan.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  59. anonymous[905] • Disclaimer says:

    This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it.

    Look at it from the other side;

    This seething morass of pagan polytheist (godless) whitrash and their, hypocrisy, perfidiousness, greed/selfishness/plunder, psychopathy (bordering on necrophilia), sociopathy, genocide, absolute societal degeneracy (e.g. your godmen *spit* predating on young children, while the whitrash parents look away *spit*), racism, is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it.

    Islamic Extremism

    There is no such thing as “Islamic Extremism.” Most of the so-called “Islamic” extremists are simply mercenaries of the pagan polytheist whitrash and their judenscum cousins-in-faith. Those who ally with such evil can’t be muslims. The Almighty One forbids such an alliance with the enemies of true monotheism. Can’t we see that the evil scum of ISIS, AlQaida never attack IsraHell? Mercenaries don’t attack their paymasters and their lifeblood.

    You pagan lowlifes think you are winning the clash of civilisations, but surely the Almighty One will ensure that pagan polytheist mangods-worshipping godlessness will never prevail. InshaAllah.

    I pray that muslims play a smarter game in the future. We are weak now. We must align with others in ways which make the euRapeans/judenscum weaker than they are now. Eg. an alliance between all Gulf States, Iran, Turkey, North Africa, Pakistan, etc.,… the thought may be absurd, at present, but the Almighty One can will anything. InshaAllah.

  60. AaronB says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    The Jews are so full of hatred that it literally oozes from their very pores:

    This morning, my pores oozed a full 12 oz of pure, distilled hate. I bottled it up for future use. You never know when it will come in handy.

  61. anonymous[905] • Disclaimer says:

    No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred.

    I agree. There is nothing wrong in viscerally hating absolute evil scum, such as, whitrash racist imperialists, ziopig judenscum thieves, terrorist hindutvars/buddhist monks, religion oppressing commies, etc. I see that one thing these scum share is… Paganism/Godlessness.

    Hating such evil is part of being righteous. Trying to be righteous may be hard, but hating the evil above is easy.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Adûnâi
  62. Mike321 says:
    @restless94110

    What a moronic comment. Please stop doing that.

  63. Jim Crow says:

    Denial or rejection of hate against those or that which seeks to harm whom or what one loves is no love at all.

  64. @Michael McCarthy

    essential temporary foreign guestworkers should be welcomed

    Why? To keep wages artificially low?

  65. @jbwilson24

    As for ‘the Jews’, name a single ethnic group that Jewish people like. One.

    Well, Deuteronomy 23:7 says not to abhor Egyptians. Does that count?

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  66. @Craig Nelsen

    Well, Deuteronomy 23:7 says not to abhor Egyptians. Does that count?

    Given all the hatred of Egypt implicit in Exodus, probably not.

  67. Richard B says:
    @restless94110

    Who’s Andrew kidding?

    The English don’t need an excuse to hate. They just need an occasion.

    There are only two other groups who match the English in that category.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  68. Mike Tre says:
    @mark green

    The war on hate is a distraction created by those who are consumed by an more powerful emotion: Envy.

  69. Adûnâi says:
    @Franz

    > “The nukes belong to regimes, not the people who pay for them.”

    Régimes, élites, leaders – all are a ruse. Real power resides in the axiology, in the inexorable currents of cultural dialectic. Did the French Monarchy fare well with all that power and préstige in 1789?

    The question as to how men become cucked is the most crucial mystery on this planet. It is key to seeing the past, and anticipating or controlling the future.

    > “I am not aware of any fearful regime. I am not aware of any working in the interest of their own people.”

    The DPR of Korea still stands unconquered by the sodomite Christians. You may look to them.

    • Replies: @Franz
  70. Adûnâi says:
    @anonymous

    > “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuBb0XVBnLI”

    That’s one cute Christian sodomite. But Chris Hedges’ point is utterly opposite – it is pacifist (although I do like a different perspective to hear). Whereas Kai Murros praises war and violence as release into freedom.

  71. @Grand Inquisitor

    It’s always peculiar how Christianity is blamed for the effects of a post-Christian West.

    Christianity IS to blame–even if only for allowing the West to become post-Christian.

    We need a religious revolution in the same way we had a scientific revolution. If Christianity is smart, it will be the Sir Francis Bacon of religion.

