Hate

[Alan Stallion]

A few quotations...

* I would permit no man, no matter what his colour might be, to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. - Booker T. Washington

* If you hate your enemies, you will contract such a vicious habit of mind, as by degrees will break out upon those who are your friends, or those who are indifferent to you. - Joseph Addison

* We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them. - Charles Caleb Colton

* Now hatred is by far the longest pleasure; men love in haste but they detest at leisure. - Lord Byron

* Hatred is a vice of narrow souls; they feed it with all their meanness, and make it a pretext for sordid tyranny. - Honoré de Balzac

* In time we hate that which we often fear.- William Shakespeare

* If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is a part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us. - Herman Hesse

* Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Alan Stallion]

As long as people see the black identity as a purely negative consequence of external oppression, this criticism of the pursuit of black autonomy may be justified. As a negative fact, black ethnicity is defined in opposition to the oppressor, the racial enemy. Louis Farrakhan, or militant rappers like Sister Souljah and Public Enemy represent this kind of thinking. They appear to accept the ultimately self-degrading view that the only thing black Americans have in common is their heritage of oppression. This naturally leads to the belief that the only reliable passion we share in common is hatred of the oppressor.

Hatred sustains two possible responses: avoidance or destruction of the hated object. So this negative view of the black ethnicity culminates in strategies that envisage violent conflict and, eventually, physical separation from “white dominated” American society. Of course, from a black viewpoint, both these outcomes are self-destructive delusions. If we define the enemy as nonblack American society, it is clearly an enemy blacks aren’t strong enough to defeat by violence. So the impulse stirred by the rhetoric of hate feeds black-on-black violence instead. Physical separation, even if it were possible, would most likely mean confinement to a racial ghetto with all the disadvantages of today’s predominately black urban centers, but no avenue of distraction or hope of eventual escape.

For all their seeming militancy, therefore, those who base their actions on the negative view of black ethnicity aren’t true militants at all. The most militant approach is the one that works, not one that leads to self-defeat and self-destruction. But the negative view of black ethnicity is not the only alternative.

In the course of this work, we have come to see the black moral identity as a positive reality, based on values that sustain both individual achievement and community cooperation. The idea of black autonomy need not, therefore, entail violence, or an effort to separate ourselves from “the enemy.” It can mean, instead, an effort to develop communities that reflect and preserve the moral character that emerged from black-American experience. In pursuing this goal, black Americans can act out of respect for ourselves, not hatred of others.

Alan Keyes, Masters of the Dream, pp. 165-166​

 

[52ndStreet]

As long as people see the black identity as a purely negative consequence of external oppression, this criticism of the pursuit of black autonomy may be justified. As a negative fact, black ethnicity is defined in opposition to the oppressor, the racial enemy. Louis Farrakhan, or militant rappers like Sister Souljah and Public Enemy represent this kind of thinking. They appear to accept the ultimately self-degrading view that the only thing black Americans have in common is their heritage of oppression. This naturally leads to the belief that the only reliable passion we share in common is hatred of the oppressor.

Hatred sustains two possible responses: avoidance or destruction of the hated object. So this negative view of the black ethnicity culminates in strategies that envisage violent conflict and, eventually, physical separation from “white dominated” American society. Of course, from a black viewpoint, both these outcomes are self-destructive delusions. If we define the enemy as nonblack American society, it is clearly an enemy blacks aren’t strong enough to defeat by violence. So the impulse stirred by the rhetoric of hate feeds black-on-black violence instead. Physical separation, even if it were possible, would most likely mean confinement to a racial ghetto with all the disadvantages of today’s predominately black urban centers, but no avenue of distraction or hope of eventual escape.

For all their seeming militancy, therefore, those who base their actions on the negative view of black ethnicity aren’t true militants at all. The most militant approach is the one that works, not one that leads to self-defeat and self-destruction. But the negative view of black ethnicity is not the only alternative.

In the course of this work, we have come to see the black moral identity as a positive reality, based on values that sustain both individual achievement and community cooperation. The idea of black autonomy need not, therefore, entail violence, or an effort to separate ourselves from “the enemy.” It can mean, instead, an effort to develop communities that reflect and preserve the moral character that emerged from black-American experience. In pursuing this goal, black Americans can act out of respect for ourselves, not hatred of others.

Alan Keyes, Masters of the Dream, pp. 165-166​

But when you live in a society as a minority, with no control over the means of industrial production, Job creation, or the Power Political system, or the Judicial criminal
justice system,or the military. it may be best to separate your self from an environment that is predisposed to a premeditated system of oppression, and aimed at your ultimate destruction. You may be best served to separate yourself, as to assure the continuation of your race.

