We Must Control Hatred, Not Deny Hatred.

[No Bull Savage]

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 underst 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.