I'm angry and hateful and I couldn't be happier about it.

"You're so angry."

This was professed to me by my sister over the phone after I'd stated a few tenets of the Reactionary position. As summed up by Aurini in Freedom and Authority:  

"While I'm not exactly in a hurry to go out and buy one of those things, I like that we have the freedom to buy a double-ended dildo, and think that we should have the freedom to buy one of those things. But strong authority in society is necessary to deal with the underclass, and quite really, it doesn't really affect me all that much if double-ended dildos get banned. The fact that so many drugs are illegal that shouldn't be illegal is an irritant to me. I'm not a slave to chemical desires...a reactionary society is going to require strong legislation and strong leaders, and every so often you're going to have a stupid law. But the smart people can avoid the stupid laws."

This was the line which provoked said response.

Are the words alone innately angry? I wouldn't say so. Did I say them angrily? Perhaps. But even if so, so what? "You're so angry" was as relevant to the current discussion at hand as "you're scaring me", and for the same reasons, too.

In any case, I chose that point to pass the phone to my mother and be done with the conversation.

Am I angry? Why yes, I am. Properly tapped, it's an incredible source of strength at times.

To never be angered is to never have conviction or passion, an existence of pleasant soma. Anything goes! Do what you will! To never hate, to never judge, the loins burning with love, the mind rationalising away endlessly, the heart missing, no chest, no ribs, no blood.

If you don't feel angry at anything, then you are not alive.

Which is why "I believe X is wrong, but won't speak out against it because I don't want to impose my morals upon others" is a pile of crap. Either you do believe X is wrong, in which case you are condoning evil by not speaking out against it, or you don't believe X is wrong, in which case you're a liar for claiming it is. Note I don't mention cowardice, because people do have to look out for number one, and most still do speak out where it is safe to do so.

And imposing morals on others by force? Well, isn't the only intolerable crime in the eyes of the PC brigade these days intolerance? In the end, the only thing that matters is whether said morals and mores are pleasing in the eyes of the Gods of the Copybook Headings, yes?

Anger is a perfectly valid response to injustice. Hatred is a perfectly good reaction to evil. Yet in the world of Agape before Logos, both have been criminalised, and the only hate allowed is that which is performed in the name of love. A people unable to be roused to rational anger is a people comprised of sheep and cattle, ready to be herded by fast food and cable television. Pliant. Controllable.

Little wonder why they're trying to stamp it out, trying to turn the very concepts into little more than expletives. They've succeeded quite well.