 

[rdean]

As long as people see the black identity as a purely negative consequence of external oppression, this criticism of the pursuit of black autonomy may be justified. As a negative fact, black ethnicity is defined in opposition to the oppressor, the racial enemy. Louis Farrakhan, or militant rappers like Sister Souljah and Public Enemy represent this kind of thinking. They appear to accept the ultimately self-degrading view that the only thing black Americans have in common is their heritage of oppression. This naturally leads to the belief that the only reliable passion we share in common is hatred of the oppressor.

Hatred sustains two possible responses: avoidance or destruction of the hated object. So this negative view of the black ethnicity culminates in strategies that envisage violent conflict and, eventually, physical separation from “white dominated” American society. Of course, from a black viewpoint, both these outcomes are self-destructive delusions. If we define the enemy as nonblack American society, it is clearly an enemy blacks aren’t strong enough to defeat by violence. So the impulse stirred by the rhetoric of hate feeds black-on-black violence instead. Physical separation, even if it were possible, would most likely mean confinement to a racial ghetto with all the disadvantages of today’s predominately black urban centers, but no avenue of distraction or hope of eventual escape.

For all their seeming militancy, therefore, those who base their actions on the negative view of black ethnicity aren’t true militants at all. The most militant approach is the one that works, not one that leads to self-defeat and self-destruction. But the negative view of black ethnicity is not the only alternative.

In the course of this work, we have come to see the black moral identity as a positive reality, based on values that sustain both individual achievement and community cooperation. The idea of black autonomy need not, therefore, entail violence, or an effort to separate ourselves from “the enemy.” It can mean, instead, an effort to develop communities that reflect and preserve the moral character that emerged from black-American experience. In pursuing this goal, black Americans can act out of respect for ourselves, not hatred of others.

Alan Keyes, Masters of the Dream, pp. 165-166​

Is this the Alan Keyes you are quoting?

When Sexuality Undercuts A Family's Ties (washingtonpost.com)

She says her parents -- conservative commentator and perennial candidate Alan Keyes and his wife, Jocelyn -- threw her out of their house, refused to pay her college tuition and stopped speaking to her.

---------------

If that's him, then he is most definitely an expert on hate.

 

[Alan Stallion]

But when you live in a society as a minority, with no control over the means of industrial production, Job creation, or the Power Political system, or the Judicial criminal
justice system,or the military. it may be best to separate your self from an environment that is predisposed to a premeditated system of oppression, and aimed at your ultimate destruction. You may be best served to separate yourself, as to assure the continuation of your race.

That's a lot of assumptions to factor into personal decisions of separation. It is a right of an individual or a group of people to self-segregate if they so choose, but what is the result of that move? Our urban ghettos are the most dire places to live in, and separation/segregation plays a role in that.

Or an oppressed minority group can migrate to a country where they would be a racial majority, but we see many countries where conditions are also poor.

What would be in the best interests of all peoples of the world is to learn how to get beyond hate and learn to overcome superficial identifying traits like race. Racism and racial hate degrades and retards societies from fulfilling their true potential.

 

[Alan Stallion]

Is this the Alan Keyes you are quoting?

*

She says her parents -- conservative commentator and perennial candidate Alan Keyes and his wife, Jocelyn -- threw her out of their house, refused to pay her college tuition and stopped speaking to her.

---------------

If that's him, then he is most definitely an expert on hate.

There is a major difference between hate and disapproval of behavior. His daughter is an adult and Dr. Keyes is not under obligation to continue to fund her if she choses sexual and political lifestyles that are contradictory to his views. Nobody is under such obligation.


*Note: When quoting you, I took out the link because I am "only allowed to post URLs to other sites after (I) have made 15 posts or more."

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hate is such a personal emotion. It can't be legislated any easier than can love.

Would you 'hate' the bastard who drove drunk and took away your legs?

Should you have the right to hate him?

 

[William Joyce]

Hate is such a personal emotion. It can't be legislated any easier than can love.

Would you 'hate' the bastard who drove drunk and took away your legs?

Should you have the right to hate him?

Not only do you have the right, you have the moral DUTY.

Hate: The Vigorous Virtue

by D. W.

Few epithets rocket from the mouth with breathy intensity of the word “hate.” The threatening hiss of the “h,” the fang-bearing of the long “a” and the punch of the “t” combine to make it the perfect word for letting loose on racially conscious whites. “We’re here to stamp out hate!” snarls the dreadlocked anti-racist activist interviewed by the blow-dried local TV reporter. The irony of hating hate is lost on both of them.

