From the National Alliance Members Bulletin, February 1999:
What Makes a Hater?
A huge volume of e-mail flows into the National Office from people all over the world who are responding to our message, primarily our weekly radio broadcasts. Evelyn Hill weeds out the illiterate, incoherent, and irrelevant mail and gives me a selection of 20 or so letters to read each day. Between a fourth and a third of these are hate letters, and I always read them carefully. For one thing they are a barometer of how worried about us the enemies of our people are: from the volume and vehemence of the hate mail following each broadcast I can estimate how badly I have rattled our enemies’ cages. Of course, rattling the cages is not my aim, but it is interesting to note what upsets the inmates and what doesn’t. Even more interesting are the clues the hate letters provide to the psychology of the haters – and I am interested here only in the psychology of the White haters: the psychology our internal enemies, not the psychology of the Jews or Blacks or other external enemies.
What I really would like is for a very bright member to write a doctoral thesis in psychology on this subject and develop detailed psychological profiles of the haters. Until such a member comes forward, I must make my own amateur analyses. One thing I already am inclined to believe is that there is no single profile which fits all the haters, although I believe that the majority of them do fit a certain pattern. I already have mentioned in earlier issues of the BULLETIN that the two characteristics which show up most often in hate letters are Christianity and authoritarianism. Most of the Christian haters seem to be under the impression that the Alliance is a Christian organization which is not acting in accord with their idea of Christianity, and so they try to explain to us what it is we’re doing which is un-Christian and then tell us that we’ll roast in hell if we don’t change our ways.
Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently
Actually, there’s quite a bit of variety among the Christian hate letters. One which arrived this month might be put into the sub-category of Jew-worship: “I am convinced that Jews are indeed superior to Christians and we should honor them for their great contributions to civilization. After all, don’t we Christians pray to the greatest Jew that ever lived? Get real, guys. Without Jews we’d all be a bunch of trailertrash (well, you already are trailer trash).”
On the other hand, the underlying message of the authoritarian haters seems to be, “You’re out of step with everyone else, damn you! Why can’t you be like everyone else and stop rocking the boat?” Possibly a more sophisticated observer than I would conclude that the Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently – which would suggest that a fundamental trait of most White haters is authoritarianism; some authoritarian haters are Christians, and some are not.
One of the more interesting hate letters which arrived this month came from a man using the pseudonym “Thomas Aquinas,”, which would suggest a Christian hater, but his letter is not explicitly Christian – although he does describe himself as a “God-fearing, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.” It’s an exceptionally long letter, and so I’ll quote only a few passages from it here. What he tells us is that there always have been despicable oddballs like us in every society who complained about the way society was changing. He even cites examples from ancient Assyria and ancient Greece. And he’s undoubtedly correct that there always have been people who were unhappy with the way their societies were changing.
What’s interesting about his letter is his expression of hatred for such people. After laying out his theory of history and trying to prove that we’re standing in the way of change, he writes: “I’ve plainly tried to lay it out for you here today. And I really hope I cause you some pain with that, because I really hate y’all, more than I hate much else in this life. Because it is people like you who give real decent, real hard-working, real open-minded people a more difficult time in their lives… having to explain… why we should ever tolerate you types…” That’s mixed in with a lot of insulting language to the effect that we’re lazy, degenerate, drooling, closed-minded, pathetic morons (he uses all of those words), “spreading your poisonous thoughts that appeal to the weaker minds in our country.”
The writer goes on to say, “We have you outnumbered… history is on our side.” He’s not really explicit about what his side is for or who’s on it, but many of the things he says suggest that what makes his side the winning side is that it’s the side of the majority, the side of the people who’re happy with the way things are going, the side that Bill Clinton and the producers and scriptwriters at MTV are on. If one can extract an underlying philosophy from his letter, it seems to be this: “Whatever way things are moving is the right way, because God wanted things to go that way, and any opposition to that way is evil.”
In reading his letter one gets the feeling that before deciding which side to cheer for he holds up a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of public opinion to find out what the current trend is, then cheers for the side moving in that direction – but with real conviction that he’s on the right side and with real hatred for those on the other side. In this letter there’s not the explicit appeal to authority that one sees in many letters from authoritarians, but I have classified it as authoritarian anyway.
The reason I’m interested in the psychology of these people who write us hate letters is that I believe that they’re only the tip of the iceberg. For every hater who writes to us there are thousands who don’t. And I suspect that most of them are governed by the same psychological laws. If we can understand those laws we can understand what makes much of the opposition tick. Understanding how the opposition thinks doesn’t mean that we can win them over to our side, of course. We may not even want to try very hard to avoid offending them. But we have no hope of influencing them until we do understand them. If authoritarianism is indeed the underlying trait of most of the “normal” White people who oppose us, we need to understand in detail exactly what authoritarianism is, its etiology, what other traits it is correlated with, and so on. I suspect that the media Jews who design television propaganda already know these things.
It would be useful even to have a better understanding of the psychology of hate. I always have assumed that hate is a natural defense mechanism: people hate the things or people they feel threatened by. If that is so, exactly why do some of our fellow White people feel threatened by us? Specifically, what is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?
[W]hat is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?
As I mentioned above, despite the authoritarian flavor of most hate letters, I am sure that not every hater is a compulsive authoritarian. I am sure that there are some more or less “normal” White people who hate us for entirely rational reasons. For example, there are White businessmen who are profiting from the flood of Third World immigrants pouring into America, and they resent anyone who opposes the flood and threatens their profits. Such rational haters aren’t likely to send us hate letters, but they still can be moved if we understand which psychological buttons on them to push.
I appeal here to those of our members with more understanding of psychology than I have to share their insights with me. I am sure that smart people somewhere have addressed themselves seriously to these questions and have written books or research papers dealing with them, because understanding how different types of people think is the key to influencing them: to designing effective advertising, for example, and there’s enough money to be had from that to pay for much research. Careful experiments must have been done to establish an empirical basis for a descriptive psychology, at least; there must be a number of detailed psychological profiles out there which it would behoove us to study. If you know about such things, please share your knowledge with me.