Hannah and Papa J

Hannah and Papa J

Sunday, December 11, 2016

This week in hate

Dear Hannah,

The New York Times has decided to run a new feature titled This week in hate.  Cataloguing a series of hate crimes dating back to November 16, it strangely fails to mention November 28th, when a young Somalian man in Ohio ran his car into a lot of pedestrians, got out of said car, and then began stabbing Americans at random.

The reason this is important is because it proves what a growing number of people implicitly know about leftists: that you can only be hateful to them if you're white.  Crimes committed against whites for the sake of our whiteness are not only hateless, but irrelevant to The New York Times; and whatever doesn't fit into their narrative is simply left out of it.  No leftist magazine that I'm aware of broadcasted anything against Lena Dunham when she said that white men could be eradicated from the earth and we would be the better for it -- but The New York Times believes it is worth reporting that someone said we could deport a Muslim from American soil.  Thus it may be stupid to label every Muslim a terrorist.  It is equally stupid to say that every white person, from the four-hundred pound swampdonkey in Georgia to the miserable slum-dwelling Italians in Jersey, is a privileged and tyrannical aristocrat.  Both statements require a hatred not of a person, but of a people; and one which deliberately places the things we hate about a people on a stranger.  But only one of them is considered hateful, and only one of them is apparently worth reporting.

The irony behind all of this is that if anyone has ever been to a series of white nationalist sites like American Renaissance, he'll be surprised to find that they differ from The New York Times in one particular respect.  In This week in hate, the criminals are all white.  On American Renaissance, the criminals are all not.  The methodology, the gist, the morality of the two publications is exactly the same.  The only difference is the color of the people complained about.

Yet Americans still buy what one narrative tells us and spend their time hating the other.  That every slander committed in defense of minorities is loving, and reporting in defense of our whites is just hateful.  That one of us has a right to our own culture and territory, and the other one doesn't.  That one of us can discriminate against the other and the other one can't.  That one of us can make generalizations about the other, and the other can only make generalizations about himself.  That one of us can pronounce verdicts without any evidence and burn down wonderful cities and rape beautiful people and yet still, after all of this, be considered as nothing more than a victim acting in response to aggression.  It's a wonder they don't consider all criminals to be victims.  Everyone, after all, has a story.  Everyone except the wrong color.

But perhaps more peculiar than all of this, and infinitely more subtle than all of this -- perhaps more brilliant than all of this -- is the war they have won with the label of hatred.  What leftists have either forgotten because they're stupid or denied because they're evil is that all hatred is the offspring of love.  From the moment we're born we find ourselves trapped in a series of loves and desires.  Alongside these loves and desires we find associations with particular kinds of people and particular kinds of faces and particular ways of doing things and particular dreams of our own regarding them each.  And we begin to realize, sooner or later, that the world -- and not just the world, but particular people in the world with very particular traits, are intruding upon them and trying to ruin it all for us.  "Hatred is learned" is a popular thing to say.  But what teaches us hatred is not a popular thing to admit.  What causes us to hate is our love for our friends and our families.

The truth of the matter is that in every human being there lies an inescapable feeling of us, and that how that us is forged, partially on purpose but mostly on accident, collides inevitably with how others view something called them.  And when we see others who look and talk and dress like us being victimized by people who don't resemble us so closely, we imagine they're doing it to people we love; and when we see the people who aren't like us ignoring our plight and defending their own, we're left with the inescapable feeling that if there is anything we love, we are going to have to fight over it.  And the only way we can defend anyone we love is by determining who exactly is on our side, how they express being on our side, and then act like they are on our side.  And next we have to recognize and organize against the people who aren't.  Americans pretend this is evil when this is exactly what all of us do.  Americans have simply forgotten that this is the whole point of news.

That every group in the history of the world behaves in this manner is absolutely irrefutable; and the alliances between hostiles for defeating even more dangerous hostiles has determined more of our history than we are comfortable admitting.  Rome itself was prey to riots of plebians against patricians, and the only thing that could keep them together was their hatred of the Volscian, the Numidian, the Alemanni, and the Persian.  The Spartans and Athenians were happy spilling each others' blood until foreigners (who were always referred to as barbarians) made Greeks happier to spill others'.  The Russians and the English (or in other words the communists and the constitutional monarchists) allied themselves to defeat the Nazis; and the Irish Catholics could more easily become Americans because white Americans were worried about newly-freed blacks.  Love is just as much a result of our hatred as our hatred is a result of our love.  We are many times forced into alliances which turn out to be families, just as families have separated into enemies because they were incapable of maintaining alliances.

And what we ignore is that, like the English and the Soviets, our leftists are incapable of maintaining the kinds of alliances they currently have.  They all come from the same tribal necessity that led ancient Israel to ally themselves with Egypt, and the prophets of Ba'al with the priests of Jehovah -- the kind of alliance that only happens because you are mortally sworn against somebody else.  Their alliance of Black Lives Matter who love chaos and educated white women who prefer stability, radical feminists who hate "rape culture" with radical Muslims who preach wife-beating, and gay activists who love effeminacy with Hispanics who live machismo, is less accurately described as precarious and more truthfully referred to as volatile.  The reason they band together is because they view whites as the enemy, as the reason to throw aside all their differences and unite in the greatest and most logic-defying confederacy in the history of the world -- an alliance that could only have happened when white leftists hated themselves, and when minorities hated whites worse than each other.

That this can be described entirely as love is not only unfair, but insane.  A unity like this can only come from a deep-seated antipathy; one which admits only the crimes of one side, and overlooks even the worst cases of depravity from anyone fighting on the other.  And the worst aspect of all of this, from the party that is just as much an expression of hatred as anything else, is the same thing that everyone does when he wants to do whatever he wants with somebody else.  He strips his enemy of even humanity.  He says he's the only one capable of loving -- and that the other man has a monopoly on hatred.

Your father,

PS: Something else worth noting is that. due to its wildly mistaken predictions, right after the election of Donald Trump The New York Times publicly announced that they would "rededicate" themselves to "fair reporting."  In my opinion, regarding an entire magazine there has never been such a thing as fair reporting.  And it proves that tigers may in fact change their stripes; but not a herd of tigers, and certainly not when they're running a news organization.  The New York Times like every other magazine run by anyone of actual intelligence (and occasionally integrity) has repeatedly proved that Donald Trump promises many opposite things to many different people.  But what magazine is reporting on the New York Times?

No comments:

Post a Comment