Hate is unfashionable today. To hate anyone or anything is to exhibit your mental derangement or unhealthy lifestyle. You’re a philistine, too narrow-minded to accept the reality of multicultural America. You’re uncultured, too rigid to appreciate the joys of diversity. Your hatred stems from having been raised in a White, authoritarian home. Shoved off the sidewalk by a black thug? Lighten up, dude! Told you can’t have a job because you’re white? Hey, get over it. Upset about Jew-instigated wars? Man, that’s just kooky. Don’t you know we’re fighting for freedom? That hatred will eat you alive, my friend. Better lose it, and the faster, the better. Listen to the sound of my voice. You’re becoming very sleepy. The hatred is melting out of you. Your eyelids are becoming very, very heavy.

Not that the intensity of emotion otherwise known as “hate” – measured by blood pressure and brain waves – is itself out of fashion. Jews aren’t “haters,” they’re vigilant defenders of their people. Blacks aren’t “haters,” they’re thirsting for justice. Those neck bulges and popping eyes at the civil rights march? They aren’t signs of hate. They’re signs of righteous anger, justified by oppression. Even racially unconscious conservatives have noted that the fiercest haters are liberals. Those chip-on-the-shoulder-pad feminists, black activists and gay rights champions are capable of out-seething, out-spitting and out-shouting any bow-tied pantywaist Republican. You have to go a lot further right to find any anger on our side.

But observe the pattern. The intensity of emotion felt by whites about racial injustice is castigated as base and evil. The same intensity, felt by Jews, blacks or anyone else, is transformed into all that is good and pure. This duality is enforced, day after day, by a media that gives no voice to justified white anger about affirmative action or immigration, but a gilded platform for every other group and their grievances.

Back in law school, I remember raising an eyebrow upon reading an excerpt about “hatred” in a criminal law casebook. The excerpt came from a dialogue between two law professors, a “Jeffrey G. Murphy” and a “Jean Hampton" in a book titled Forgiveness and Mercy. The excerpt suggested that hate has its place. “If a total case is to be made against hatred, it must be made against examples where the hatred appears at its best and most prima facie justified – examples where a person has in fact been treated very immorally, has been hurt badly by the immoral treatment, reasonably believes that the wrongdoer is totally unrepentant of the wrongdoing and is in fact living a life of freedom and contentment, and – given all that – hates the wrongdoer and desires that the wrongdoer suffer,” Murphy wrote. He goes on: “Resentment, I have previously argued, is essentially tied to self-respect. It is an emotional defense against attacks on self-esteem...”

What Murphy is saying is that hate can be healthy. If striking back is justified, then so is wanting to – the logical step missed by the executor who protests he’s only doing his job or the general who claims only to be acting on orders. “If it is morally permissible to do X (under a certain description), then it is surely permissible to desire to do X (under the same description)... It is thus sometimes permissible to hurt people for retributive reasons.” Retributive hatred, writes the professor, is, under the right circumstances, neither irrational nor immoral. It might even be mandatory.

Clarity of thought sometimes emerges from the clouds of academia, and I always remembered that as an example – until I pulled the book down from my bookshelf today and noticed a footnote disclaiming all of the above for... you guessed it... racial hatred. The justifiability does not hold in a “fundamentally unjust system,” such as apartheid, the footnote whined. I dug a little more: the casebook author, Joshua Dressler, is a Jew. Is the predictability of any of this starting to wear on anyone?

“Hatred,” like violence, is reserved for those in power. Exercised by those in power, it’s necessary action to defend democracy or preserve peace. Exercised by those out of power, it’s terrorism. Violence is denounced by those in power not because they oppose it on principle, but because they wish to maintain power. So it is for “hatred.” It is not the inherent hatability of a given group that determines whether it can or can’t be hated – it is those in power, and what they deem acceptable objects of hatred. Try standing in your town square with a sign saying, “Kill All Arabs” or “Kill All Whites” and see what happens. Then try “Kill All Jews” or “Kill All *******.” See the pattern there?

Hate is great. If it’s clarity you want, hate delivers. Greed tells you what you want. Hate tells you what you don’t want. In that, it’s comparatively Spartan. It’s the vigorous virtue. Hate puts it all on the table.

 

[Granny]

Good posts, Alan.

 

[Si modo]

I hate willful stupidity. Really.

 

[Mr. H.]

I hate the group of blacks that nearly beat my brother to death. I don't condemn the race but I do condemn individual stupidity.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hate is such a personal emotion. It can't be legislated any easier than can love.

Would you 'hate' the bastard who drove drunk and took away your legs?

