If you listen to liberals, there’s nothing worse than HATE. Indeed, they want to suppress ‘hate speech’. But, is hatred always or necessarily a bad thing? Don’t liberals hate certain ideas, things, and peoples as well? We need to consider two issues. What is the true nature and purpose of hate, and how do liberals define hate? Once that’s well understood, we’ll better understand the role of hatred in human nature, experience, values, and destiny.
What do liberals mean by hate? When liberals speak of ‘hate’, they really mean a specific kind of hate. In their warped minds, only these specific kinds of hate are truly hateful while other forms of hatred are simply regarded as moral outrage or righteous anger. This kind of hypocritical or self-delusional thinking goes back to Christianity or even earlier. Consider the Christian concept of HEATHEN-ness or HERESY. To a Christian, a non-Christian is a heathen filled with ignorance and superstition. If you were to tell a Christian that he himself is also ignorant and superstitious–in the sense that he only knows the Christian God or that Christian theology is a fairytale–, he would angrily reject the characterization since Christianity is, of course, the True Knowledge and since Christian view of God and the Universe is the infallible Truth. In other words, a Christian believes that he cannot be Ignorant since Faith in God reveals all essential TRUTH. What does it matter if one is ignorant of other religions, other cultures, other systems of thoughts, or scientific theories? As far as a Christian is concerned, the only Real Ignorance is not knowing the Truth of God. If one knows the Truth of God, then his ignorance of other matters is trivial, insignificant, or meaningless; truth outside Christianity is deemed non-essential. A Christian feels the same way about Love and Hate. To a Christian, only feelings between God and Man constitute REAL LOVE, and the only True Love that can exist between man and woman is one blessed by God and Jesus. All others forms of spiritual love in other religions or social arrangements are really DEMONIC, and the love between man and woman without the blessings of the Christian God is just animal lust driven by the Devil. Christianity has a way of totalitarizing words and concepts. John said in the beginning there was The Word. And, Jews who came up with the original religion said there is Only One God. The One and Only God is the True God while all other gods are false gods. There is only one Truth and all else are lies. So, the totalitarian roots of modern leftism can be found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And since Islam also shares the common spiritual root, I would suggest that we call radical Islam "Islamo-Marxism" than "Islamo-Fascism".
Anyway, according to Christian moral understanding, Christian Love is True Love but Christian Hate can never be hate but just another form of love. Conversely, since pagan people worship the devil, their love can only be wanton lust and their hate can only be ugly and wicked. In contrast, Christians cannot hate. (In the movie ‘Fanny and Alexander’, the sadistic step-father minister is convinced to the very end that he’s acting out of love when harshly punishing and tormenting Alexander.) Christian hatred of heathens and heretics was said to be tough love, moral outrage, righteous anger, or a profound despair at the wickedness of mankind. So, it didn’t matter if Christians burned people alive, tortured people, enslaved heathens, or destroyed the cultures, monuments, and temples of pagan peoples. Such acts could never be forms of hatred since Christians love all mankind and reject Satan. It didn’t matter if Christians suppressed, banned, or eradicated the cultures of other peoples and used all manner of force to cram Christianity down their throats. Since the deeds were carried out in the name of Truth and Love, it never occurred to the Christians that they were acting out of blind ignorance, intolerance, or hatred. As far as the Christians were concerned, non-Christians were the ones who were hateful, ignorant, and deceitful since they didn’t know nor accept God, Jesus, and the Bible.
Now, one must admit there is a certain logic to the Christian way of thinking. Whether Christian theology is right or wrong, one could argue that Christians had a ‘higher’ or ‘nobler’ goal than most other peoples. One could say Christians were sincere in trying to spread the Word of God, Love, and Salvation throughout the world. And considering the arbitrarily cruel and oppressive nature of most cultures around the world, we can’t deny that the spread of Christianity did a lot of good for mankind. Even so, Christianity had a totalitarianizing, totalitarizing, or totalizing impact on language. It’s one thing to say that Christians felt morally justified in their hatred or that their hatred was of a higher kind, but to say Christian hatred wasn’t hatred because Christians served God is malarkey. Hatred is hatred, just like anger is anger, and ignorance is ignorance. One can argue that certain forms of ignorance are more tolerable or acceptable than others. For instance, most of us are ignorant of the cultural habits of some half-naked New Guinea tribe, but that kind of ignorance is more acceptable in modern society than ignorance of the cultures of Greeks, French, British, Chinese, or Americans. There are things that are worthier and more demanding of knowledge and attention. A person who knows the batting average of every baseball player yet knows nothing about the Constitution or American Presidents of the 20th Century can be said to be more seriously Ignorant than someone who knows the Constitution and the political history of America but knows nothing of Yogi Berra’s batting average. Even so, ignorance of baseball statistics is still a form of ignorance–even if ignorance of something of trivial relevance to most people. Similarly, even hatred in the name of Love is hatred.
Also, there’s no such thing as all-inclusive Love. Even if one professes to Love all of Humanity, it is only one kind of universal love, and each kind of universal love comes with its own conditions, and all conditions have their list of loves and hates. For instance, Christianity loves the potential soul that maybe saved in every individual, but it doesn’t love everyone unconditionally. Indeed, Christianity had powerful hatreds for certain ideas, values, and attitudes. A Christian may say that he doesn’t hate the person per se but only the values, ideas, and attitudes the wicked person espouses; but can we so conveniently separate a man from his values? It’s too simple to say that if a Christian hates a Muslim, he only hates the Islamic(demonic) faith that has taken control of the man’s soul but still loves the soul itself that may one day be turned brought before the light of Jesus.
Indeed, it is true enough that religions like Christianity and Islam encourage and welcome conversion of heathens or infidels to the Truth Faith, and as such, are to be distinguished from an ideology like Nazism that said all Jews are subhuman regardless of what they believed or espoused. But, it’s still been the case that Christianity and Islam only accepted people who embraced the Core Theology, thought Correct Thoughts, and lived the Redeemed Life. Neither could accept humanity AS IS without its conversion to the True Faith. This didn’t necessarily entail violence or forceful acts of conversion–and indeed Christians have foresworn violence-as-tool-for-conversion for quite some time–, but Christians and Muslims, according to their religion, are supposed to hate the social, spiritual, and cultural obstacle preventing heathens from attaining God’s One Truth.
