The hatred of the world is both the rationalization for why you adopt a Philosophy of War and why you maintain it.
If you feel some great slight against the world, and you feel the only way forward is by taking what you want, then you adopt a philosophy of War.
If, on the other hand, you already have a philosophy of War, then you are putting the entire world as your enemy, within the friend enemy distinction. At that point, there no difference between raging against existence, and declaring everyone to be your enemy.
My only criticism of your analysis is this:
People who are motivated primarily by this hatred
It's a subtle difference, but I think they are primarily motivated by resentment rather than hatred.
The hatred of the world is both the rationalization for why you adopt a Philosophy of War and why you maintain it.
If you feel some great slight against the world, and you feel the only way forward is by taking what you want, then you adopt a philosophy of War.
If, on the other hand, you already have a philosophy of War, then you are putting the entire world as your enemy, within the friend enemy distinction. At that point, there no difference between raging against existence, and declaring everyone to be your enemy.
My only criticism of your analysis is this:
It's a subtle difference, but I think they are primarily motivated by resentment rather than hatred.