Should you have the right to hate him?

Not only do you have the right, you have the moral DUTY.

Hate: The Vigorous Virtue

by D. W.

Few epithets rocket from the mouth with breathy intensity of the word “hate.” The threatening hiss of the “h,” the fang-bearing of the long “a” and the punch of the “t” combine to make it the perfect word for letting loose on racially conscious whites. “We’re here to stamp out hate!” snarls the dreadlocked anti-racist activist interviewed by the blow-dried local TV reporter. The irony of hating hate is lost on both of them.

Hate is unfashionable today. To hate anyone or anything is to exhibit your mental derangement or unhealthy lifestyle. You’re a philistine, too narrow-minded to accept the reality of multicultural America. You’re uncultured, too rigid to appreciate the joys of diversity. Your hatred stems from having been raised in a White, authoritarian home. Shoved off the sidewalk by a black thug? Lighten up, dude! Told you can’t have a job because you’re white? Hey, get over it. Upset about Jew-instigated wars? Man, that’s just kooky. Don’t you know we’re fighting for freedom? That hatred will eat you alive, my friend. Better lose it, and the faster, the better. Listen to the sound of my voice. You’re becoming very sleepy. The hatred is melting out of you. Your eyelids are becoming very, very heavy.

Not that the intensity of emotion otherwise known as “hate” – measured by blood pressure and brain waves – is itself out of fashion. Jews aren’t “haters,” they’re vigilant defenders of their people. Blacks aren’t “haters,” they’re thirsting for justice. Those neck bulges and popping eyes at the civil rights march? They aren’t signs of hate. They’re signs of righteous anger, justified by oppression. Even racially unconscious conservatives have noted that the fiercest haters are liberals. Those chip-on-the-shoulder-pad feminists, black activists and gay rights champions are capable of out-seething, out-spitting and out-shouting any bow-tied pantywaist Republican. You have to go a lot further right to find any anger on our side.

But observe the pattern. The intensity of emotion felt by whites about racial injustice is castigated as base and evil. The same intensity, felt by Jews, blacks or anyone else, is transformed into all that is good and pure. This duality is enforced, day after day, by a media that gives no voice to justified white anger about affirmative action or immigration, but a gilded platform for every other group and their grievances.

Back in law school, I remember raising an eyebrow upon reading an excerpt about “hatred” in a criminal law casebook. The excerpt came from a dialogue between two law professors, a “Jeffrey G. Murphy” and a “Jean Hampton" in a book titled Forgiveness and Mercy. The excerpt suggested that hate has its place. “If a total case is to be made against hatred, it must be made against examples where the hatred appears at its best and most prima facie justified – examples where a person has in fact been treated very immorally, has been hurt badly by the immoral treatment, reasonably believes that the wrongdoer is totally unrepentant of the wrongdoing and is in fact living a life of freedom and contentment, and – given all that – hates the wrongdoer and desires that the wrongdoer suffer,” Murphy wrote. He goes on: “Resentment, I have previously argued, is essentially tied to self-respect. It is an emotional defense against attacks on self-esteem...”

What Murphy is saying is that hate can be healthy. If striking back is justified, then so is wanting to – the logical step missed by the executor who protests he’s only doing his job or the general who claims only to be acting on orders. “If it is morally permissible to do X (under a certain description), then it is surely permissible to desire to do X (under the same description)... It is thus sometimes permissible to hurt people for retributive reasons.” Retributive hatred, writes the professor, is, under the right circumstances, neither irrational nor immoral. It might even be mandatory.

Clarity of thought sometimes emerges from the clouds of academia, and I always remembered that as an example – until I pulled the book down from my bookshelf today and noticed a footnote disclaiming all of the above for... you guessed it... racial hatred. The justifiability does not hold in a “fundamentally unjust system,” such as apartheid, the footnote whined. I dug a little more: the casebook author, Joshua Dressler, is a Jew. Is the predictability of any of this starting to wear on anyone?

“Hatred,” like violence, is reserved for those in power. Exercised by those in power, it’s necessary action to defend democracy or preserve peace. Exercised by those out of power, it’s terrorism. Violence is denounced by those in power not because they oppose it on principle, but because they wish to maintain power. So it is for “hatred.” It is not the inherent hatability of a given group that determines whether it can or can’t be hated – it is those in power, and what they deem acceptable objects of hatred. Try standing in your town square with a sign saying, “Kill All Arabs” or “Kill All Whites” and see what happens. Then try “Kill All Jews” or “Kill All *******.” See the pattern there?