Indeed, Jesus himself was a man of profound hatred. His hatred wasn’t the simple tribal kind but one of moral righteousness. He thought he understood the True Meaning of God. He was a man of peace who preached understanding and love, but he had deep hatred for powerful people, both Jewish and Roman, who either betrayed or violated the Word of God. Because of his moral seriousness and message of love/salvation(and the myth about him being the Son of God), Christians have been reluctant to admit that Jesus was capable of hatred or contempt; in fact, Jesus was filled with both. Indeed, no moral belief system or order is possible without hatred or contempt because morality cannot exist without emotions. One’s hatred or contempt may be of an higher order or morally justified, but it is a form of hatred or contempt all the same. We need just consider how Jesus acted in the Temple ru amok with money changers. Or, consider Jesus’s Prophecy of Redemption for Mankind. He hoped and prayed that his self-sacrifice would serve as a prelude to His Father opening up the heavens and visiting his wrath upon mankind, wiping out all the sinners and cleansing the world in a baptism of fire. Jesus felt this way not out of any sadistic obsession but because he wanted the world to be morally purified. Being a utopian of sorts, he hated imperfections. Since the world was imperfect, sinful, and animated by devilish spirits, those seeking and attaining great power and wealth in the world could only be wicked. As Jesus believed that man had souls, he didn’t necessarily hate the souls of the rich and powerful. He hated the moral and spiritual disease that took possession of those souls. This separation of man into not only body and soul but into soul-as-soul(good) and soul-as-soiled(evil) allowed Christians to come up with elaborate rationale for their moral righteousness and aggressiveness. No matter how much violence, mayhem, and killings Christians perpetrated throughout history, they rationalized(or spiritualized) their actions by saying ‘we are attacking the diseased body, not the soul’ or ‘we are attacking the demon spirits taken possession of the soul, not the soul itself’. So, if a pagan burned his victim at the stake, it was simply evil and hateful, BUT if a Christian burned his victim, it was an act of love to save the soul from the cancer of wickedness. Pagan violence was torture, Christian violence was chemotherapy. As such, Christian violence couldn’t really be called hatred, or if it was hatred, it was hate for the sinful flesh or the demons taken over the soul than for the soul itself.
A similar kind of self-deceit prevails among the liberals and on the Left. So convinced of their moral superiority, they cannot admit that they feel hate or harbor hatreds too. According to their point of view, the Left stands for Love while the Right stands for Hate. So, even leftist hatred isn’t rea hatred, or at most, it is hatred of injustice or evil. In contrast, the Right is said to be about hatred pure and simple; therefore, even love on the Right is said to be founded on Hate. (A rightist might argue that he hates in order to defend what his loves; therefore, his hatred is founded on love. But, a leftist might argue that a rightist loves in order to justify his hatred, i.e. a rightist hates because he likes to hate, and so, his professed love for his own people or culture is a pretext or shabby justification for his hatred. In other words, rightist love is founded on hatred than vice versa.) Much of secular leftism is Christian moralism Redux.
Marxism, for instance, claims to be for all mankind, justice, equality, and all that. So, Marxist violence is said to be necessary violence, a violence borne of love of humanity. It is the hammer of love battering the forces of hate. Of course, some leftists–like Che Guevara and Mao–will admit that they feel hatred for people and ideas standing in the way of ‘progress’, but other leftists characterize their aggressive passions as righteous anger, not hatred. Just like Christians of old, they presumably don’t hate anyone but only want to change his hearts and mind–through violence and force if necessary. Just as Christians think in terms of body vs soul(or pure soul vs stained soul), the Left thinks in terms of Man vs Consciousness. The Left claims to love all mankind, having problems with an individual’s consciousness ONLY IF it’s not with The Program. So, the Left thinks in terms of ‘cure the sickness, save the patient’. The Left will readily admit that some people have to be killed because they refuse conversion to True Science or pose a counter-revolutionary threat. But, there is still the idea that the Left wants to embrace all of humanity through the infallible scientific truth of Marxist thought, and therefore, its ‘hatred’ or violence is morally justified–necessary evils in order to achieve the higher good. Of course, there is some truth to this. Hitler’s killing of Jews should not be compared with the Allied Bombing of Germany or Japan. Though Allied air campaign may have been excessive and even criminal, the ultimate goal was to defeat belligerent and psychotic regimes and to create a better and more stable world order. Of course, UK and US were not radical leftist nations but liberal-conservative democratic ones, but their conduct in war vs. that of Germany/Japan does illustrate that not all hatreds and violence are of the same order. Our point, at any rate, is to point out that even good hate is hate.
Anyway, in contrast to the Left, the Right is seen as essentially hateful and evil because it tends to be tribalist, nationalist, or racist. But, not all forms of universalism are off the hook as far as the secular leftists are concerned. Though some religions– specially Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam–happen to be universalist like Marxism, Leftists have generally disdained religion as unscientific and superstitious, and as such, a force of Ignorance manipulated by the powers-that-be to control the masses and keep them in their place. Also, the emphasis on the Meek Inheriting the Earth simply didn’t jibe with the revolutionary thrust of Marxism which said mankind must UNITE AND FIGHT in order to create a just new order.
There is some truth to the leftist charge against the Right. The Right doesn’t accept the universalist notion of humanity(or justice), and even when it does, prefers border and barriers among peoples than all of humanity being part of some ONE New World Order.
Also, even the Rightist concept of universalism embraces the necessity of hierarchy. So, the Spanish conquerors of the Americas set up a system where white Christians were to rule over the natives even after the latter converted to the Faith.
In the United States, blacks were converted to Christianity, but white conservative forces still maintained a barrier between the white world and the black world despite their belief in the same God. Some Christian whites wanted to maintain the institution of slavery while others wanted to maintain discriminatory barriers without slavery. At the extreme end, there was Nazism in Germany, an ideology in which race and consciousness were believed to be one and the same. A communist could hate someone’s ‘false’ consciousness, but he was not supposed to hate the man himself. According to communist theory, even a capitalist, Muslim, or Nazi could be converted to communist consciousness. If the ‘sickness’ was cured, the ‘patient’ was cured. He too could be a good communist, a comrade. And, we saw some of this in practice in East Germany. Though Soviet troops behaved horribly in the early yrs of occupation and even though communist rule in East Germany was oppressive and miserable, there was still the idea that at long as East Germans adopted Marxism and maintained the alliance with the USSR, they were all comrades and international brethren. This wasn’t possible according to Nazism which determined a person’s worth by race. Of course, race alone couldn’t save or favor someone in the Nazi order. Nazis were pro-Aryan but didn’t tolerate fellow ‘Aryans’ who didn’t get with the program or resisted the national agenda. So, a communist or Jehovah’s Witness ‘Aryan’ could end up dead like a Jew. So, Nazism too required ‘Aryans’ to be develop the ‘correct’ consciousness. And, it’s also true enough that Nazis regarded many non-Aryan peoples as acceptable in the New Order they hoped to create; a person wasn’t subhuman simply because he wasn’t Aryan, though Aryans were regarded as the racial king-of-the-hill. But, certain peoples and races were truly looked down upon as subhuman or unworthy. Though Nazis had little contact with blacks, contempt was the rule. Nazis had little use for Russian Slavs though they tolerated other nationalities of Slavs better. But, if you were Jewish, your consciousness didn’t matter. Nazis believed that the essential Jewish consciousness was rooted in the Jewish race or biology. Jews were said to think and act the way they did because due to Jewish genetics. As Jewish consciousness could not be separated from the Jewish body, there was no way to cure the ‘Jewish sickness’. The only way to deal with the Jewish disease was to be rid of the Jew altogether, body and soul–because the Jewish soul was the flipside of the Jewish body.
There are two ways to define hatred: psychological and moral. The psychological understanding of hatred is rather simple and uncontroversial. Hatred is simply a passionate dislike, a strong distaste, dread, smoldering rage, or feelings of antipathy, animosity, or contempt. One can hate anything or anyone. Some feelings of hatred are acute, some are chronic. Some are emotional, others are well-reasoned. Certain hatreds are inborn, others are developed in life. Some are temporary, some are long-lasting. A friend may fight a friend and hate him, but they may be on good terms again. A person can hate spinach. A person can hate a certain movie or book or the design of a house or car. A person can hate certain smells.(Hatred of certain noxious smells is an inborn evolutionary trait and advantage in most cases as terrible smelling stuff is often dangerous.)