  72. @Richard B

    There are only two other groups who match the English in that category.

    The Irish and the Scots?

    • Replies: @Richard B
  73. These cretins (ADL etc.) love to conflate moral indignation with hatred. It’s one of their many sophistries.

    • Agree: Richard B
    • Replies: @Anon
  74. Craig Nelsen: “Christianity IS to blame–even if only for allowing the West to become post-Christian. ”

    You’re right. It’s beyond dispute that Christianity has utterly failed to protect the white race. Of course, contained in this is the dubious assumption that such was its purpose.

    Craig Nelsen: “We need a religious revolution in the same way we had a scientific revolution. If Christianity is smart, it will be the Sir Francis Bacon of religion.”

    It’s hard to see how Christianity could lead the way here, just because of its internal defects. A saying attributed to Einstein has it that human stupidity is infinite, but are people really stupid enough to believe both “God is love” and that hate is good? Clearly, both can’t be true, and even the defenders of Christianity here on this forum haven’t been bold enough to come out and say that their Bible is wrong, and that God isn’t love.

    Love and hate are both just human emotions, not supernatural forces. The devious trick of Christianity was to externalize love by making love into the only God. The man who believes God is love has been disarmed of his capacity for virtuous, life-sustaining hate.

    • Agree: Adûnâi, mark green
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Art
  75. Franz says:
    @Adûnâi

    The DPR of Korea still stands unconquered by the sodomite Christians. You may look to them.

    I’ll grant that.

    On the other, even if the French Monarchy didn’t fare too well, the following eighty years or so of French history were pretty gruesome for the average folks there too.

    I think the cuck business is starting to hatch some severe resentment. Fearful or not, there’s a point men react. Might be slouching towards Detroit to be born right now.

  76. Jedro says:
    @RJJCDA

    A supremacist death cult should be hated. Nonsupremacist Jews need to lead the charge against the Talmudists,

    • Replies: @James Scott
  77. Thomasina says:
    @jbwilson24

    Yes, greed.

    Spanish proverb: “Take what you want and pay for it.”

    The wealthy elite enticed us into playing the greed game, and as we spun on the hamster wheel in pursuit of the riches, we forget what was important: ourselves, our culture, our tribe, duty, honor.

    We see what has been lost. Time to get it back.

  78. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike

    No, not ‘intense dislike’. Extreme dislike or disgust.

    Even ‘extreme dislike’ is gilding the lily; etymologically ”hate” implies “regard with extreme ill-will, have a passionate aversion to, treat as an enemy“.

    Even casual examination of a decent definition shows that it crosses a line, beyond which the person experiencing hatred is permitting his mental state to be disturbed (beyond rationality) by someone else.

    Any definition that stops at ‘dislike’ is a misdirection: genuine hatred involves a willingness to kill the object of the hatred.

    Hatred is an extreme emotion; the idea that someone could experience impotent hatred is therefore pretty stupid: if you’re not driven to take direct action, then it’s not actually hatred… it’s just ‘intense dislike’ – a cuck-level emotional response more suited to magazines aimed at teenage girls.

    The reason that Stoics find ‘hatred’ pointless, isn’t because they refuse to have enemies, or because they exhort everyone to ‘turn the bother buttcheek‘ or anything so fucking cucked and retarded.

    Not a bit of it: Stoics don’t do things that don’t matter, and there is no point getting all emotional about things. Control what you can; ignore what you can’t.

    The Stoic position on enemies goes something like this:

    Either kill the cunt, or don’t – just don’t carry on about your feelings and whine about it like a fucking bitch.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  79. Richard B says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    The Irish and the Scots?

    No. The Germans and the Jews.

  80. Anonymous[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @andrew fraser

    That’s my thinking, too, but, oy vey, but how could that be?

  81. @Jedro

    Jews are not needed to solve the West’s jew problem. A lack of jews is needed.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  82. Adûnâi says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “A saying attributed to Einstein has it that human stupidity is infinite, but are people really stupid enough to believe both “God is love” and that hate is good?”

    I would say they can, for certain times and in certain places. But the vector, if left unchallenged, is always towards love.

    Specific people can play crusaders. In the past, entire classes did. In the 8th ct., Christianity could have been wiped at Tours and at Constantinople, and the Papacy could have been abolished, so the Christians used to defend what coincided with the boundaries of Europe (while Nestorians and Abyssinians disprove the thesis of Christianity as a European man’s religion).