Hate is great. If it’s clarity you want, hate delivers. Greed tells you what you want. Hate tells you what you don’t want. In that, it’s comparatively Spartan. It’s the vigorous virtue. Hate puts it all on the table.

Ain't freedom just a bitch to live with?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hate willful stupidity. Really.

No such thing...

Ya can't fix stupid...​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hate the group of blacks that nearly beat my brother to death. I don't condemn the race but I do condemn individual stupidity.

'Mean' is another one that ya can't fix...

Some people need to have their movements restricted by the rest of us. (Insert your preferred Deity here) bless government.​

 

[AllieBaba]

As long as people see the black identity as a purely negative consequence of external oppression, this criticism of the pursuit of black autonomy may be justified. As a negative fact, black ethnicity is defined in opposition to the oppressor, the racial enemy. Louis Farrakhan, or militant rappers like Sister Souljah and Public Enemy represent this kind of thinking. They appear to accept the ultimately self-degrading view that the only thing black Americans have in common is their heritage of oppression. This naturally leads to the belief that the only reliable passion we share in common is hatred of the oppressor.

Hatred sustains two possible responses: avoidance or destruction of the hated object. So this negative view of the black ethnicity culminates in strategies that envisage violent conflict and, eventually, physical separation from “white dominated” American society. Of course, from a black viewpoint, both these outcomes are self-destructive delusions. If we define the enemy as nonblack American society, it is clearly an enemy blacks aren’t strong enough to defeat by violence. So the impulse stirred by the rhetoric of hate feeds black-on-black violence instead. Physical separation, even if it were possible, would most likely mean confinement to a racial ghetto with all the disadvantages of today’s predominately black urban centers, but no avenue of distraction or hope of eventual escape.

For all their seeming militancy, therefore, those who base their actions on the negative view of black ethnicity aren’t true militants at all. The most militant approach is the one that works, not one that leads to self-defeat and self-destruction. But the negative view of black ethnicity is not the only alternative.

In the course of this work, we have come to see the black moral identity as a positive reality, based on values that sustain both individual achievement and community cooperation. The idea of black autonomy need not, therefore, entail violence, or an effort to separate ourselves from “the enemy.” It can mean, instead, an effort to develop communities that reflect and preserve the moral character that emerged from black-American experience. In pursuing this goal, black Americans can act out of respect for ourselves, not hatred of others.

Alan Keyes, Masters of the Dream, pp. 165-166​

But when you live in a society as a minority, with no control over the means of industrial production, Job creation, or the Power Political system, or the Judicial criminal
justice system,or the military. it may be best to separate your self from an environment that is predisposed to a premeditated system of oppression, and aimed at your ultimate destruction. You may be best served to separate yourself, as to assure the continuation of your race.

Minorities are definitely empowered in the US, and have been for decades.

 

[Samson]

But when you live in a society as a minority, with no control over the means of industrial production, Job creation, or the Power Political system, or the Judicial criminal
justice system,or the military. it may be best to separate your self from an environment that is predisposed to a premeditated system of oppression, and aimed at your ultimate destruction. You may be best served to separate yourself, as to assure the continuation of your race.

Minorities are definitely empowered in the US, and have been for decades.

Yes, but the point is that they still don't feel it.

 

[Si modo]

I hate willful stupidity. Really.

No such thing...

Ya can't fix stupid...​

Right. There is no fixing stupid. But willful stupidity is another matter. The type of person who is willfully stupid and uninformed, yet still mouths off, is worthy of my disgust with them.

 

[Samson]

I hate willful stupidity. Really.

No such thing...

Ya can't fix stupid...​

Right. There is no fixing stupid. But willful stupidity is another matter. The type of person who is willfully stupid and uninformed, yet still mouths off, is worthy of my disgust with them.

I think Si just explained what:

"Stupid is as Stupid Does"

means.

Or, she said, "Its better to remain silent and stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[Si modo]

No such thing...

Ya can't fix stupid...​

Right. There is no fixing stupid. But willful stupidity is another matter. The type of person who is willfully stupid and uninformed, yet still mouths off, is worthy of my disgust with them.

I think Si just explained what:

"Stupid is as Stupid Does"

means.

Or, she said, "Its better to remain silent and stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Yes, mostly. But, if one doesn't know a topic, it really is beyond fine to open one's mouth (or type) to ask questions and learn about it from others. Those willing to learn are far from stupid.

Now, those who denigrate another for asking such honest questions are almost as bad. Any attempt to interfere with the expansion of knowledge is almost evil, in my book.

 

[Samson]

. Any attempt to interfere with the expansion of knowledge is almost evil, in my book.

AH HA!!!


So, that's what you published!!!