And, there are certain emotions or reactions connected to hatred. Intense fear or phobia is often related to hatred but isn’t the same. It may be true that a phobic person hates the source of his fear, but not all hatreds are phobic, which is to say one can hate something without fearing it. A person may intensely hate the way someone looks or sounds without fearing that person. And, fear isn’t always the same as hatred. We would be fearful of lions and tigers in nature, but we don’t necessarily hate them for what they are. We would simply hate what they might do to us if they came upon us in nature. In the PSYCHOLOGICAL sense, hatred is easy to define and understand. We all have feelings of hatred for all sorts of things, individuals, ideas, and things that happen in our lives. Indeed, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t or couldn’t feel this hatred.
Few would deny that it’s wrong to feel hatred, but we believe that our feelings of hatred should be controlled and restrained whenever necessary. For instance, it’s natural to hate ugliness, but we don’t think it’s right to go to an ugly person and say, HEY, I HATE THE WAY YOU LOOK! That would be mean and hurtful. So, even though the person’s ugliness(or smelliness) may offend or hurt us, we want to be diplomatic and kind, as long as know it’s not the person’s fault. A person born ugly is ugly, and he or she can’t do anything about it. And, a sick person lying in bed and rotting to death cannot be faulted for the smells he or she produces. Of course, it’s different with a person who goes out of his or her way to look or smell offensive. In those cases, we may and indeed must express our hatred of their hideous behavior or agenda. (The problem with blacks is that even when they don’t go out of their way to be evil or offensive, their very nature is often offensive and destructive to society. When a whole bunch of them get together to have fun, the good times often spill over into madness and chaos. And, this is why the issue of black social crisis is such a difficult one to solve. Germans and Russians did horrible things in the 20th century, but given the right conditions and circumstances, they are capable of establishing and maintaining stable societies. I’m not sure if this is possible with blacks. Can a
majority-black society maintain High Civilization? Sure, blacks can create and maintain a low-level society or even a modest civilization–like those African kingdoms–, but do they have the inherent qualities to maintain a highly complex and advanced social system? All the evidence so far seem to indicate otherwise. But, what really complicates this issue is that black problems aren’t necessarily about black evil because even decent blacks mess up just as royally as bad blacks. They have a hard time getting their act together. Consider black churches. All those people may indeed be sincere about God and moral values, but just LOOK AT THEM. They are so wild, crazy, and childish. So, this complicates the moral dynamics of the social/racial problem. If black problems are rooted mainly in evil ideas or leadership by evil men–like Nazism was rooted in evil aspects of German society–, then we can fix the problem by eradicating evil individuals and bad ideas plaguing the community–as was done with Nazi Germany and militarist Japan in WWII. But, the real problem of blackness may not be rooted in some ideology or a bunch of evil individuals but in the very DNA itself, which means that even good blacks are problematic in the way that certain breeds of dogs tend to be. A pitbull is not ‘morally’ more evil than other dogs, but it is NATURALLY(amorally) more aggressive and dangerous. So, people understandably fear and hate pitbulls more. Similarly, the hatred of blacks is different from hatred of Nazis because we hate not only the stupid ideas in the black community but the black biological potential to cause harm and mess up things.)
We may also hate a certain movie, but we would not burn down the movie theater or kill the movie maker because of the way we feel(though Muslims may be the exception in some cases). Because so much in the world is flawed, ugly, revolting, offensive, savage, cruel, disgusting, or unpleasant, it’s natural for us to hate ‘bad’ things. We all hate HIV germs and cancer cells. We all hate corrupt lawyers, incompetent doctors, and lazy nurses. We hate rotten parents who show no responsibility to their kids. The basic emotions that we feel toward negative things in the world are feelings of hatred. Of course, intense and burning hatred can be (self)destructive, and we might end up like animals acting out raw emotions. We want an orderly society, so we don’t want to be dominated by our emotions. So, we try to turn our hatreds into constructive emotions to improve society. (Here, we must make a distinction between controlling/channeling AND denying hatred. It’s one thing to admit feelings of hatred and recognize them as natural and even essential–just like sexual desire–and use them constructively, morally, and lawfully, but it’s quite another to deny hatred as a necessary emotion and, instead, castigate it as pure evil. Controlling and channeling hatred are necessary for the development and protection of society, but denial of hatred can lead to dissipation, decadence, and self-destruction because people would not be allowed to discuss and solve the causes or reasons of their hatred. Their only options or choices would be to deny/repress their hatred and blame themselves for their emotions/attitudes instead of honestly expressing what they justifiably hate about the things or people causing the problem. So, if blacks move into a neighborhood and mess up things, white people are NOT allowed to talk about it, state the obvious, complain about it. Social scientists say the problem is not with blacks-causing-the-problem but with whites-who-take-notice of-and-are-bothered-by-the-problem. So, whites only have two options: ignore the worsening reality &pretend it’s not happening OR move to an area with fewer or no blacks. Of course, some social scientists do admit there is indeed social problems of increased crime and disruptive social behavior when blacks move into the neighborhood. These social scientists recognize white people’s reasons for being afraid of blacks or even hating them. But, as liberals and leftists, they still insist that the problems of blacks are purely historical or economic; black act in a disturbing way because of the legacy of slavery or conditions of poverty. Therefore, instead of hating blacks, white people should hate the history and institutions that made blacks so hateful to begin with. Since whites dominated most of American history, this means whites must essentially hate themselves for having caused harm to other peoples. If a social scientist of the Right countered, arguing that the problem of blacks are the product of history and more the product of biology–blacks being stronger, less intelligent, naturally more aggressive–, he is shouted down as a ‘racist’ and a blind hater. It’s just a fact that certain peoples in this country cannot be hated no matter what they do, or even if the hatred toward them is recognized as understandable, the liberals tell us that non-white problems are purely the result of white gentile oppression in the past–and even in the present. So, if a black guy rapes your mother, your hatred of him is understandable BUT you should really hate the white slave owners 200 yrs ago who exploited the black dude’s ancestors. What goes around comes around. Eye for an eye.)
