Thursday, November 05, 2015

Perfectly hateful

I assume that whatever Progressives declare taboo and abominable must be very importantly valuable to their enemies. Aka, guys like me.

Take H8, for instance. The absolute moral consensus is now that "hate" is absolutely forbidden. If you are a "hater," then you are dismissed and condemned. No H8!

Cuckservatives often include disavowals of hatred in their attempts to defend their sinking ship, as in "I don't hate anyone, but..." Zzzzz.  Accept your enemy's frame and you've lost. BTW, if you don't realize that they hate you, cucky, you need your brain transplanted. To remark as I have before, in all my years in San Francisco, I have never heard one passionate denunciation of Islam for its grossly violent attitude toward homosexuals, but venomous diatribes against Christians and Republicans are a dime a dozen.

In the New Faith of the Sons of Europa, however, precisely because our enemies forbid us to hate, hatred will be a virtue, a habit of soul and action to be cultivated.

As with all human emotions, it is pre-moral --in St Thomas's words, primo primi-- and certainly not inherently bad. One of Mother Nature's survival tools. It all depends on how you use it.

So part of the teaching of The Scribe will be to nourish hatred only

a. for what is a worthy object and
b. insofar as it serves your people and does not destroy you or them.

The sin here --the foolishness--would not be hating, but squandering or wasting it on what is not important enough to deserve it, as well as letting it rule you rather than serve you, so that, like every human passion out of control, it eats you up and becomes your master.

"Hate well and wisely," would be a moral maxim.

After all, in the Psalms does not God inspire King David in the beautiful Psalm 139 to sing, I hate them with a perfect hate? And if we are to seek after God-likeness, then that's a good model...

---

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hate needs to be regarded as any other emotion: under certain circumstances it is justified and a proper response, but speaks of imbalance in either its overabundance or absence. It should be regarded as the proper emotional response towards those wish you harm.

I've never been able to understand "love your enemies." Why should we not hate those who wish us ill and cannot be persuade, appeased, or befriended?

Another lesson that must be learned in terms of hatred is to distinguish between individuals and groups. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a homosexual Western man to hate Islam as a philosophy and Muslims as a collective group/force. But is it justifiable for him to hate, say, a non-practicing Muslim, or one who has turned away from Islam?

-Sean

DrAndroSF said...

As you know, morality is not my favorite topic, so if my complexes are engaged here, don't be surprised.

The phrasing of the question, "is it justifiable?" sets my teeth on edge. It provokes a memory of whole sets of natural self-defensive responses which are put on the defensive for the sake of some high-minded ethical ideal of harmlessness and benevolence. My question would be, is this a good use of hate or a waste of it in this case?

Plus, hatred has gradations, as do all virtues. I fully understand the difference between groups and individuals. I have written several times of my odd relationships, which includes as individuals all sorts of people whose groups I dislike. But the defensive stance of the question is part of the problem. If someone belongs to a group which hate you --as Islam does, for instance-- then the question about individuals connected to it is not Am I Justified In Hating Him --which puts the anxious moral burden on you-- but Why Shouldn't I Hate Him? In the second case, it's about what make sense in the situation and what serves your interests, not his.

I have taken the attitude that if a group is my enemy, then so are all the members of that group until THEY show me that they are not dangerous as individuals.

-A said...

There would still, of course, be the danger of believing that cordiality would lead to safety in amalgamation. If we ever get past this whole "free passage" and "global tribe" bullshit, the people are still going to have issues with friction. I could go on and on about why that is but that would take more than a comment. Anyway, eventually, after enough niceties are exchanged, our own would be under the delusion that we could let our enemies right into our own societies and then we would be right back where we started. You do not necessarily have to hate an individual but no, we will never be able to have peace and amalgamation of genetics and ethnicities.

-A

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...