Firstly, yes, obviously, in a sense, you’re all right. The problem is me. But it isn’t (just) that I’m an angry personality. Don’t mistake cause and effect here.
The cause of my anger is my cowardice and the constant tugging desire to succumb, to fold, to make peace with the existing order and sink beneath the fucking waves. To give in. To get a “real job” (doing useless or actively harmful work) and avoid starting fights.
It is this cowardice in myself which is the real enemy, and at whom my wroth is mostly directed.
Manning had asked him, if he really, truly honestly, didn’t believe in a Jewish state.
Mannings charming, almost pleading nature seemed cut through, and for a second I saw Loewenstein’s face go soft. His eyes glazed over. I could see in his eyes the warm love of the Australian Jewish Community, or the dream of it at least, rising up in his chest, lapping against the bottom of his heart. Then a crease broke across his forehead, a sad hardness came into his eyes, followed by a mild facial contortion. He physically sat forward. “No! and not a Christian state or an Islamic state!”
Loewenstein’s positions on this have evolved as it happens, as explored in a book he recently co-authored.
But they have evolved independently, not as a result of caving in to the forces of the mental and moral assimilation which in our society that reside like a V8 engine, under a cheap aluminium bonnet of consumerist “diversity”.
The point I was exploring here anyway, was one of character, not position.
The hypothetical person who never has never experienced these moments of internal conflict would have to be 100% brave or 100% a coward. Which do you think is a greater statistical likelihood?
The extent to which a person is characterised by this kind of personal torment, I feel is often a good indicator of the extent to which they have breathed life into this more moral self, which is latent in us all, behind the default functional personality society requires we construct, which is cowardly and banal to the point of evil.