Anyway, blacks, illegal aliens, the gay agenda freaks, and liberal/leftist Jews are causing a great deal of harm to white America, but white America is told over and over, in a repressive Victorian way, that ALL feelings of hatred for Jews, blacks, gays, and illegal aliens are ALWAYS wrong and evil–though they can hate you all they want. (But, as a safety valve for repressed white hatred, the liberal Jewish media allow and even approve of hatred, fear, and animosity toward Muslims and Chinese. So, what a person cannot say about Jews can be said about Muslims. What a person cannot say about blacks can be said about the Chinese–or Russians. This way, liberal Jews kill two birds with one stone. The frustrated and repressed hate reflexes of white gentiles are released and relaxed on certain targets that also happen to be regarded as hostile to Jewish interests.) It’s one thing to say it’s morally wrong to hate all Jews, blacks, and gays, but it’s quite another to say all negative feelings toward Jews, blacks, gays, and illegal aliens are evil–therefore, white people must spend 24/7 trying to love, respect, and admire ALL aspects of the ‘special’ peoples. It was precisely this Victorian repression of hatred that led to the spiritual apotheosis of Martin Luther King, super popularity of Oprah, and the presidency of Obama. It was not just white guilt but white fear which elevated them to ‘sort of god’ status. The truth is there are many things in the black community and about blacks that whites really don’t like and even hate. But, whites are NOT ALLOWED to hate anything about blacks. Even criticizing rap music may be condemned as ‘racism’. So, white gentiles, brainwashed and manipulated by the liberal Jewish media, try desperately to find reasons to love blacks since unconditionally loving blacks has become a moral imperative. Since so many blacks–leaders and masses–are crazy, whites go out-of-their-way to be supportive when they come upon some ‘nice’ and ‘clean cut’ black folks. White people cling to and support these blacks to prove their anti-‘racism’ and also to send a not-too-subtle message to not-too-likable blacks they will be similarly rewarded if they just act nice like the ‘good’ blacks. Colin Powell milked this white psychology for decades to move up in his career. Of course, many whites know that the liberal Jews are largely to credit or blame for having used the media, academia, and other sources of information to disseminate this mindset among white goyim, and so, there’s a good deal of natural hatred for Jews among white gentiles, but white gentiles aren’t allowed to admit–to others or even to themselves–that they feel negative feelings toward Jews because being critical of Jews is said to be crypto-Nazi. Since hatred of Jews is said to be never ever justifiable, it is repressed among white conservatives and resurfaces as manic Judeophilia. By professing total love of Jews and Israel, silly white conservatives hope that the rich, powerful, and influential Jews will eventually take their side. Just as whites overcompensate and over-reward ‘good’ blacks to prove their lack of hatred, white gentiles over-compensate and over-support Jews in the hope that ‘noble’ and ‘saintly’ Jews will come over to the conservative camp. Conservatives seem to be blind to the fact that most Jews only want the support and devotion of white conservatives but feel nothing but contempt for the values and ideas of white conservatism.
Hatred must be recognized and accepted as a natural emotion just like sexual feelings. But, like sexuality, hatred must be controlled, shaped, moralized, and have a good reason for its expression. For example, when faced with corrupt politicians deserving of our hatred , we don’t simply bring out the pitchforks and hang them. We’ve also come to realize that no one is perfect, so we should be forgiving of people’s imperfections, transgressions, and idiocies(though we may indeed be too forgiving these days). So, we often say we are offended, disappointed, upset, or at most outraged by someone’s actions or thoughts. We generally don’t say, we HATE you for what you did or are. And, it’s true enough that we should nevert act on pure hatred alone. Indeed, all emotions must be curtailed to some extent. Even love has to be tempered, controlled, and shaped according to social rules and needs. It would be bad for society if people just walked up to anyone they desired and said, HEY BABY, I LOVE YOU AND WANT TO SUCK YOU ALL NIGHT. Surely, that is an expression of affection, desire, and love, but we don’t want wild emotions spilling out into the public sphere. Indeed, we need only consider Woodstock to see what happens when LOVE happens on a large scale. Them 300,000 kids were supposed to be about love, peace, and blah blah, but what they created in three days was a Disaster Area and stinking mess(which none of them stuck around to clean up). Some were naked, some were having orgies, some were napping in the mud, some were taking a crap in the open–feeding mother nature?–, and etc. It was all about letting it all hang loose, about returning to the Garden. Funny that Woodstock had looked like The Garden when the rubes ran it but then looked like hell after 300,000 flower folks loved it to death. Society needs order, and all emotions have to be controlled, shaped, and mindful of others. Just as out-of-control hatred is ruinous, so is out-of-control love. Just consider the movie PLAY MISTY FOR ME. The crazy bitch in the movie loves, loves, and loves the Clint Eastwood character and simply cannot accept the fact that he doesn’t love her back. Out-of-control love is very much like out-of-control hatred. It imposes itself, its will, and its agenda on people who may not want any of it. Ironically, it turns into hatred because the object of love may feel loathing and hatred for the obsessive love-struck stalker and because the stalker may come to feel hatred toward the object of his/her love for not loving him/her back. (Very true of Christians too, who often hated heathens and heretics for not returning or reciprocating the Christian love shown them.) Would a pretty woman like an ugly guy chasing her out of love when she only feels revulsion for his ugly-mugly ass? Would a handsome guy like an ugly dogula chasing him around out of obsessive love when he thinks she looks like an ass of a baboon? Anyway, the psychological definition of hate is easy enough to understand, and we can all agree that the ability to feel hatred is universal in all higher animals and even necessary for our survival.
Hate mechanism is, in some ways, an extension of our pain mechanism. Pain alerts us to potential, real, or imagined danger. A hand that comes into contact with fire feels intense pain. A hellishly unpleasant sensation. We all HATE pain. Pain sends signals to the brain that the hand must be removed from the fire because, otherwise, it will be permanently damaged. Pain is nasty, ugly, and hellish, but our survival depends on it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t move our hands from a fire. It’s because we feel back pain, for example, that we know when to rest our backs from stress. If we didn’t feel the pain, we would exert ourselves even as our backs are wearing out. We hate pain because pain hurts, and what hurts us is hateful. So, we try to avoid things and people that cause us pain, and we come to hate things and people that may cause us pain. Hatred, in this sense, is pre-emptive avoidance of pain. We hate pain, therefore we try to avoid it. To avoid it, we must be fearful and suspicious of AND alert and aggressive against those which will likely cause us pain. For instance, animals from a very young age find out that much of nature is dangerous and threatening(and certain hate mechanisms are inborn; for instance, most cats naturally feel intensely nervous when they see a snaky object or hear a eagle-like sound; they evolved to instinctively associate those sounds and images with Danger!) So, wolves, for instance, develop strong hatreds for bears, cougars, other wolf packs, human hunters, and other creatures. Indeed, if they didn’t have these emotions, they would not survive. All animals have keen alertness, and this alertness is tied to fear, and fear gives rise to hatred. Of course, some animals are capable of feeling greater hatred than others. Generally, predators are more hate-prone than herbivores, perhaps because predators must not only flee or defend itself from other creatures but must attack other creatures for food. This very nature makes predators psychologically more complex than herbivores. The hatred felt by herbivores is simpler and easier to understand. They naturally fear and hate predators, creatures that mean to do them harm. It’s a simple kind of fear and hatred. Predators too feel this kind of hatred because most predators are also the prey of other predators. Also, top predators often fight and kill one another. Lions may be kings of the African wilderness, but a lion pride fears and hates other lion prides. Anyway, predators don’t just feel defensive or fearful hatred–the kind that herbivores feel–but feel what might be called the ‘love-kill hatred’. Predators must hunt for survival. They look forward to the next meal which they LOVE to eat. So, a predator does not kill the prey out of simple hatred. It hunts out of love–not so much for the animal itself but for its taste. No prey is willing to lay down peacefully to a predator and say ‘eat me.’. All try to run or give the predator a hard time, and some species even fight back and kill the predator. For instance, a leopard hunting warthogs may actually end up the prey. Even when a predator chases after an harmless prey, the pursuit is usually very frustrating. A gazelle cannot do much harm to a cheetah, but cheetah must exert a tremendous amount of energy to catch those tricky creatures in a hot dry terrain. So, one could say there’s a strange combination of love and hatred in a predator’s aggression against a prey. One could also argue this is why male psychology–in both animal and human world–may be more complex than female psychology. In nature, males generally chase after females, and this activity is oftentimes a blend of love and hatred. For one thing, males must fight other males in often murderous hate-fests in order to win the right to hump the most females. We see this among deers and elephants. The males fight on and on until the top male finally prevails and gains the opportunity of passing its sperm onto the females. We also see this behavior among wolves and lions. So, the male desire to make love to females must often pass the hurdle of hateful fighting amongst the males. There’s further complexity because not all females give themselves easily to males, even to top males. So, in many cases, the male animal must use aggression and violence to subdue the female. The male seeks to make love but it must act in a brutal and hateful manner. Some males may even show anger and hate against the female for rebuffing their loving/sexual attention. This is surely true of human males. Some ugly guy may fall for a girl and hope to win her heart with the prospect of making love to her all night long, but what if she thinks the guy is pretty ugly and gross? He will feel rejected and humiliated, and his feelings of love will turn into feelings of hatred. Hatred for the object of his desire/love that rejected his advances and even hatred for himself for being ugly, gross, and unappealing(like the crazy murderer in Michael Mann’s movie "Manhunter"). . As people are narcissistic by nature, the realization of one’s own ugliness can have devastating consequences. Indeed, many psycho killers are ugly folks, and most of the evil tyrants in history have been not-too-good looking people who sought power instead.