    In a way, Christianity could not allow itself to be overtly cucked as it was part of the deal with reality – to survive in a marred form, to preserve the teachings of Judaea hidden. But where it did fail is at seizing opportunities, at offence – Latin America lost in the 16th ct., the world lost in the 20th ct.

    (I’m not sure as to how the religious fracturing in the 14-17th ct. influenced this whole history. It undermined Rome’s universalism, led to numerous centuries’-long bloody civil wars, begot Protestantism… I wonder whether a Europe continuously united under Rome/Spain would have been less or more successful. Either way, in our history, we came quite near to throwing off the shackles – in Germania, but crucially, not in Anglia.)

  83. Anon[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Thanks, camel lover. Your religion and therefore your mind is 100% Jewish and you are too low IQ to acknowledge it. Righteousness is so out of reach for you that it may as well reside on Mars.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  84. Anon[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @The_seventh_shape

    These cretins (ADL etc.) love to conflate moral indignation with hatred. It’s one of their many sophistries.

    “Moral indignation” as well as “conflate” may be soft peddling it.

    What Jews do is lie and claim that any political opposition to Jewish specific interests is innately immoral / irrational hatred.

    Their position is merely their Torah in action, whose goal is conquering other tribes.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  85. Adûnâi says:
    @anonymous

    > “There is nothing wrong in viscerally hating absolute evil scum, such as, whitrash racist imperialists…”

    Aryans deserve hatred because we did not murder all non-Whites when we could have, in the late 19th-early 20th ct.

    > “…ziopig judenscum thieves…”

    What’s about the right of conquest? And what’s about the failure to bring a tiny kike enclave down in three wars by the Arabs?

    > “…terrorist hindutvars/buddhist monks…”

    Wasn’t Burma socialist? They ad even been friendly to the DPRK until Juche bombed them (oopsie).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar–North_Korea_relations

    > “…religion oppressing commies, etc.”

    By “etc.”, you mean the Shintoists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Muslims_in_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Muslim_Jihad_against_Japan

    P.S. Your mentioning “ziopigs” reminded me of this video. Literal Zayoony propaganda! But wait, do you consider ISIS and Al-Qaeda Zayoony projects, too?

    • LOL: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  86. AaronB says:
    @Adûnâi

    Hilarious video, thanks 🙂

    Looks like it’s from an Israeli website.

    There is a Monty Pythonesque quality to much of the Arab/Muslim world today that kind of makes you feel sorry for them – some of the goofy mess ups the Palestinians commit in their “war” against Israel really makes you feel kind of sorry for them sometimes.

    Its like children playing at a deadly game they don’t understand.

  87. Adûnâi says:
    @Anon

    > “What Jews do is lie and claim that any political opposition to Jewish specific interests is innately immoral / irrational hatred.”

    The issue is not that Jews hate you when you hate them. That is utterly understandable. The issue is when you hate yourself for hating the Jews.

    The Christian question encompasses the Jewish question! © Chechar

    • Replies: @Art
  88. Skeptikal says:

    “Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” ”

    Well, I am .
    I am on the record as stating that I have a right to hate whomever I please.
    I have a right to avail myself of any emotion known to humans.
    How in the world could one ever write about it if one hadn’t felt it?

    Let’s be honest. The hate Karens actually hate those they contend are doing the hating.
    How would they identify hate if they hadn’t felt it themselves?
    They love playing this role of monitoring haters and finding what they presume to be hate and labeling it as such.
    Thus, for them, enjoyment is dependent on finding hate and haters to hate.
    And to deprive their victims of their human right to feel any emotions they want, and their constitutional right to say what they want.

    These hate hunters need to get laid.

  89. @Anon

    Thanks, camel lover. Your religion and therefore your mind is 100% Jewish and you are too low IQ to acknowledge it. Righteousness is so out of reach for you that it may as well reside on Mars.

    You are probably dealing with a p*ki pet resident in Pedo Island (UK) or elsewhere in Anglophere. The clue is in the spellings plus this statement.

    Eg. an alliance between all Gulf States, Iran, Turkey, North Africa, Pakistan, etc.,… the thought may be absurd, at present, but the Almighty One can will anything.

