This week in hate

Dear Hannah,

The New York Times has a new feature titled This week in hate.  Listing a series of hate crimes dating back to November 16, it totally 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.

This proves, I think, what a growing number of people already 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 totally moot to The New York Times; and whatever doesn't fit into their narrative is simply left out of it.  No leftist magazine I'm aware of broadcasted anything against Lena Dunham when she said that white men ought to be wiped from the earth -- but The New York Times believes it's worth reporting that some honky told a Muslim we'd deport him.  I agree with the New York Times that you have to be an ass to call every Muslim a terrorist.  But it's equally ass-like 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.  Both statements place our hatred of 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 this is that if you ever go to a white nationalist site like American Renaissance, you'll find 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 villains.

Yet Americans still buy The New York Times and spend their time hating American Renaissance.  In other words they believe that reporting for the sake of minorities is loving, and reporting for the sake of our whites is Satanic.  Or that only one of us has a right to our own culture and territory.  Or that one of us can discriminate against the other and the other one can't.  Or that one of us can make generalizations about the other, and the other can only make generalizations about himself.  In essence that one of us can pronounce verdicts without any evidence and burn down wonderful cities and ruin beautiful people and yet still, after all of this, be considered as nothing more than a victim.

The real damage was done with the label of hatred.  What leftists have forgotten 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; and 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.  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 trying to ruin it all for us.  "Hatred is learned" is a popular thing to say.  But what teaches us hatred isn't a popular thing to admit.  What causes us to hate is our love for our friends and our families.

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, 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 feeling that if there's anything we love, we're going to have to fight over it.  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 like this is irrefutable; and the alliances between hostiles for defeating even more dangerous hostiles has determined more of our history than we're willing to admit.  Rome was nearly wrecked by fights between 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 blacks.  Love is just as much a result of our hatred as our hatred is a result of our love.  We're many times forced into alliances which turn out to be families, just as families have turned into enemies because they were incapable of maintaining alliances.

One truth we miss is that, like the English and the Soviets, the alliances made by leftists are ultimately unsustainable.  They 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're 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 backward confederacy in the history of the world; an alliance only possible when white leftists hated themselves, and when minorities hated whites worse than each other.

People call this the party of love and that's why the Republic is done for.  A unity like this can only come from a deep-seated hatred; one which admits only the crimes of one side, and overlooks even the worst from the other.  And the worst aspect of all this, from the party that's just as hateful as any brownshirts, is the same thing that everyone does when he wants to do whatever he wants with somebody else.  He strips his enemy of 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 The New York Times will not be changing its stripes.  They will be running their anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-man, anti-Republican, anti-American bullshit for the next generation and maybe two; and that means they'll be running way more things against our president than for him.  Does this mean they're always wrong?  No.  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?