If the psychological nature, dimensions, and definition of hatred are easy to understand, this is not so with the moral definition or understanding of hatred, especially if the moral order in question tend to believe in higher or transcendental absolutes. Moral systems tend to divide the world into good vs evil, and certain emotions tend to fall in the GOOD category while others fall into the EVIL category, sometimes in a wholesale or totalistic way. So, instead of good hatred vs evil hatred, a moral system will argue that Hatred itself is Evil while Love itself is Good. This kind of moral system becomes blindly ignorant or repressive of its own hatreds and confuse them for love.
This has been true especially of Christianity, Islam, and Communism. Moral systems tend to simplify, but simplifying a complex world leads to complexes, which is why our civilization is confused and contradictory. We can see this problem with sexuality in the history of Christianity. Because of the moral concept of sinful flesh and transcendent spirit, Christianity concluded that sexual emotions were sinful. Therefore, the Ideal for the holiest aspirants in the Church was a celibate life. In contrast, those who couldn’t resist sexual temptation were always reminded of their sinful attachment to sinful flesh–even if they were married. Though Christianity made peace with the institution of marriage, it never fully acknowledged the moral validity of sexual emotions until the 20th century. According to Christian ideology, there could be no truly holy sexuality. All sexuality was suspect and something to fear; it was, at best, a necessary sin–like having to take a crap.
There was the concept of holy matrimony, but its purpose was to garb and conceal the sinful nature of sex. Also, couples were advised not to enjoy the sexual act; rather, they were to have sex only for the purpose of procreation, to produce offsprings to be raised under the radiant light of God, and the highest ideal for the best kids was to enter the church, lead celibate lives, and end up with cancer of the balls.
Of course, this puritanical and totalistic banishment, suppression, and denial of sexuality was not only unhealthy but impossible. And, no matter what the Christians did, sexuality crept into the Christian life, often subliminally, at times even blatantly, through literature, music, fine arts, and so on. Even the religious folks during the Renaissance could not resist sensuous paintings of the Virgin Mary. Many paintings and sculptures of Jesus were actually quite beautiful in a fleshy way. And Michelangelo’s David was a good looking dude. But, many Christians, for as long as possible, refused to frankly discuss sexual matters or admit that sex was natural and had a vital role in society. They looked upon sexual feelings as something dirty and pretended as though marriage wasn’t about sexuality but serving the will of God. So, it was ‘union under God’, ‘blessed by Jesus’, and so on and so forth instead of admitting, ‘okay, you two wanna have sex and enjoy orgasm.’ The Christian Church, as it became surrounded by a secularizing culture, eventually came around to the notion that sexuality is indeed a vital and healthy aspect of human life. Today’s Christians still argue for sexual morality and commitment under God, but few would say, in a totalistic way, that sexuality in and of itself is evil or sinful. The Muslim world is another story altogether, of course.
The Jews, of course, always had a saner(and more tribal) attitude toward sexuality. Jews admitted the centrality of sex in the lives of man, and indeed much of the Old Testament is about a whole bunch of people getting laid. Indeed, the Jews regarded sexuality as a great life-creating gift from God. The problem that Jews had with sexuality was its crazy animal propensities if unchecked by moral rules. People would be f___ing like beasts or American Negroes, and the Garden of Eden would turn into Jungle of Harlem. So, according to the Jewish religion, God said, "okay, you can have and enjoy sex, but get married first and obey the rules I set forth." If those rules were followed, sex wasn’t necessarily dirty according to Judaism.
The concept of the ‘pagan’ met the same fate as sexuality in the Christian world. Because Christianity is monotheistic and believes in One God and One Truth for all men, all things pagan were deemed to be evil, devilicious, sinful, or wacky. But of course, no culture or civilization could ever completely wipe out the past and start from Year Zero. Even the Khmer Rouge failed; indeed, why even cling to the notion of Cambodian nationhood going back many centuries if a people were to start from Year Zero? So, just as tribal-nationalism survived and eventually thrived under communism, paganism survived under Christianity and cane to define much that was said to be Christian. Of course, Christians overlooked this contradiction and pretended that the pagan aspects of their civilization was perfectly in harmony with Christian ideas and teachings. Similarly, hardline communists could never admit that they were nationalists as opposed to internationalists. They tried to explain or rationalize their national communism as only a temporary stage on the road to eventual world communism. Communists made the same point about private property. Though the concept of private property was anathema in communism, communists discovered that no society could exist without some practice of private property. But, as the concept of private property was ‘wicked’ and ‘reactionary’, communists either tried to pretend that private property didn’t exist(though in fact some did exist under communism) or just a ‘evil necessity’ for the time being, eventually to be abolished when society achieves full communism. Certain myths die hard, which is why the Chinese Communist Party still insists that the current capitalist development of China is merely a stage in the eventual communization of China. And, it probably also explains why so many privileged Western leftists still cling to Marxist ideas. They fool themselves that their riches and ‘bourgeois’ compromises are really just stepping stones on the way to the bright future of real ‘progress’. They also delude themselves that their power and riches are justified, at least for the time being, because they are using their influence to spread ‘progressive’ ideals, values, and dogma. So, even as Western leftists own tremendous amount of private property, they would rather not admit it ORt pretend that their wealth is a necessary arsenal in the creation of a truly just future. There was some of this among Christian capitalists too. Consider the Robber Barons or Captains of Industry–take your choice–of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of them amassed great fortunes, but as many were were devout Christians(or vain narcissists who wanted to be loved), they never wanted to admit that money was the main passion of their lives. They sought to moralize their ‘greed’, as if to say they had earned all that money in order to be GENEROUS and do good work for Humanity. We see some of that with the likes of George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates in today’s world. These guys love money and want to own all the world but also fool themselves and try to convince us that they only want to help or save mankind. So, AVARICE, GREED, WANTON-MONEY-LUST, and VANITY had nothing to do with their ambitions. Just as Christianity moralized sexuality & spiritualized paganism and just as Marxism rationalized resurgent nationalism & some degree of market dynamics as evolutionary tools in the eventual triumph of communism, Christo-capitalists sought to justify their ‘greed’ and ‘self-interest’ as necessary tools for social good.