    Sunnis and Shias are like oil and water. Arabs, Turks and Persians have contempt for each other and even more for p*kis and other lower tier Muslims despite the myth of an egalitarian ummah.

    However, hasbaras also like pretence.

  90. AaronB says:
    @Adûnâi

    Down with the ayounis!

    🙂

  91. Art says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The man who believes God is love has been disarmed of his capacity for virtuous, life-sustaining hate.

    “for virtuous, life-sustaining hate” — an oxymoron — pure jerk think.

    Jesus said “to love God with our heart, soul, and mind” – not – “that God is love”. God is neither kind nor cruel. He is the creator of possibilities – not the enforcer of good or bad.

    Clearly you favor the selfish bad possibilities.

  92. Art says:
    @Adûnâi

    The issue is when you hate yourself for hating the Jews.

    When the Jewish State is long gone – the Palestinians will have that luxury.

  93. Art: “Jesus said “to love God with our heart, soul, and mind” – not – “that God is love”. God is neither kind nor cruel.”

    But the Bible says otherwise.

    8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
    – 1 John 4:8

    Can you admit this is a lie?

    • Replies: @Art
  94. Adûnâi: “I would say they can, for certain times and in certain places. But the vector, if left unchallenged, is always towards love. … In a way, Christianity could not allow itself to be overtly cucked as it was part of the deal with reality …”

    Yes, that’s much like my view of it. “A deal with reality”. That’s a fine phrase. I think that at certain times and places, as you put it, Christians have shown themselves quite willing to ignore blatant contradictions. As a purely abstract matter, we could envision a Christianity that is an overt death cult, instead of the covert death cult it is today. I can hear them now. Asked why they committed so many genocides, they could say: “God is love. We killed them because we loved them.” “It’s good to go to Jesus, so we sent them to him.” Of course, when such a philosophy encounters the reality of the natural human desire to live, a compromise has to be made; a deal. Otherwise, these “crusaders” would all commit suicide straightaway. It would also be very difficult to build a society with such a philosophy. Imagine all the murders! “Why did you kill him?” “Because I wanted to do him a kindness, of course!” So the net result is that such a thing is impractical, and can’t exist for long in the real world.

    The Christian religion, and indeed, the totality of Western civilization, was produced by stigmergy, in a way very similar to the way a termite mound or beehive is constructed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy

    Along comes rabbi Jesus (or more likely, the teller of tall tales who invented him), and a mudball is deposited. Then along comes Paul, and he adds his mudball; his take on the story. Then John the Evangelist, and so on. Each adds his little bit, independently of the others. This is the collective mind of humanity in action. There’s no conspiracy, no central planning or control. It’s merely a series of compromises; “deals with reality” by simple agents who may not even be aware of each others’ existence, or even exist in the same era or society.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  95. ivan says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You mean like the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, who thought it his sworn duty to extirpate Christianity and Christians from the Roman Empire. Yes I can see that the Stoics literally oozed love for their fellow men. I know the type : Love mankind in the abstract, but contemptuous of men as they really are.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
  96. ivan says:
    @Grand Inquisitor

    Fifty years ago, the same type of fellows who now blame Christianity for the West’s decline would have been the first to laugh off the Christian teachings on sexual morality, contraception and pornography as being against freedom and the appreciation of beauty. Look at the ancient laid back Greeks they would say. Just maintaining the line on sexual morality alone would have given the West larger families today. That in itself would relieve much of the anxieties about “racial death” and so on, that they blather on about so much.

  97. sir, although disagreeing with your arguments and conclusions, have to say the style and finesse of your prose is highly readable.
    “a patriot fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” ~ Chesterton
    “greed is good.” ~ wall street
    “hatred is good.” ~ joyce
    God is good. ~ the Good Book
    God is love. >>

  98. anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Scott

    Don’t let the Tals play the anti-semite card.

    Non-sup Jews need to separate from the Tals for their own safety. As the famous Khazar genius, Einstein, said, “Insanity is doing the same the same thing time after time and expecting a different result.” Non-sup Jews stood by the Tals, what, 109 times? Bad times ahead, if not headed off.

  99. @ivan

    Can you please provide the evidence (textual evidence is sufficient) of Marcus Aurelius directing the persecution of Christians? Keep in mind Christian Apologetic literature tends not to be very credible.

