I want to point out some things about rage, from my studies in psych, and then talk about rage in our society.
Rage is persistent anger, and it is not much differentiable from “hate.” Anger is a threat response, but it is not the only threat response. Anger almost never is directed towards non-humans. We don’t become enraged at the boulder chasing Indiana Jones just because it is a threat. We would not become enraged at it even if it chased us.
Thus we conclude that anger involves a few more conditions to activate. The simplest way to summarize it is “self-righteousness.” Nobody wants to admit we are self-righteous, but the fact is that any time we believe ourselves to be “better” than others, we are self-righteous. This might happen even if our confidence is low, because we might believe that others are even worse. Anger is an emotion that activates when we think others are very bad and that they “should know better.” We have a deep emotional urge to use violence either to 1) exterminate the human enemy, or 2) to incentivize (traumatize) them to “change” - this urge towards violence is the function of anger.
On reddit we witness this depiction of conservatives as being cartoonishly, impossibly evil. I want to highlight an incredible comment I witnessed, which fortunately had many rebuttals because it is an obvious lie, but also had an enormous number of upvotes and quite a few positive comments as well:
I would urge all readers to oppose rage, on principle.
It is simply untrue that people are “bad” inside. Viewing people as such - even if this view is unconscious - will generate rage.
How does one interpret people’s bad behavior? Usually it is due to their acting on bad information. They might have bad information about what other people are “really like” - this is the problem liberals have. Or they might have bad information about how their own behavior affects others, which is due to a deficit in the ability to imagine yourself in the place of others who are on the receiving end of your behavior (lack of empathy) - this is the problem conservatives tend to have.
It is also untrue that people’s worst moments are “Freudian slips” (or some other cliche that amounts to a similar idea) that reveal “who they really are.” Instead, the truth is that people “say things that they don’t really mean” when they are in a state of high emotion. That could be an exaggeration, joke, or insult.
There is a dream that there will be a white-advocate MLK-archetype who goes up in front of huge crowds and angrily demands better treatment. The dream is that the anger you feel will somehow be useful. The anger inside of us is constantly arguing to us that it is useful and must be kept around. I think Jared Taylor wants to be the white MLK. This can’t happen - it’s impossible. The reason it worked for MLK is that public opinion had already swung in favor of better treatment of African Americans by the 1950’s, in large part due to WWII and also due to media messaging. The elites were particularly on his side, and as such, most of the justice system was ready to create and enforce anti-discrimination laws.
The way to heal society isn’t to enact rage. It is to put an end to this rage. Everyone in society needs to be low-rage, and it needs to be socially unacceptable to be enraged. In most countries, rage is quite rare - the United States is one place where it is abnormally common. People on all sides of the political divide have rage; it is a pervasive characteristic of our epoch in US History.
White-advocates should not wait for others to change, before changing ourselves. White advocates should be people who treat others well and with good-faith, and who put a stop to their own rage. This is strategic as well as being a “progressive” thing that one can feel proud of for its own sake.