And, so we move to the concept of hatred. From the psychological understanding of hatred, we know hatred is an everyday feeling and occurrence. It is a universal emotion in not just humans but all higher animals. But, according to the moralistic definition of hatred, it can only be bad. But, of course, this isn’t possible since ALL people feel some form of hatred on a daily basis. We all hate something or someone. So, the moralistic, puritanical, and neo-Victorian politically correct powers-that-be have defined hatred in a narrow ideological way. To the Left, hatred is simply dislike or antipathy to other races or ethnic groups(or more specifically, white dislike for non-whites). Recently, it has come to include dislike for homosexuals and non-Christian religious groups as well. Originally, Marxists and other radical leftist also condemned homosexuality–regarded as either deviant perversion or bourgeois decadence–and sought to destroy all religions. But, with the rise of multi-culturalism and the gay agenda, the Left has incorporated ‘protection’ of religious groups–at least non-white Christian groups–and gays as part of their program.
On matters of class, Marxism didn’t exactly claim that the upper classes hated the lower classes on a gut level; rather, the bourgeois oppression of the lower classes was said to be the inevitable outcome of the exploitative nature of capitalism. In other words, capitalism’s evil went beyond the will of individual capitalists. Even if every capitalist meant well and didn’t hate the proletariat, he could only oppress and cause harm to the working class since capitalism was a form of modern wage slavery. Similarly, even if a slave master is well-meaning and decent, there can be no just relationship between him and his slaves. The system itself is inherently evil and must be abolished.
Therefore, Marx thought the evil of capitalism went beyond the individual character of capitalists. Even if every capitalist were a good decent person, the nature of capitalism could only lead to oppression since capitalism can only operate through dog-eat-dog competition among capitalists which eventually drive down profits and wages. So, even though communists hated capitalists as generally evil and greedy men, even the good, decent, and well-meaning capitalists could not be spared in the new communist order since they were part of an inherently unjust system. Communists believed that capitalists could only thrive by ruthless competition seeking total monopoly and highest profits for cheapest wages; but, the system would eventually undermine the very possibility of profits since the wealth would become concentrated in the hands of a few while the masses lived on a pittance. And, capitalists who lost out in the competition would also end up joining the masses of toiling workers. Eventually, it would lead to revolution. Similarly, many conservatives believe that the problem of Big Government is systemic than individualistic. Many conservatives argue that even if every bureaucrat were clean and hardworking, the very nature of a Giant Bureaucracy would lead to abuse of power, inefficiency, and mis-allocated resources. It’s just the nature of the beast.
Anyway, the Left seeks to own all of Love and dump all of Hate on the other side. Love is defined as ‘tolerance’ and acceptance of other races, ethnic groups, and gays. Leftist hatred of people who oppose the leftist agenda is not deemed as a form of hatred since leftists are only opposing those who HATE. Hating the "HATE"–as defined by the Left–is not hate. But, it gets funnier. Leftist LOVE requires white gentile males to hate themselves as the villains of history’s crimes, evils, oppressions, and wickedness. So, white gentile males, in order to gain Love, must hate themselves. But, this self-hatred is not called hatred but merely ‘consciousness raising’. Also, white people in general, both men and women, are expected to hate Western history, Western culture, Western values, and Western concepts. But, this hatred of one’s own heritage is not deemed as self-hate, but ‘progressive awareness’ or some such. Meanwhile, the hatred felt by non-white people and Jews toward white gentile people is not deemed as ‘hateful’ but as ‘revolutionary’, ‘liberating’, ‘progressive’, ‘righteous’. So, the hatred felt by Che Guevara wasn’t really hatred but Angry Love. Sometimes, the word RAGE is used to define the hatred of the Left, the ‘people of color’ and other favored groups. RAGE implies that non-whites are simply enraged/outraged by white evil or hatred. RAGE is understood mainly as a righteous response to white oppression. So, when Che Guevara wanted to nuke American cities, that wasn’t hate but only righteous rage(at worst). So, when Black Panthers called for killing ‘honkey pigs’, that wasn’t hatred but merely ‘black rage’ or ‘revolutionary consciousness’. Now, one can argue that some non-white people, in certain conditions and contexts, had a right to hate white people, or at least white people who oppressed them. Surely, if you were black and were discriminated against or called ‘nigger’ all your life, you certainly would NOT have liked the people who treated you that way. If your oppressors are white, you would naturally feel hatred of whites. That is understandable. What is unjustifiable is the pretension that such hatred is not hatred but only a form of ‘progressive’ consciousness or ‘righteous rage’. It is hatred.
The Left has every right to argue that their hatreds are more justifiable than rightist hatreds. We may agree or disagree on that count, but we should at the very least agree that hatred is hatred, and it’s not always a bad thing. What American didn’t hate the Japanese when Pearl Harbor was attacked? What American didn’t hate radical Muslims–or even much of the Muslim world–when 9/11 happened? What Russian didn’t hate Germans when Hitler waged war on the Motherland? What Palestinian doesn’t hate Jews who took the land of his forefathers? What Jew doesn’t hate Palestinians after wave after wave of terrorist attacks?
The problem is not hate, as we all feel hate. We must not be morally puritanical about the nature and practice of hate. The problem is "HATE", a morally puritanical definition where only certain kinds of hate is recognized as hate while other forms of hate–especially the leftist or the non-white kind–are deemed as forms of LOVE.
This is stupid and false, because all people feel both love and hate. Nazis were not all about hate. They hated Jews but they loved their own people, their own heritage, their own nation. Indeed, Nazi hatred was motivated very much by love. We can denounce Nazis for their murderous hatred, but let us not fool ourselves that they were ONLY about hatred. That would be a cartoonish reading of history, a cops-and-robbers vision of the world. Though one can reasonably argue that Nazi hatred was especially poisonous and psychopathic, it would be wrong to say they were motivated only by hatred or even primarily by hatred. Indeed, one could argue that the real problem of Nazism was it was premised on too much love or too much self-love. If Nazis weren’t so crazily in love with themselves, they would have felt less hatred or contempt for people different from, potentially threatening to, or standing as an obstacle to the "Aryans". Hitler wanted to invade the East not primarily out of hatred of Russians(though he felt a great deal of contempt for Russians). His primary motivation was his maniacal LOVE for the Germanic peoples and a romanticized vision of Germanic destiny. To an extent, his thinking–shaped partly by the Western novels of Karl May– wasn’t all that much than that of American whites who conquered the West and then took SW territories from Mexico. White Americans, in their self-love and idea of Manifest(or White)Destiny, thought they should own the lands inhabited by thinly populated savage Indians or inept Mexicans. Nazis were also like Jews who went to Palestine, drove out the original inhabitants, and set up a Jewish state. From the Palestinian perspective, Jewish actions seem hateful, hostile, and cruel. And indeed, it is true enough that Jews came to hate the Arabs standing in the path of Zionist dreams. Even so, it would be wrong to say that Jews were primarily motivated by their hated of Arabs or Muslims. Jews didn’t go to the trouble of establishing a Jewish state simply to hurt other peoples. Similarly, Hitler didn’t attack Russia just to satisfy a murderous hatred of Russians. He did it because he loved his own people and believed that Germans had been wronged by history. Why should a great people like the Germans be limited to their relatively small country–compared to Russia, America, and the British Empire? Hitler believed that for Germans to be truly great and powerful, they would need vast territories in the East. Of course, not all hatreds borne of great self-love are the same. American whites didn’t see American Indians or Mexicans as subhuman. The Christian culture of the American whites, at the very least, acknowledged that even Indian savages and inept Mexicans had souls. And, it’s true enough that Jews didn’t look upon Arabs or Muslims as less-than-human. But, Nazis really had a contemptuous view of Russians as lesser humans. So, in that regard, Nazi hatred was more extreme, poisonous, ruthless, and murderous. Even so, it is wrong to say that Nazis were all or only about hatred. Indeed, if Nazism teaches us anything, it is the danger of Love. Too much Love of something can lead to pathological hatred of everything that appears as an obstacle to the object of love.