    • Replies: @ivan
  100. Art says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Art: “Jesus said “to love God with our heart, soul, and mind” – not – “that God is love”. God is neither kind nor cruel.”

    Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
    – 1 John 4:8

    I don’t know about John’s thinking — but Jesus says WE should do the loving of God and our neighbors.

    I am going with Jesus.

    You — “for virtuous, life-sustaining hate”

    You seem to fall more on the hate side of things. (Your poor neighbors.)

  101. Sam J. says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    “…Hatred is only a psychological burden when the mind creates an obstacle that it can’t overcome…”

    “…Fear and the resulting hate are the weakest of human reactions…”

    “…The Buddhist does not ‘forgive an enemy’ – he simply does not see an enemy….”

    “…The no-hate practices of Stoics, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Christ’s followers, is millennia old. The revolution, if you ask me, is coming from the fact that the modern West has cast off its shackles of Christianity…”

    Oh look word salad that means nothing and is just one big logical pile of poo meant to babbalize our minds. Let me try some of that.

    A cow is a ju-ju bean.

    Fifty freckles means happiness.

    Sally went yesterday and now she’s crescent.

    If the Jew become pointy they will have restitution.

    A pig in a poke gets great miles per gallon.

    So much fun.

  102. The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves?

    1) Nice turn of phrase. Quietly concur.
    2) An aspect of hate that you did not mention, is that seething, raging, homicidal hate in a peaceful man, once -finally- (reluctantly) fully aroused, against his own intrinsic (gentle) core peaceful nature, is an epic, ‘astonishing’ source of vital raw energy. Once a certain type of man finally flips the switch, he is unstoppable. 24/7. It is amazing the lengths to which the once-ordinary butcher-baker-candlestick-maker will go. If on top of everything, you have made him so blazingly angry that he is willing to DIE, as we saw in Northern Ireland, then all you need is a few hundred like-minded Bobby Sands souls, and you’ve got the embryo of a truly formidable opponent. As the massively surprised British Government discovered, not to mention the weary foot soldiers. Who were at times close to mutiny. The #TalmudicMafia has grown arrogant and sloppy, as witnessed by their often super mouthy supremacist statements, quite openly contemptuous of the goyim. As an observer, I exhort nothing, I merely (coldly) predict. Based on some observer experience. I submit it’s the cocky, ever-swaggering Jews themselves, carelessly, fanning the flames, figuratively, of the next Brighton Hotel bomb. Just like Maggie Thatcher. Again, prediction. Not exhortation. Time will tell.

  103. ivan says:
    @Agathoklis

    I am sorry that I cannot provide any links. It is recorded by his biographers. I came across his special regard for Christians, whom he regarded as a subversive element a few times as I scanned through the books, one published quite recently.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
  104. lobro says: • Website

    A few things: hate is 80+% involuntary emotion and can only be suppressed in manifestation, resulting in even greater ferment down the road.
    Jews cultivate hate quite openly towards non-Jews, on top of it being congenital through thousands of years of endogamous inbreeding for prized Jewish qualities: sadism, treachery, deceit, perversion, swindling, theft, self-aggrandizement, iniquity, misanthropy, gaming minds and systems, parasitism and above all, HATE, HATE, HATE of everything clean, courageous, innocent, balanced, truthful, just, beautiful, symmetrical, moral and decent.
    So, they insist on monopolizing hate to themselves and denying it to the rest, theirs is freedom of speech, ours is criminalization, aka, hate-speech (inciting the 2nd Holocaust and leapfrogging the non-existent 1st).

    Nothing new here, just like the same vampires demonized plain truth, facts and evidence, part of the same hate-bundle.

    At least we are free to hate ourselves and I say,let’s the best use of it by hating our weakness, cowardice, sycophancy, tendency to self-delusion and Stockholm syndrome.
    When our hate has burned through this mental and emotional filth, it will be strong and clean enough to turn on those most deserving of its heat.

    • Agree: Francis Meyrick
    • Replies: @Art
  105. Pegasus says:

    And this is why the “Alt Right” is a joke, with “intellectual” figures such as Sailer or Joyce.

    The whole essay not only misses the point, but it’s moronic in the extreme.

