Anatomy of the Internal Hater

From the National Alliance Members Bulletin,  February 1999:
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
What I
would like is for a very bright member to write a doctoral thesis in
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
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 

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.
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
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
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.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>