So, the issue isn’t really about HATE vs. LOVE but about kinds of hatreds vs. kinds of hatreds. In other words, hatred can be good, even necessary. The issue should really about controlling, harnessing, and properly using our hatreds instead of denying Hatred or blaming only the other side of harboring hatred. Hatred is like Fire. Fire can be good or bad. Fire can save us, serve us, and protect us. It can also burn us. Fire is necessary but it must be controlled. If out of control, it can burn everything down. Same is true of hatred. Out-of-control hatred can lead to stuff like Holocaust, 9/11, or communist mass killings. But, one way to control hatred is to control love. The more we love something, the more we hate that which threatens or stands as an obstacle to what we love. Currently, liberals and leftists are showing ever greater hatred toward Free Speech because it allows "hate speech" which threatens or challenges what liberals and leftist hold dearly. Of course, the liberals are loathe to admit that they have a problem with Free Speech so they say they’re only opposed to HATE Speech, but this only shows the liberal and leftist hatred of logic, consistency, and the law. To protect and prop up the ‘Truth’ they love so much, they are willing to lie and cheat. In the name of ‘Truth’, they’ve come to hate real truth, which says freedom of speech means freedom of all sides to have their say(even if it offends the sensibility of the ‘progressive’ crowd.) Similarly, the recent behavior of Perez Hilton is an example of politically correct gay hatred of the true meaning of marriage. This guy is so in love with his Gay Agenda that he seethes with hatred at everyone who refuses to recognize homosexuality as the biological and moral equal of normosexuality, aka heterosexuality. He seeks to IMPOSE his view of politically correct morality on beauty contestants, wants to disqualify those who disagree, and would probably like to ban any anti-gay agenda speech as ‘HATE SPEECH’.
Similarly, communists, in their Total Love of their supposedly fool-proof theory and Justice, felt nothing but pure hatred toward those who disagreed or stood in the way. Since communists explained everything in terms of class conflict/progress vs. reaction, they labeled their opponents as class enemies or reactionaries(even when the dissenters were poor people or leftists). Nazis, in their Total Love of the Fatherland and the ‘Aryan’ race, developed a great contempt or hatred for people seen as standing in the way of ‘Aryan’ ambitions and power. Jews and Russians were especially hated since Jews were seen as a racial-ideological threat and since Russians were regarded as the ‘Asiatic’ horde that occupied lands that should have "rightfully" have belonged to the Germanic peoples.
So, we need a more honest definition of hatred, and we must accept hatred as part of what makes us human. People think that love, compassion, and empathy are the foundation of morality and that hatred is the evil nemesis of love, but it’s not that simple. Indeed, hatred is a necessary component of morality, no less than it is an essential component of immorality. (It must be said, however, that the greatest evil has less to do with hatred than sadism or some dark mystery. After all, sociopaths feel no emotions, and that’s what makes them so frightening, so evil. They kill or hurt victims ‘for the hell of it’. They are less motivated by hatred than by some strange and chilling desire to hurt or kill people.) Without hatred–a crucial emotion–, we would all be sociopaths. To be sure, not all sociopaths are violent or aggressive, but even passive sociopaths are not human in the normal sense. A passive sociopath may not attack or harm others but feels little or no emotion in the face of evil. If a killer abducts a child and hurts/kills him, you expect the parents to be sad but also angry and hateful toward the man who committed the crime. A parent who feels little or nothing would be a sociopath. The inability to feel hatred for the abductor/killer would be a sick thing. This is not to be confused with forgiveness and overcoming one’s hatred. A person who forgives does indeed feel hatred but seeks to find inner peace or spiritual grace. He is not a denier of hatred but a controller/surmounter of hatred. He feels human emotions of hatred but rises above them. To rise above hatred, one must be able to feel hatred to begin with. (There was a movie not long ago called ‘Forgiving Klaus Barbie.’ The woman in the documentary felt anger and hatred but wanted to go beyond them. She was a person with normal human emotions seeking higher emotions. But, suppose the woman felt no anger and hatred of Klaus Barbie despite what he did to her family. That would be sociopathic and truly frightening.)
One must also acknowledge that feelings of hatred are natural and even essential to the preservation of the self and of society. Of course, some people want to rise above Worldly matters and attain Other Worldly virtues. They may be wise folks or fools, but they don’t deny reality but seek to rise above it. In contrast, The Politically Correct Gang, filled with self-righteous dogma and rage, denies that they feel any kind of Hatred and ascribe HATE purely to the other side in the political spectrum.
Hatred is a necessary moral emotion because all loves need protection. The simplest and most essential form of morality is self-centered. Every creature has a will-to-live and a case for existing in this world and doing whatever’s necessary–hunting, fighting, stealing, etc–to survive. In this sense, even a hungry thief has a moral case to make. "I stole because I’m hungry, and I must eat to live." The consciousness that chooses to steal is taking care of the hungry body. The next level of morality is familial and then tribal. There is strong bond within the family and within the tribe. This level of morality dictates that the group may enforce whatever is necessary for the collective or communal benefit of the group, and individuals within the family or group must recognize loyalty as the most important virtue. It’s a us vs them morality. To protect and serve the Love within the community, the group be hateful to other(hostile) groups. One group may fight off other groups for food and turf. Or, the group may attack other groups to serve its own tribal needs, interests, and ambitions.
As humanity advanced and communities grew larger, greater prosperity allowed some people to think up ‘higher’ ideals than serving basic roles such as warrior, hunter, or farmer. A warrior thought in terms of fighting the enemy to defend or expand the interests of one’s own side. Hunter warred against animals to feed his people. A farmer was rooted to the land, and as such, developed a strong sense of this is ‘my land’ as opposed to that being ‘your land’.
Tribalism was also necessary for political rulers since all leaders ruled over a specific people and territory. Even so, the progress or process of history through countless wars among tribes expanded the notion of humanity. In conquering other tribes and peoples, the political realm grew larger and incorporated a much wider and more diverse groups of people. Peoples who had been tribal enemies found themselves under an expanded community which required a larger definition of WE for there to be peace and stability. When the Greek world had been defined by city-states, each city-state looked upon others as potential rivals or enemies. It was Alexander who finally united all the Greeks through conquest.