    Hatred is a destructive and unproductive feeling, for the most part. Every boxer, street fighter and soldier worth its salt knows that in order to have a chance at winning/surviving he has to keep his head cold during the fight. This means to keep your extreme emotions such as extreme anger and contempt AKA “hate” as low as possible, cause contempt makes you overconfident, and extreme anger makes you loose focus and more prone to commit mistakes. Yes, both decrease your chances of succeeding.

    Hatred is for brutes.

    This reminds me of “agree and amplify” manosphere-ish strategy. Such is the intellectual level in the Alt Right:

    Agree with your enemies when they call you “hater” and be proud of it. Yes it is true then, that you hate migrants, browns, blacks and jews because of being what they are: “inferior”. Or so the PR goes. Bravo! how idiotic is that?

    Back into the real world, very few people hates migrants, jews, blacks and browns for what they are.

    Yes they are using language to pigeonhole you morons into “irrationality” and “brutishness”

    So, do you want to reduce and regulate immigration? you are a just migrant hater! Do you want to keep the jewish lobby in check and Israel out of US politics? only a jew hater would believe jewish power canards! wanna talk about real disproportionate black violent crime? what a racist, black hater piece of work you are!

    What an imbecile, sorry excuse of a lawyer would recommend a defendant to plead guilty on all trumped up charges and be proud of it? enter Andrew Joyce, PhD.

    Next up, meditations on “racism”: why is “good” and natural, and why you should be proud of being called a racist.

    This is why Jews rule folks: their elites, including intellectual elites, are way cleverer than whitey’s.

    “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  106. Art says:
    @lobro

    At least we are free to hate ourselves and I say,let’s the best use of it by hating our weakness, cowardice, sycophancy, tendency to self-delusion and Stockholm syndrome.

    The Stockholm syndrome is a real psychological phenomena. We must understand it – we are its victims.

    Within our nation, the Jews terrorize and attack us with threats of “anti-Semitism” – then they cry victim – and then the weak minded among us sympathize with them.

    Stockholm syndrome
    Stockholm syndrome has been defined as a condition in which hostages develop a psychological alliance with their captors during captivity. Emotional bonds may be formed, between captor and captives, during intimate time together, but these are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  107. Michelle says:

    This is utterly brilliant! Sad to say, you are preaching to the choir.

  108. anarchyst says:
    @Art

    “the jew cries out in pain as he is striking you”

    author unknown

    • Replies: @Art
  109. Art says:
    @anarchyst

    “the jew cries out in pain as he is striking you”

    I believe that is a Polish saying – and so true.

  110. @Pegasus

    Hatred is a destructive and unproductive feeling, for the most part. Every boxer, street fighter and soldier worth its salt knows that in order to have a chance at winning/surviving he has to keep his head cold during the fight. This means to keep your extreme emotions such as extreme anger and contempt AKA “hate” as low as possible, cause contempt makes you overconfident, and extreme anger makes you loose focus and more prone to commit mistakes. Yes, both decrease your chances of succeeding.
    Hatred is for brutes.

    I suspect that is the seemingly very sound, orthodox, majority view. Garnished with a heavy tone of finger-wagging, tut-tut, moral righteousness. I bet you felt good after posting that.
    Respectfully, as a scarred brute perhaps, I beg to differ.
    Let us clearly differentiate between the hate ‘of a damn good scrap’, a classic ‘slobber knocker’, and a very, very different kind of h-a-t-e. To which, I suspect, without meaning this in a condescending fashion, you, (and that moral majority) have never -ever- been exposed.
    We all know you ‘gotta stay cool’ when you ‘gonna get hurt’ if you don’t ‘engage brain’.
    That’s elementary to anybody that graduates to his second fire fight. Having had time to reflect on the miserable, total chaos of his emotions during the first one.
    The h-a-t-e I refer to, as an invaluable source of energy, a veritable dynamo of motivation, is the sort that builds up over years. Decades. As you witness insane injustice. Forced by circumstances to bite your lip, by day. Your only recourse is to beaver away at night. Literally and figuratively.
    Right now, many of us have witnessed the great USA, that we dearly love, being steadily plundered, raped, and changed into an unrecognizable form from what it only fairly recently was. In a manner, that would never have been approved by popular vote. On the road to multi-culti hell, and the 3rd world. The Founding Fathers carefully warned us. Did we listen? How come we have an obvious fifth column, in commanding charge of all the institutions of power?
    This change is being steadily and cheerfully executed by a (relatively) ridiculously small cabal. Effective by its tribal cohesion, its nepotism, its gold, and its utter ruthlessness. Add in a touch of ‘divinely approved’, sneering, supremacist, even imperialist conceit.
    Are we going to vote our way out of this? No.
    Are we going to politely discourse, reason, write, or haw-haw our way out of this? No. Hell, no.
    I predict, without exhortation, studying History, studying Man, that the pendulum is going to swing back. It will not be the fine moral majority, properly brought up, minding their P’s and Q’s, law-abiding and gentlemanly, who will sort this out.
    It will be the Patriots who rage. With a quiet, seething h-a-t-e. Who know not to play into anybody’s hands, by feckless, impulsive, hot-headed tomfoolery.
    You will all remember this:

    Walter Lübcke, a 65-year-old member of the Christian Democratic Union and a staunch defender of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door refugee policy, was shot in the head late at night on June 2 as he sat smoking on his terrace, according to German investigators.

    It sent rolling shock waves. I presume, kind Sir, you heartily disapproved.
    When that happened, I wondered if that was a one-off, or, as in Northern Ireland, (and indeed, in prior conflict in Dublin). Or was it the first of an orchestrated half dozen. Had it been the latter, it would have fundamentally changed the History of Germany. As it did in Northern Ireland. For politicians (and bankers) are super cowards, when it comes to their skin. So beware the same, steady, slow-burning, ferocious h-a-t-e that can, and has, motivated people for years and years on end. Of steady slogging away at a vastly superior force, in the military sense.
    But not superior… in the ‘ideological durability’ stakes. Maggie Thatcher eventually realized full well these b*st*rds were never, ever going to go away. I think she knew that before the Brighton Hotel, although her public rhetoric didn’t reflect it. Yet. But even the ‘Iron Lady’ was forced to take the rag-tags seriously, in the end.
    Back to Amerikay, today.
    I predict: the same simmering, lip-biting r-a-g-e, that deepens into h-a-t-e, is recognizable to those of us who have perhaps tasted its bitter, bitter fruits. It is a source of amazing energy. It changes History. It is present in the US, right here, today. Simmering.
    Waiting to explode.

  111. This article is so loaded with necessary directions on the drive for white survival editing out the nonessential though validly interesting points leaves this bulwark of bare bones sufficiently strong to overcome Jew tyranny while proving the slogan that in this existential war against white genocide no statements are necessary unless they name the Jew:

    [MORE]

    The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity.

    Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment.

    And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

    The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries.

    It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

    The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites.

    The Longest Hatred

    Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

    If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

    The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

    By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.

  112. Two major accomplishments will happen in the next four years. Hate Speech Laws will be passed in America and we will declare war on Iran.

    Both of these will be the long awaited fruition of years upon years of silent, but highly coordinated work of our Jewish “citizens”.

    There is an awakening going on in America. Many people are beginning to see Israel, AIPAC, the ADL and other organizations as direct threats to America. Many people are awakening to 9/11 truth and beginning to recognize the real enemy behind the murder of 2000 Americans.

    The enemy is frantically trying to keep the lid on the Holocaust Myth enslaving the world. The truth is seeping out thanks to sites like this and the work of dedicated revisionist at codoh.com.

    Mainstream media is being exposed as fake news and propagandist.

    Hate Speech Laws will button all this up and ensure the survival of Israel. They are an absolute must have for the International Jew and America is the very last hold out.

    Mark my words….Federally mandated “Hate Speech Laws” will be passed in Trumps second term. God help us all.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  113. geokat62 says:
    @Mike Fridelle

    Two major accomplishments will happen in the next four years. Hate Speech Laws will be passed in America and we will declare war on Iran….

    Mark my words….Federally mandated “Hate Speech Laws” will be passed in Trumps second term. God help us all.

    But, but, Wally tells us to vote Trump 2020, that Trumpstein is way better than all the alternatives. What is the American voter to do?

  114. @ivan

    I think if you scrutinise the sources there is little evidence of Marcus Aurelius decreeing to persecute Christians.

  115. N. N. Guy says:
    @Anonymous

    The key theological distinction here seems to be the attributes of a person, versus the person himself. In this regard, traditional Catholicism seems to differ from Judaism, traditional Protestantism and synthetic Darwinism.