Little tribalisms could be swallowed up by a larger tribalism, just like little drops of water could be brought together to form a larger glob of water. The political classes for most of history were very war-like, and as such, all communities were highly tribalistic. For instance, the Ottoman Turks brought into its empire a great diversity of people, but this didn’t necessarily mean universalism(despite the universalist spirituality at the core of Islam). The Ottomans clearly sought to establish an Ottoman Empire distinct from other empires. Because politics for most of history was very much the tool of the military class, political ideas generally couldn’t exist in some utopian theoretical vacuum to formulate a system that would unite all of mankind. Those ‘higher’ ideas and forces–going beyond tribalism–came from the business, intellectual, and spiritual(prophetic) class. Businessmen, unlike the warrior class, spread their power and influence through peaceful trade, not war. Therefore, business was likely to undermine tribalism far more than political/military power ever could. And, intellectuals with a lot of free time and lifelong devotion to ideas were likely to dream up ideas about a New Order in which humanity would be united by advanced theories. Marxism was such an idea. So is democratic idealism and the globalist dreams of the New World Order. If businessmen and intellectuals were still part of the material world, spiritual thinkers and leaders argued against tribalism from an other-worldly perspective. They contended that all men had equal souls in the eyes of God. Therefore, if you spread the gospel of Truth, the world will become united and holy. Of course, there were plenty of spiritual and intellectual people who argued for tribalism, but the general tide was in the other direction because the thrust of all philosophy and spirituality is to find the Unified Truth. Intellectuals seeks truths that apply equally to all peoples and places. Even thinkers on the Right have had this tendency, as evidenced by Carl Jung’s theory of collective consciousness.
Some may argue that religious and business folks always worked hand in hand with the political and military class to gain dominance over other peoples, and as such, business and religion have been no less tribal. This is true enough in terms of practical history; Christian missionaries followed well-armed European seekers of new land, gold, and riches. And, one could argue that the conviction that Christianity or any other religion is better than other faiths is tribalist and imperialist; and this is true enough in terms of how the Christian faith was actually practiced. Even so, the philosophical and spiritual rationale of Christianity was universalist. It imposed itself on other people in order to unite all mankind than to maintain walls–even if, in actual deed, separation was commonly practiced. At any rate, the core beliefs of Christianity was bound to favor, in the long run, anti-tribal values, though, people being what they are, it will always be impossible to totally separate a faith from some degree of tribalism. Tibetan Buddhism is very Tibetan, and black churches are very black.
Same is true of business. Though business followed and spread throughout the world behind empire building via military conquest, the long-term influence of business was to favor rules and regulations over force and might. Though each kingdom or nation favored its own businessmen over others, the rise of the global system loosened the connection between the business class from their nation/kingdom and between the business class and the political/military class. (This is especially with the Jews, many of whom had no firm roots in any single country. Paradoxically, precisely because Jews were far more tribalist than Christians and maintained their separateness, they failed to develop a strong tribal connection with their gentile host country and became more universalist and rootless in their business practices. Because of the Jewish diaspora–with Jews speaking different languages, eating different foods, and wearing different clothes in different countries–Jews failed to develop a specific geo-cultural identity. A Frenchman was French, a German was German, and an Italian was Italian, but a Jew could be both a Jew and a Frenchman, a Jew and a German, or Jew and an Italian. So, it may well be that the concept of dual citizenship is especially precious to Jews because they’ve always maintained dual loyalties. A German during WWI felt loyalty to Germany, a Frenchman felt loyalty to France, and a Russian felt loyalty to Russia, but a German Jew may have felt loyalty to both Germany and to Jews in enemy nations. Today, we have Jews whose loyalty is divided between US and Israel. This may go a long way to explain why conservatives have been eager for Jews to have their homeland in the hope that Jews may develop more a nationalist mindset and lose some of their rootless, two-faced and ‘venal’ qualities.) Today, we have the global business elites in many countries who are closer to one another than to the people of their own countries. Even as the top players in the world business community compete among one another, the rules they ascribe to often trump nationalism(and this is seen as a good thing by Jewish writers like Thomas Friedman, the author of ‘The World Is Flat’).
Of course, extra-national camaraderie among elites was also a feature of the political/military class prior to the 20th century. Many kings and aristocrats in different nations, kingdoms, and empires married one another, associated with another, and had a mutual understanding based on royal blood that transcended tribalism. An Austrian princess could become the Queen of France or a German prince could marry into the Russian aristocracy. A German prince may have felt closer to an English or Russian prince than with Germans of ordinary stock. Of course, one could explain this as a form of pan-European tribalism or a tribalism of class–with highborn people associating together against or above the mob. Some of this was certainly the case after the predations of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In order to maintain their power and privilege, the upper classes of Europe banded together to defend not only tribal kingdoms or nations but upper class privilege. But, oddly enough, this class tribalism had the effect of promoting a degree of European universalism even if that wasn’t the intention among the aristocratic elites. With the English, German, and Russian kings and nobilities being part of one big family(and united against the danger of Nationalism which increasing represented People Power), a greater unity–if slower political progress–formed throughout Europe. Of course, nationalism couldn’t be suppressed indefinitely, and later the aristocratic elite in each country sought to control it by representing its populist aspirations, but this proved to be like playing with dynamite. Aristocratic Pride & Honor were of utmost importance to noblemen but had no place in the modern world where entire populations could be mobilized and armed with weapons of unprecedented destructiveness. In a way, World War I was a duel between aristocrats with millions of men with machines guns as their pistols.
Hatred is also related to other human emotions such as resentment, contempt, and jealousy. One could argue there is no real difference between jealous(or resentment or contempt) and hatred–that jealousy is really just a form of hatred(or a reason for hatred). An ugly girl feels jealousy toward a pretty girl, and this feeling is natural enough. The thoughts and actions of ugly people are often motivated by jealousy toward pretty people, which may explain the popularity of women like Oprah. It’s the revenge of the hags. And, the whole Jewish-led radical feminist movement that began with Betty Friedan had much to with ugly Jewish women’s jealousy(thus hatred) of prettier non-Jewish women(though the leftist Jewesses will never admit it). Communism was fueled by the jealousies and resentment of the intellectual class and by the working(or poor)class. The intellectual class was convinced of its moral and philosophical superiority and resented(hated) the fact that ‘greedy and crass’ bourgeoisie capitalists held most of the power and wealth. And, working class and poor folks were envious of rich people who had more. This jealousy turned into hatred though the Left cleverly disguised their hatred as LOVE OF JUSTICE.
In time, even good many rich people turned to the Left because they tended to be more educated(intellectually vain) and desirous of moral respect. So, the leftist movement was essentially led and controlled by the privileged class(and almost never by the working and peasant class). If hardline communist intellectuals called for a radical revolution, rich and privileged socialists called for a managed or limited capitalism where the expanded government would essentially be controlled by the privileged elite. Under a social-democratic system, the rich and privileged class keep much of their wealth and also hog the machinery of government IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE. Rich and privileged people picked up leftist causes because ‘man does not live on bread alone’. As leftism became morally and intellectually fashionable, a rich person, in order to be invited to fancy cocktail parties, had to be both rich and politically correct. Indeed, the same happened to radical feminism. Though initially cooked up and led by ugly Jewish hags, it gained ‘intellectual’ and moral legitimacy, and its terminology came to dominate all discussion of women’s issues. As such, even pretty women entered the movement to show that they are not only shallow pretty faces but ‘liberated’ womyn with ‘brains’. That’s how the feminist movement went from ugly-mugly Betty Friedan to pretty-betty Gloria Steinem.
Of course, not all hatred are the same. Some hatreds are indeed morally more justifiable than others. But, we must still face the fact hatred is hatred, justified or not, moral or not. So, the totalistic notion that HATE belongs only the Right while the Left is all about LOVE is false. It may well be that leftist hatred is morally of an higher order than right-wing hatred. Maybe not. I would say rightist hatred tends to be more realistic while leftist hatred tends to be more idealistic. Even so, hatred is hatred, and we must make peace with hatred as an essential part of what makes us human.