    The latter has the virtue of empirical backing and suggests that the basic and major determinants of a person’s attributes (and thus, the person himself anyway, I would argue as a philosophical materialist) are about 70% hereditary and thus beyond the capacity of change. Further, it is far from clear that the remaining 30% is non-biological and mutable; the balance of current evidence suggests it is mostly immutable, eg relatively benign infections like toxoplasmosis, and other influences that occur in utero or in very early childhood.

    Even so, Darwinism at least allows a small window of opportunity for choice and mutability, more than traditional Protestantism allows on the vital question of entry to Heaven. (This predestination is usually associated with Calvinism, but Luther’s theology included it too, presumably partly in reaction to the idea that indulgences could influence entry to Heaven. And between Calvinism and traditional Lutheranism, that covers most of traditional Protestantism, except Anglicanism, on which I would welcome Dr. Fraser’s comments in this regard.)

    Turning to Judaism, its central evil of course, is its hypocrisy: an evolutionary strategy masquerading as a religion. As such, it is fundamentally racial and biological, which is obvious from its entire history: it is at least as wedded to ‘biological Calvinism’ as the hardcore (minority) version of synthetic Darwinism.

    Thus one can see how I would view traditional Catholicism as the ‘odd man out’ here (and mistaken, in my view). Of course, predestination in the philosophical sense, requires some examination in traditional Protestantism beyond the strict question of entry to Heaven. That, I know little of directly, but would welcome instruction in.

  116. N. N. Guy says:
    @JImbobla

    Much of Starbuck’s existence as a character seems to refute this, since he frequently stands in contrast to Ahab’s desire to ‘avenge himself on a mere brute’, indeed directly states and opposes just that.

  117. @Pegasus

    Every boxer, street fighter and soldier worth its salt knows that in order to have a chance at winning/surviving he has to keep his head cold during the fight.

    Maybe for America’s pathetic wars of choice. But for an actual war or an actual fight, you need something a little stronger than cold logic. Had you ever read a war memoir from any of the major conflicts, you would find extreme suffering that would seem impossible to bear, followed by orders to attack against an impossible enemy, followed by suicidal combat, and when they somehow survive they’re ordered to do it again.

    Americans today get PTSD from a single artillery shell turned into an IED. Past veterans went through artillery barrages where thousands of those were blasting away all around them. Our elite special forces don’t have to endure a tiny fraction of what the average grunt endured in the past. Which is likely why they’re getting so regularly trounced by illiterate peasants that ride donkey carts into battle.

    You need extreme emotions to keep going in the face of that. You must love your family more than yourself to willingly endure such insanity. But the flip side to love is hate. If you love something, you must hate its opposite. It’s axiomatic. If you love your children, you must hate the pedophiles who would defile them, the radicalized teachers who would delude and corrupt them, and the thugs who would torture or kill them for kicks.

  118. anarchyst says:

    /”Americans today get PTSD from a single artillery shell turned into an IED. Past veterans went through artillery barrages where thousands of those were blasting away all around them. Our elite special forces don’t have to endure a tiny fraction of what the average grunt endured in the past. Which is likely why they’re getting so regularly trounced by illiterate peasants that ride donkey carts into battle.”/

    Your statement is not entirely correct. Those of us who served in Vietnam for either 12 or 13 months were pretty much guaranteed that we would not have to go back to Vietnam for two or three years. This, along with leave, allowed for “decompression” upon returning to “the world”. PTSD was never recognized as a disability during the Vietnam war.

    With the wars in the middle east, many military personnel have been on back-to-back deployments, being deployed for 6 months to a year, taking thirty days leave, and coming right back to the “sandbox” multiple times.

    Multiple back-to-back deployments take a heavy toll on our military personnel. Add to that, remotely controlled IEDS which in every case, are deadly.

  119. Intellect can talk you into being a party to anything, if doing so achieves whatever goal you’ve decided is most important. Hatred is at least honest and consistent while it lasts. You can absolutely depend on a hater’s loyalty to their hatred, whereas a reasonable person will betray you as soon as it seems like the logical thing to do. Actual subjective love is pretty good too, but any kind of abstract objective “love” is simply rhetoric and propaganda, easily leveraged by intelligent unbelievers to get uncritical believers to support or suppress any given set of values as needed.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings