Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ISBN: 9781520526010
Thank you to Augustus and Jack, for your mentorship, whether you knew it
or not.
And most of all, to Sierra. Without your effort, patience, and faith, this book
may never have come to life.
Table of Contents
Forward
Introduction
Hatred: Good or Evil?
The Nature of Hate
Beyond the Self
Fearing Hate
Cutting Out the Heart
Varieties and Criticisms
Conclusion
Foreword
“They say you never forget your first love. I can remember my first hate
[…] with real vividness, and the feeling that it was a strong motivator to
write. It wouldn’t be an interesting one to share with you, but I can remember
it very well, and it’s how I learned an important distinction: many people are
fond of saying ‘it’s more important to generate light than heat.’ You may
have heard this wised-up remark made by people. It sounds so judicious,
doesn’t it? Poppycock, of course. I mean there is no other source of light but
heat. Where else could light come from, but heat, if you think about it?
Totally false distinction, just like the people who say that if you’re strongly
motivated, or if you have an investment of that kind in the subject, that you
won’t be detached or objective about it. I think that’s quite untrue too. You
can be in a rage and be perfectly cold and controlled, at least you should aim
to be. I spend most of my time in an extremely bad mood, and I hope it shows,
hoping really just to deprive people of whatever happiness they may be able
to get from living with their illusions.”
—Christopher Hitchens, 1997
Chris Robertson
January 24, 2017
I. Hatred: Good or Evil?
“All passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they
drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity — and a later, very much
later phase when they wed the spirit, when they "spiritualize" themselves.
Formerly, in view of the element of stupidity in passion, war was declared on
passion itself, its destruction was plotted; all the old moral monsters are
agreed on this: il faut tuer les passions[1]. The most famous formula for this is
to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where,
incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height. There it is said,
for example, with particular reference to sexuality: "If thine eye offend thee,
pluck it out." Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept.
Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure
against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity —
today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness,” said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Nelson Mandela: “No one is born hating another person because of the
color of his skin, or his background or his religion. People learn to hate, and
if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more
naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” Attributed to him, among
various others, is the aphorism that hating is like “swallowing poison and
hoping it kills your enemy.”
Mother Teresa followed a similar script: “If you judge someone, you
have no time to love them.” Perhaps judging is not synonymous with “hate,”
but it is certainly a prerequisite, and still frames love not merely as a good,
but as something owed to all.
And of course, there is Gandhi: “Anger and intolerance are the enemies
of correct understanding.”
Being moral saints of the modern age, these patrons of inclusion and
diversity have set a tone for what our expected relationship with hatred is to
be... or perhaps they are merely a product of that expectation. For us, it makes
no difference. What is important is whether they are right.
We are told that hatred is unproductive, and worse, that it is the source
of the very things we are fighting all around the globe: destruction, violence,
division, and despair. It makes us no better than them. We are told that hatred
is the opposite of love. Compassion, understanding, and empathy are the
solution. War is not the answer. This is the endless message of the media, of
politicians, of school administrators, and worried citizens, eager to show they
are not one of them… “them,” of course, not being known or understood
explicitly but broadly acknowledged as hateful people. Even the Bible—
moral compass and map for many—appears to say that hatred is wrong:
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart.”
This belief can be seen on smaller scale, more personal instances too. I
remember growing up hearing “One Tin Soldier” sung to me as a lullaby, the
song from Billie Jack that equated greed with hatred. Of the fairy tales from
Grimm, Aesop, Anderson and the rest, the one I remember most clearly was
Baldwin’s story of Genghis Kahn and the Hawk, in which the king cuts down
his favorite bird with a sword after it saves his life, over a misunderstanding.
The sorry king laments how he has learned a sad lesson: never to act in anger.
It would be wrong to conflate anger and hatred, but we cannot dismiss the
priming of young minds for dismissing an entire emotional reaction as
intrinsically bad. Nor should we ignore the similarity between anger and
hatred, which is obvious even to a pre-adolescent boy.
The tale of the scorpion and the frog, by contrast, went untold:
“A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion
asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know
you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The
frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the
frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they
both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" Replies the
scorpion: "It’s my nature..."
In older times, both stories would have been considered true and
relevant, applicable based on context. The balance would give a more holistic
and true vision of the many sides of human nature and of wisdom. Nowadays,
the choice in emphasis (and omission) attempts to tell young children a
different set of tales, tries to hide the harsher world from children—and
disarm them of the tools necessary to take on that harsh world—rather than
preparing them for it.
Far from being a mere cultural institution, our moral rejection of hatred
is enshrined in various codes, bylaws and government agencies. There are so-
called “hate crimes,” which we are to separate from “crimes.” The FBI
dutifully explains:
Defining Hatred
Disgust is among the most powerful emotions we have, and one of the
easiest to elicit. And the reason disgust is so powerful is because it is so
valuable. “Just like fear offers us protective benefits, disgust seems to do the
same thing,” says Cornell Associate Professor of Psychology, David Pizarro,
“except for what disgust does is keeps us away not from things that might eat
us, or heights, but rather things that might poison us, or give us disease and
make us sick.” In other words, it is our involuntary reaction to things that
might harm us. Feces, vomit, blood, rotten food, spiders, maggots, all of these
things are sources of harm, or indicators of harm nearby.
The feeling of revulsion towards these things that compels us to avoid
them is a survival instinct that keeps us safe. Hatred has a similar feeling to it,
being a kind of revulsion. But when we are “disgusted” by a dead animal, we
do not “hate” it. If something is not choosing to act against us, there is no
usefulness in hating it, even if it poses a danger to us. Hatred cannot deter or
intimidate a cow pie, nor would we need to work ourselves to a heightened
readiness for violence and brutality in order to dispose of a puddle of last
night’s undercooked chicken lasagna. A pure revulsion is sufficient to keep
us safe from these things. Hatred, and anger, are more complex because they
deal with more complex causes.
Unlike disgust, anger is always being directed towards a conscious
mind. While we may describe being “angry” at a malfunctioning washing
machine, we are usually just being sloppy with our language, when we really
mean to say “annoyed” or “frustrated.” When a person is difficult to work
with, or bothers us in some way but is not wronging us, they might be
“irritating,” or “obnoxious.” But true anger is reserved for when we are
wronged, and only conscious minds can do that.
Anger is always directed at people and because of this, is always
marked by its outward expression: indignation at an injustice. It is an appeal
to those around you that some wrong has been committed against you, and
some sort of compensation is owed. Fundamentally, anger is about fairness,
and fairness can only be achieved by showing others that something that just
happened is not fair.
Now, appeals to fairness depend on other people sharing your view of
what is fair, or at least accounting for your opinion in their own. What
happens if the unfairness was not accidental or incidental, but intended?
What do you call the feeling you experience when you understand that your
unhappiness is not a misunderstanding, not an accident, but a matter of the
very nature of another person? What is it when you recognize that you will
never convince the person that is causing your unhappiness that they are in
the wrong? What if the nature of the person, or people, is not just unfair, but
is dangerous to you?
This is both the source and the nature of hatred—disgust towards mind.
Our definition of hatred, then, is as follows: it is the feeling of recognizing
fundamental opposition of nature, unconstrained by time or circumstance as
with a simple grievance or general danger.
The definition of hatred as disgust towards a conscious mind is useful
for three reasons:
1.) It encapsulates what people generally mean when they say “I hate
____.”
2.) It seats the word in the context of its psychological origins, making
it easier to understand holistically than mere descriptions would, and as a
result, easier to judge accurately when we place it under the microscope of
game theory, evolution, ethics, and philosophy.
3.) It is precisely the emotion that people like Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, and the anti-hatred culture are referring
to when they expound upon the evils of hatred.
We see the essence of hate perfectly captured in literature when
Achilles tells Hector: “Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no
covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one
mind, but hate each other out and out and through. Therefore there can be no
understanding between you and me, nor may there be any covenants between
us, till one or other shall fall and glut grim Mars with his life’s blood.”
Because of whose side you are on, what you have done to my cousin, to
my men, my friends, and what I know you will continue to do unless I stop
you, there is no point in talking. If we were to talk, our words would
themselves be swords, attempting to weaken or destroy each other. We are
enemies.
Like every other definition of “hatred,” this one might sound a little
similar to “fear.” It feels like there might be some overlap. And as a result,
many people have found it convenient to confuse hatred and fear, even
overtly conflating the two. Hatred of gays is “homophobia,” dislike and
distrust of foreigners is “xenophobia,” etc. A more sophisticated reader may
ask why anger and fear were not combined, rather than anger and disgust. At
first, this seems more logical and helpful, since the source of hatred is very
often the source of fear—a sentient threat—while disgust is triggered by
inanimate contaminants.
But they are threats experienced over different periods of time. Fear
wholly and completely exists in the moment. Hatred can only be felt when
someone recognizes that the conflict is in some way eternal, and will not pass
with time. This is why anger and fear cannot be experienced simultaneously.
Robert Plutchik puts anger and fear on opposite sides of his wheel of
emotions, and the degree to which you experience the one, you cannot
experience the other, just as you cannot simultaneously experience sadness
and joy, interest and distraction, disgust and trust, surprise and anticipation.
What inspires fear can later transform into hatred, but only once the feeling of
fear dies away.
Hatred expressed as intimidation, or a call to combat, can easily become
an act of provocation if the other side calls your bluff. Put another way,
manifest hatred requires courage. If someone is fearful, acting with hate
would not be acting on that fear, but overcoming it.
This difference is reflected further in how these separate emotions
appear in behavior. Like disgust, fear only drives us to action (usually,
“run!”). There is no showmanship in fear. We might even be ashamed if we
show that we are afraid. Hatred, like anger, has an expressive side. Anger
says “listen to me!” It is an appeal to the natural social instincts towards
justice and fairness that we all share. Hatred, by contrast, says “fear me,” if it
says anything. When hatred is most powerful, we do not want to show it at
all; when fear is most powerful, we cannot help but show it, and often do not
care that we do. Fear is unthinking and spontaneous, which is perhaps why
we do not like to admit that we are scared. It might also be why the anti-
haters like to conflate hate and fear: it makes hate out to be uninformed and
non-rational, as we imagine fear to be.
Some may object to my definition’s target, saying that you actually can
“hate” an idea, or an object, or a place. I think this is merely hyperbole, and
in many cases, just a thin cover for cowardice. An idea cannot harm you
without people acting upon it, and ideas are the product of people anyway.
Saying that you hate an idea is merely an evasion from saying you hate the
people who create or implement the idea. Indeed, you wouldn’t even be
aware of the idea unless someone was expressing it to you, by word or
action. Because ideas are never the ones acting against you, hating an idea is
as useful as being angry at the washing machine. I promise you, the machine
will not recognize the injustice, and the idea will not fear you.
As for objects and places, “caution” and “dislike” are not synonymous
with “hatred,” in our experience of the feelings or in how we act upon them.
This is because there is no mind behind objects and places. Perhaps someone
might genuinely feel “hate” towards some inanimate object, but we are no
more obliged to take them seriously than we would if they were angry.
A cynical reader might think this definition conveniently primes people
to see hatred as something that might be beneficial. I do not ordinarily debate
cynics, and I especially dislike dealing with criticisms that do not address
whether something is true or false (the philosopher Stefan Molyneux
habitually labels these kinds of points “not an argument”). But in case you
feel compelled to defend this definition from mind-readers, who want to
begin this debate on the assumption that hatred is not beneficial in some way,
you can give them the following analogy:
One of the most persistent myths in pop-psychology is that “we only
use 10% of our brain.” We actually use 100% of our brain. What we do not
use deteriorates, just like our unused muscles, and then other parts of our
brain take over the underused area. One of the prominent theories explaining
the phenomenon of “phantom limb”—in which amputees feel sensation on
their missing body part—is that when one part of the brain takes over the
unused sections that once monitored sensation in the amputated limb, some
neurons have not fully changed over. When the amputee is touched on their
left foot, for example, it might feel as though they are being touched on their
departed left-hand, because the part of their brain responsible for their foot
has taken over where the neurons for the unused hand once were. Efficiency
is the name of the game, because energy is literally the stuff of life, and any
unnecessary use of energy make the challenges of living that much more
difficult.
Evolution is a ruthless pruner, and hatred takes energy. We all know the
feeling of exhaustion after getting particularly angry at a news story, or a
stressful encounter with a rival at school or work, once the adrenaline dies
down. Hatred formed too quickly and with poor information can be costly, in
money, dignity, and freedom. If hatred was an evil emotion, with all these
detriments and no counterbalancing benefits, then why is it here? Why the
high expenditure of energy if hate is bad? To say that hatred is imprudent
would be to claim that all the hundreds of thousands of years spent forging
our finely tuned social instincts and skills went wildly wrong from the
beginning, and to claim it is immoral would, by the same token, separate
morality from our survival.
Now that civilization has advanced, is hatred still a viable emotion to
entertain and value? Surely, liberal democracy and the rule of law have
rendered hatred not only unnecessary, but an undesirable and dangerous facet
of the human psyche. Better to train people out of it, or if need be, perhaps
even genetically prune this character quality away from the species.
Such positions seem to be held explicitly by many of the visionary
architects of some future utopian society, and are tacitly held by a
surprisingly high number of lay people. Yet to view civilization as a
justification for the elimination of hatred is to put the proverbial cart before
the horse. If civilization is of any use at all, it is because it is a positive,
adaptive environment for human beings to thrive in, and human beings have
hatred built into them. The transhumanist position that this part of human
nature should be sliced off views the human psyche as a compartmentalized
structure. We do not know very much about the human brain, and the more
we learn, the more we realize how little we know, but the interconnected
nature of many of our neural systems is very nearly concrete proof that
human beings are not compartmentalized collections of emotions, from
which one or two can be easily or simply removed. As I hope to show in this
book, hatred is quite inextricably entangled with many things of which we
should never, ever let go.
The human being, and not civilization, is the end goal. Whether
civilization, or democracy, or any other social institution is the proper means
for human preservation and flourishing is the question. The question cannot
be “is the human being the best means for the preservation of civilization?”
If hatred truly is incompatible with civilization, and if civilization is—
as it is imagined in the minds of those who advocate it over human nature
itself—the best thing for the preservation and flourishing of humanity, then
we would do better to trust evolution to naturally trim away those whom
civilized society finds to be maladaptive in their hatefulness, rather than
taking proactive measures. After all, evolution is far more trustworthy than
the humans who attempt to “help it along,” humans who are almost
universally wrong about what the future will require of man, and of how man
works as it pertains to the changes they seek to implement.
Needless to say, this is almost never their proposed course of action.
The question then is not whether hate is beneficial, but when. When is
hatred justified? When is it dangerous? How finely calibrated should our
hate-response be, and how fast should it accelerate from 0-60? These
questions require an accurate, precise, and complete definition of “hate” to
answer. The definition of hate as “disgust towards mind” does not answer
these questions by itself. But it does make attempting to answer the question
possible, in a way that Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Penguin, and even Freud,
do not.
Before moving on, let me address the Randian Objectivist and pacifist
critics, who believe that at the bottom of things, all existential opposition of
this hateful kind is an illusion—not the product of real conflicts of interest,
but simple failures of communication. Or perhaps failures of understanding
about what your best interest really is. To these people, there are no Homeric
lions and men, no wolves and lambs struggling in intractable opposition, just
human beings trying to live and get along; all striving towards basically the
same goals. With this view, hatred is irrational.
Although this perspective appears to hold true with most strangers, I do
not believe this viewpoint is helpful when encountering the occasional
exceptions. Without the aid of large governments, the exceptions might very
well be the rule. It is easy to imagine your success in getting along with many
could be extended to getting along with everyone. Maybe one day it could be,
but in the course of a single lifetime, you are not going to be able to share the
light of reason with everyone. History shows us that such crusaders are often
the biggest dangers, and not the answer to the dangers they thought they
could solve. One day we might all get along in love and peace and harmony,
but we would do better to live assuming that people will go on doing what
they have always done.
People have always lived in different groups, pursuing different
interests that come from a combination of resource scarcity and from
differing beliefs about what is good and bad. These differences, as we shall
see, define who you are as an individual. So long as people love themselves,
resources will matter, and will be worth fighting over in a world where there
is not enough to go around. And so long as people’s sense of well-being,
security, and success are affected by the collective action of groups,
disagreements arising from imperfect knowledge will cause opposition
between people.
We can deal with the ethics of a post-scarcity, post-ignorance society
when we get there. But “education” has not shown itself to be the solution, all
platitudes to the contrary. And even if we could move to a post-scarcity
world with resources like food and shelter, that would only shift the variables
without eliminating demand for other limited resources. How will the future
economy account for any given man’s demand—in the market sense—for
attractive women generally, let alone that particular attractive woman?
Limited resources naturally result in conflicting interests, whether it is
fighting over land, power within a group, or the heart of a woman.
There has always been competition and differences of opinion between
people, as there will be for the foreseeable future. What this means is that
contrary to American folk-wisdom, there are no sheepdogs: only wolves and
sheep. Lt Col Dave Grossman speaks of these three classes of people in his
classic book On Killing, describing the peaceful, salt-of-the-earth people as
“sheep,” who are sometimes preyed upon by psychopaths, religious zealots,
and mindless killers: the wolves. Appearing similarly to the wolf, but
protecting good people, is the sheepdog. It is a romantic view, and pastoral to
boot.
Between flocks, however, another man’s sheepdog will look, and act,
like a wolf, at least in the eyes of the next flock.
To stretch the analogy, if all of these sheep were communists,
peacefully sharing the grass on a five-year grazing plan, where no one starved
and all were happy, then the sheepdogs would be exactly as we imagine
them. But if you have two flocks competing for one field, then one side’s
sheepdogs are just wolves by another name. Competition and intractable
differences make “right” and “wrong” as much a matter of loyalty as any
other moral standard.
Does this mean there are no universal “true” wolves? Of course not. But
the vast majority of the people who the sheepdogs kill in wars, or even that
cops kill from gangs, and justify in their minds as “wolves,” are really
sheepdogs to another flock.
It is true that libertarian ideals of treaties and trades are possible, and
are the goal most of the time. But these are not possible when mutually
exclusive groups intermingle, or even come within proximity to each other. It
is dangerous and stupid to pretend otherwise. Our moral beliefs ought to
dwell in the reality that is, not the reality that some people would like to bring
about sometime in the next millennium. Within these conflicts between
groups, some of them will be differences of opinion, or conflicts of interest,
that you will not be able to change by persuasion.
Put plainly, there will be people who gain from destroying you, and
who either cannot or will not reason with you. To reject the morality of
responding with hatred—disgust towards mind—is to reject the validity of
your own existence.
“What would you say, if I should let you speak? Villains, for shame you
could not beg for grace. Hark, wretches! How I mean to martyr you.”
—William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus
Here stands the spring whom you have stain'd with mud,
This goodly summer with your winter mix'd.
You kill'd her husband, and for that vile fault
Two of her brothers were condemn'd to death,
My hand cut off and made a merry jest;
Both her sweet hands, her tongue, and that more dear
Than hands or tongue, her spotless chastity,
Inhuman traitors, you constrain'd and forced.
What would you say, if I should let you speak?
Villains, for shame you could not beg for grace.
Hark, wretches! how I mean to martyr you.
This one hand yet is left to cut your throats,
Whilst that Lavinia 'tween her stumps doth hold
The basin that receives your guilty blood.
You know your mother means to feast with me,
And calls herself Revenge, and thinks me mad:
Hark, villains! I will grind your bones to dust
And with your blood and it I'll make a paste,
And of the paste a coffin I will rear
And make two pasties of your shameful heads,
And bid that strumpet, your unhallow'd dam,
Like to the earth swallow her own increase.
This is the feast that I have bid her to,
And this the banquet she shall surfeit on;
For worse than Philomel you used my daughter,
And worse than Progne I will be revenged:
And now prepare your throats. Lavinia, come,
Hate induced Titus to act with deceit, violence and cruelty. And it can
do that to us as well: given what was done to his sons, his daughter, and
himself, it is hard not to sympathize with Titus, and to silently cheer him on
as he achieves his vengeance. Yes, we might say that he went too far. We
might even believe ourselves. But it is hard not to be thankful, deep down,
that some people are so vicious in their vengeance, because we know that
other people will be a little bit more reticent to go about destroying our lives
and our families. If you are a sociopath, you might want to take advantage of
people and toss them away at will, but it is hard to know who will roll over
and die, and who will snap and feed your children to you.
Better play it safe.
Hatred is about movement or violence. It can be expressed as a threat,
designed to intimidate others to move or stay away, or it can be directly as an
action. Sometimes, it can be both simultaneously. When Vlad Dracul III of
Wallachia lined the road into Romania with the impaled corpses of 20,000
Turks, the Ottoman general Mehmed II—who had conquered Constantinople
—decided not to push further towards Targoviste, Vlad’s capital city. “Vlad
the Impaler,” as he is known today, spent six years of his childhood as a
resentful hostage of the Turks. His terrifying cruelty served both to destroy
those who had captured and harmed him, and to powerfully deter others who
might think of doing the same.
Clearly, this does not mean that all violence, cruelty, and aggression
comes from hatred. Psychosis, anger, low self-control, and other disorders
can induce some people to act in ways that seem foreign—inhuman—to more
ordinary people. Vlad the Impaler himself was almost certainly a sadist of the
most ruthless kind.
But that is just the point: most people are not delusional, sadistic, or
psychotic. Most people need hatred to summon up the will to act with
violence or brutality, even if their survival or the survival of their loved ones
depend on it. They lack the requisite training or sociopathy to simply take
someone’s life, let alone opposing an enemy who seeks your destruction into
the foreseeable future. Remember, we are not merely talking about the fight-
or-flight flurry of self-defense when we talk about hatred.
By the same token that not all violence and cruelty is the result of
hatred, neither does all hatred result in violence and cruelty. There are many
other varieties, and other forms include intimidation, or if action feels
impossible or the hatred is not very strong, simple resentment. One of the
most common and basic one is avoidance. Just like with disgust, if something
is hateful to you, you stay away from it. These varieties—especially as they
fall into “justified” and “unjustified” hatred—will be discussed more in
chapter six.
Like disgust, and like anger, there is a face for hatred. But that face is
not the rage of anger, or the grimace of disgust. Nor is it the asymmetric
smile of contempt, or the glower of ordinary resentment.
The face of deepest hatred is totally blank and expressionless.
“We need other people to achieve individuality. For others to play this
role for me, they have to be available to me in an unmediated way, not via a
representation that is tailored to my psychic comfort. And conversely, I would
have to make myself available to them in a way that puts myself at risk, not
shying from a confrontation between different evaluative outlooks. For it is
through such confrontations that we are pulled out of our own heads and
forced to justify ourselves. In doing so, we may revise our take on things. The
deepening of our understanding, and our affections, requires partners in
triangulation: other people as other people, in relation to whom we may
achieve an earned individuality of outlook.”
—Matthew Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head
What we often fail to notice, because of its ubiquity, is that we all have
this relationship with other people. Here, more than with objects, they are
direct participants in our coherent identity. These are bonds that require no
sacred warrior-cult rituals to establish, though often they are strengthened by
such rituals. The biggest factor in who we are is not geography or
technology: it is other people.
In The World Beyond Your Head, Matthew Crawford argues that a great
mistake of the enlightenment philosophers was to define the human outside
the realm of reality, apart from the context and even the physics of where we
were born, raised, and lived. This was a new idea, engineered to preserve the
concept of “free will” from philosophical attacks, but it succeeded by
isolating the human identity from its traditional sources. Cooperation and the
division of labor are methods humans have always used to survive difficult
climates, defend ourselves, feed ourselves, and—most importantly—replicate
ourselves. Children are portions of us, and siblings, cousins, nieces and
nephews carry some small part of us with them too.
The people around us, just like objects and places, make us into who we
are. Nearly every person alive has one particular teacher who made a lasting
impression on us when we were younger. A lifetime of lasting impressions,
of sage advice at critical junctures, of kept promises and fulfilled
expectations, are the foundations of our personal growth and character
development. The people with virtue—intelligence, skill, empathy,
compassion, courage, curiosity, beauty, strength, loyalty and wisdom—make
our lives better. They can be trusted to help us when we need help, to watch
our back, to teach us, to entertain us, and in general, to empower us in living
enjoyable, successful lives.
For most of us, spending time with these people can feel like the very
reason for living. Other people are a basic human need as important as food,
sleep and sunshine. Interrogators would not use isolation as a form of torture,
nor would prison guards use it as punishment, were this not the case. The
catastrophic consequences of social neglect on developing children are well
documented. But growing up does not shed the psychological and survival
need we have to be near others. As we age, more is expected of us in return
for companionship, and longer periods of relative isolation are no longer
fatal, but human contact nevertheless remains an essential need.
The good people in your life are a part of your identity. They may be
annoying and irritating at times, and there will always be disagreements, but
when you consider the sacrifices people make to help and to be around
others, we must view others as a bodily staple, as necessary as sleep or
sunshine.
“The heart is like the eye: it is absolutely worthless without focus. And
to focus is to discriminate, to say that this thing is more important than that
thing. In the open field, it’s the charging bear that matters, not the grass.
Without focus, everything would be a blur. Things would appear to be the
same, even when they weren’t.”
—Jack Donovan, The Tribal Mind
Like hatred itself, the fear of hatred, and of being called hateful, comes
from other people. Legions of activists opposing hatred in all its forms have
arisen since the days of King, Ghandi, Mandela, and Theresa—both formally,
as in the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League, and
informally, a la your average college student. But do they really believe what
they are saying? Consider the following analogy:
“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because
guns will be needed to disarm people. So it is not that you are anti-gun.
You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you are
very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is, of course,
so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns.
There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun
ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.”
The anti-gun activists bristle with coercive force, using the gun behind
the law to gradually reduce other people’s ability to own and use guns.
In the same way, the anti-hate activists, in all their forms, ooze with
hatred. Like John, they attempt to square this circle by saying that they only
hate “the haters.” Their intolerance is reserved for the intolerant. But this
does not make them “anti-hatred” any more than John’s justifications make
him “anti-gun.”
More interestingly, and perhaps more tellingly, they never bother to
explore why the targets of their own hatred hold the views that they do. Like
John, they just assume that those people are just nasty, stupid bigots. Who
cares if the haters also claim only to hate others who are hateful or
dangerous? Who cares if the haters only carry a gun because they know
someone like John does too? None of that matters: my hatred is valid. Your
hatred is not.
The paper-thin nature of this supposed “anti-hate” position becomes
more obvious when we observe people who actually are anti-hate in practice.
Many Buddhists manage this, as do Christian pacifists, Jains, and others—
religious or secular—who not only shun violence, but the very mindset that
leads to and reciprocates violence. To return to our analogy, they are the
honest anti-gun advocate who does not themselves carry: those who see death
at the hands of armed attackers as a necessary burden to bear in the onward
march towards a gun-free world.
This ideal is almost as unlikely as a world entirely devoid of violence,
but at least these people who advocate it are internally consistent. I certainly
disagree with these pacifists on both their aim and their method, but at least
they are people who can be disagreed with.
Yet in talking to the virulent anti-hater—the Johns of the world—it
becomes clear that they feel no sense of hypocrisy. They feel entirely justified
in utilizing the power of hatred when the targets are threats to their group. As
with disarming firearms, it is never 100% universal.
Whatever hatred the Nazis once held for the Jews, it pales in
comparison for the loathing we hold towards the Nazis today, safely
extinguished as they are. One wonders if we would have the courage to hate
them as we do if they were still alive today. Given the apologia awarded to
the variety of fundamental incompatibilities Islam imposes on the Western
world, I can only assume we would not. This is not to make excuses for the
Nazis of course. Adolf Hitler was the worst thing to happen to Germany since
the Treaty of Versailles, his hubris wrecking Germany through unnecessary
war and subjecting half of it to 40 years of ruinous communism. But it wasn’t
the state of Germany that gave us our relationship with the politics of German
National Socialism. It was their final solution to the “Jewish Question.”
For centuries, German culture has been characterized by the Teutonic
virtues: austerity, punctuality, discipline, cleanliness, efficiency. You know
the archetype. German engineering has a reputation that, arguably, exceeds
the engineering that has been coming out of Deutschland in recent years, and
the butt of nearly every German joke revolves around their tendency for
literalism and the concrete (“How many Germans does it take to screw in a
lightbulb? One: we’re efficient, and have no sense of humor”).
This does not represent an ideal for all nations and cultures. But it does
represent the revealed preference of the German people, one which is as
legitimate as the Chinese preference for social harmony, and my own Anglo-
Saxon/Scottish/American obsession with “freedom.” The origins of these
group preferences—usually held with the seriousness of any love—are
ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps they are genetic. Maybe they are geographic.
Maybe it is some combination of the two, or something else entirely. Again,
the origins of these national preferences do not really matter.
The preferences of different groups of peoples have variously evolved
into coherent and sustaining systems of life that we call “cultures.” There is a
temptation to immediately evaluate them as “superior” or “inferior” to each
other, but biologically speaking, there is only one measure for objectively
calling a culture “superior” or “inferior,” and that measure is sustainability.
Is the society still alive? Will it be alive in a few decades? A few
centuries? Matriarchies tend not to last. Pacifist cultures tend not to last.
Excessively aggressive and combative cultures tend to succeed for a time,
and then get destroyed, if they do not winnow their own numbers down first.
Expansive, global, multicultural societies tend to dilute themselves into
nonexistence. Empires tend to boom and then bust, as Agent Smith observed
in The Matrix, (and then conflated with human nature itself):
The Nazis are not the only extinct boogeyman to be paraded out as an
exemplar of moral depravity, with whom association equals social and moral
death. The Ku-Klux Klan is an organization with between 5,000 and 8,000
members. In the context of American political influence, this is extremely
below notice.
And yet the KKK get trotted out every four years as a great and
terrifying danger to the unity of the nation, the malevolent hand directing the
collar of the conservative right in America, and a threat to blacks and other
minorities everywhere. We are left to presume that KKK membership swells
by orders of magnitude every 48 months.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil
deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and
destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of
every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Consider the case of Titus Andronicus. As you read how Demetrius and
Chiron plotted and then executed the savage rape of Titus’ daughter, Lavinia,
before cutting off her hands and ripping out her tongue, it would be
impossible for Titus not to hate these two Goths. Even the reader may have a
difficult time not loathing these fictional characters, after coming to enjoy the
gentle and lovely Lavinia, and the fair and just Titus Andronicus. The reader
might even smile with glee as Titus gets his brutal vengeance upon the Goths
and his nation for betraying him.
It is certainly possible for one to be outraged and angry with the two
brothers without emotionally connecting to the protagonist or his daughter.
You have only to think abstractly, to observe the principles violated by the
action of the two, and the injustice it represents. But as previously mentioned,
anger is not hatred. The former is consensus-seeking, and appeals to
principles. The latter recognizes that moral consensus is either late,
insufficient, impossible, or irrelevant, and that principles are a means to an
end, and not the end in itself. With both emotions, it is dysfunctional to feel
one when the other is more appropriate, and in the case of Titus Andronicus,
the correct emotional response is not anger, but hatred.
Attempt to put yourself in the mind of a rapist for a moment, especially
one in ancient Rome. Think of the fates of Demetrius and Chiron, and of the
words of countless fathers around the world, talking about what they’d do to
a man who did not “treat their daughter right.” The hate-inspired actions of a
few, especially when backed up by the perceived kindred spirit of many, has
an enormously powerful deterring effect.
The protection of latent hatred, in other words, is one of the benefits of
love. We destroy those who destroy what we cherish.
But suppose hatred was eradicated. What if you were not allowed to
hate? Or worse, what if you were not able?
Speaking Truth to Democratic Power
I know the rage that drives you. That impossible anger strangling the
grief, until the memory of your loved ones is just poison in your veins. And
one day you catch yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed,
so you’d be spared your pain. I wasn’t always here in the mountains. Once I
had a wife, my great love. She was taken from me. Like you, I was forced to
learn that there are those without decency that must be fought without
hesitation, without pity. Your anger gives you great power, but if you let it, it
will destroy you, as it almost did me.
Killing Love
Over the last few decades, there has been a marked increase in
alcoholism, especially among the young. After a decline in the late 80’s,
suicide rates turned around in 2001 and have been on the rise ever since.
Anxiety, depression, ADD, and other disorders that indicate a failure to find
one’s place in society have also exploded, and while some of this reflects an
expansion of diagnoses for a variety of reasons, its parallel to inclining
suicide rates indicate that broader definitions and more aggressive diagnosing
are not the whole trouble. Most notably of all has been the so-called “demise
of guys,” or what Milo Yiannopoulos has called the “sexodus:” young men
simply dropping out of society into video games, pornography, or some
hobby that otherwise takes them off the social map. Many of these hobbies
are self-destructive, most of them are useless, and virtually all of them betray
an increase in cynicism and apathy. While some people blame economic
hardships (which no doubt play some role), the suicide rate was higher in
2014 than it was in 2009, the height of the housing-market crash, and the rate
began climbing well before 2008. Not everything is a matter economics.
Meanwhile, an obsession with “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “anti-
hatred” infiltrates nearly all of our organizations and institutions, the ones we
live our everyday lives within. Schools, businesses, government agencies,
neighborhoods, sports teams, political movements, hobby groups, and private
clubs, all of these have, to some degree, begun espousing and enforcing the
religion of tolerance. Its golden rule: thou shalt not hate. While we would be
wrong to credit this emotional disconnection from passion with all of the
aforementioned nihilism and apathy, it is clear from example after
demonstrative example that the religion of tolerance—of anti-hatred—bears
at least some of the responsibility. If we are being honest, it appears to be a
primary source of the spiritual disease festering among the younger
generation, and not merely a symptom. And why should we be surprised by
this? If we cannot hate, then we will retroactively convince ourselves that we
didn’t really love it. And the danger of unrequited loss by establishing a
meaningful preference, might not be worth it. It might be better to never love.
To wish that what you loved had never existed, so you could be spared your
pain. Without something to love, without something worthy of fighting and
dying for, there is no reason to set goals, to improve yourself, to date, to
learn, to earn, and to make yourself truly great.
Ironically, the ideology of anti-hatred does not even decrease the net
amount of hate, even when it is internalized and practiced seriously. It merely
diffuses it, spreading it more evenly across larger groups of people. This is
partially because in place of physical objects of love like people or places,
abstract things like ideas, codes, and concepts simply stand in for them—not
as “love” per se, so much as commitments and dependencies; ideologies that
poorly take love’s place, not really being able to love in return. Perhaps it is
the Republican party, or the Democratic one. Maybe it is “liberalism”
generally, or “the Constitution.” It is fine to enjoy these things, to embrace
them and fight for them. But when they become the end in itself, rather than a
means to a greater end found in other people, they lose their own intended
purpose, and can even turn against it.
The law against hate is no exception to this rule. There are no
misanthropes so decidedly contemptuous of others as the dedicated anti-
bigot. They imagine a possible world of peace and harmony among all
mankind, predicated upon understanding and empathy, and decide that this is
the most important thing. But they do not empathize with others who have
different ideas, because in their eyes, nothing could possibly be more
important than world peace. And so they see disagreements between people
as necessarily motivated by stupidity, stubbornness, and bigotry. They see
"hatred" all around them. The incorrigibility of man's differences causes them
to lose hope in their ideal, and they descend into a cynical, apathetic,
condescending disdain for the rest of their own species. The anti-hater
becomes the most universal hater.
Anti-hatred does not fix hate. It just polarizes. To the degree that it does
reduce hate, it reduces love as well, which makes us weak, apathetic, short-
sighted and cynical.
It also makes us harder to love.
“To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under
the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to
break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a
time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to
gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from
embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to
cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a
time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.”
—Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
Cool hatred is easier said than done. How do we best channel our
hatred, and curb the rage that turns us into clumsy and predictable playthings
for enemies?
Sing, Goddess, the wrath of Achilles, Peleus’ son, the ruinous wrath
that brought on the Achaeans woes innumerable, and hurled down into
Hades many strong souls of heroes…
The book is about the excessive anger of Achilles, and his refusal to let
it go. Achilles gives us a perfect demonstration of the hatred he is feeling
when he tells Hector, immediately before killing him:
There are no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can
never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out and through.
“It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History
teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.”
—Jack Donovan, Violence is Golden
The Britons themselves bear cheerfully the conscription, the taxes, and
the other burdens imposed on them by the Empire, if there be no oppression.
Of this they are impatient; they are reduced to subjection, not as yet to
slavery.
Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, famed for his long prosperity, had made
the emperor his heir along with his two daughters, under the impression that
this token of submission would put his kingdom and his house out of the
reach of wrong. But the reverse was the result, so much so that his kingdom
was plundered by centurions, his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of
war. First, his wife Boudica was scourged, and his daughters outraged. All
the chief men of the Iceni, as if Rome had received the whole country as a
gift, were stript of their ancestral possessions, and the king's relatives were
made slaves.
The whipping of Boudica and the rape of her daughters were not the
first instance of Roman tyranny, but the pinnacle, and also the final straw. As
word made its way around the country of the outrage, the Britons decided
that they had had enough. Around AD 60, Boudica began rallying the tribes
in revolt against the Romans. The new, massive army seemed to find a
symbolic, vicarious identity in the crimes committed against their new
Queen. Their unfettered hatred drove them forward in an unstoppable horde,
annihilating all Roman forces and burning down settlements along their path,
including London. They seemed invincible, and the Roman governor
responsible for the abuse of the Iceni—Catus Decianus—fled across the
English channel, never to return.
But the Britons under Boudica had not really faced a prepared Roman
fighting force. The Romans had grown arrogant in their domination of the
island and their forces were divided. General Gaius Suetonius Paulinus had
been off quelling a Druid rebellion on the island of Mona.
But now he had returned.
It had been a tactical decision of Suetonius to withdraw from London
which allowed Boudica and her army to raze it so easily, not the force of their
number or their rage. In the withdrawal, Suetonius had padded his own Legio
XIV with auxiliaries from the city and a few extra detachments, bringing his
army to an estimated 10,000 men.
The Britons, bolstered by their successes and by their massive
numerical advantage[2], did not know what they did not know about the
Romans, and charged.
Suetonius had very carefully chosen his battleground, and had arrayed
his soldiers in a series of wedge formations to channel the Britons into close
quarters. There, their inferior armor would make Boudica’s forces vulnerable,
and the infamous stabbing short-sword of the legionaries—the gladius—
would be at its most effective. Before the carnage began, the Roman general
addressed his men curtly and confidently:
Arminius
There were many other European rebels against the Romans, including
such noteworthy names as Vercingetorix and Viriatus. Both men led
campaigns against the Romans that were surprisingly successful, despite
ultimately failing to hold back the most powerful military in the world.
One commander, however, stood out from the others; not only in his
success, but in the permanence of his victory: a twenty-five-year-old
Cherusci tribesman named Arminius.
The decisive victory took place in a single battle in 9 AD. The Roman
General was a wealthy patrician named Publius Quinctilius Varus, an
inexperienced military leader but effective and ruthless political
administrator. At his disposal, Varus had three legions (XVII, XVIII, and
XIX; between 20,000 and 36,000 men.
At Arminius’ disposal: a rough, underequipped, contingent of mutually-
opposed Germanic tribesmen. Perhaps 15,000 or 20,000 men, though some
estimates range as low as 12,000.
It was September, and Varus was already departing with his entire force
from their summer camp, near the Wesser River, west to their winter
headquarters near the Rhine. At the time he was to depart, he got wind of an
uprising, and decided to attend to one final military action en route before
settling in for the year. The road to the embattled area took them north of
their planned route west, through unfamiliar territory. But a small tribal
uprising would have seemed a minor task to Varus, with a trained and
seasoned Roman army under his control, before continuing along his way.
There was no uprising in the north, and Varus would never reach that
destination to find out.
Arminius began his three-day attack after the Romans had been
marching northwest for a day. Varus’ forces were stretched out long and thin,
with the vanguard building roads and bridges as it went for the rest of the
army. Cassius Dio reported that the Romans “were not proceeding in any
regular order, but were mixed helter-skelter with the wagons and the
unarmed,” as they passed through the narrow strip of traversable land
between Kalkriese hill and a peat bog. This meant that when the Germanic
soldiers appeared at the top of the recently fortified hill and began pelting the
Roman line with javelins, the legions were “unable to form readily anywhere
in a body, and being fewer at every point than their assailants, they suffered
greatly and could offer no resistance at all.”
The Romans fought back as they could, and even attempted to take the
hill, though they were quickly repulsed. After sustaining heavy casualties in
miserable and confusing conditions, the Romans finally managed to secure a
nearby location for setting up camp. There they burned their wagons and
other unnecessary baggage, in hopes of being able to travel lighter and faster,
and perhaps to survive the next day.
The next day, however, turned out worse than before. The road took
them through the woods, and there the Germans had set up yet another
ambush. Varus suffered tremendous losses, and it seemed as if more German
tribes were joining in after hearing of the initial victories.
On the third day, the Romans—tired, wet, surrounded, and exhausted—
attempted to fight back, but to no avail. According to Cassius Dio, Varus
finally admitted his defeat:
They were still advancing when the fourth day dawned, and again a
heavy downpour and violent wind assailed them, preventing them from going
forward and even from standing securely, and moreover depriving them of
the use of their weapons. For they could not handle their bows or their
javelins with any success, nor, for that matter, their shields, which were
thoroughly soaked. Their opponents, on the other hand, being for the most
part lightly equipped, and able to approach and retire freely, suffered less
from the storm. Furthermore, the enemy's forces had greatly increased, as
many of those who had at first wavered joined them, largely in the hope of
plunder, and thus they could more easily encircle and strike down the
Romans, whose ranks were now thinned, many having perished in the earlier
fighting. Varus, therefore, and all the more prominent officers, fearing that
they should either be captured alive or be killed by their bitterest foes (for
they had already been wounded), made bold to do a thing that was terrible
yet unavoidable: they took their own lives.
Things did not go so well for the other officers or soldiers, who were
butchered or enslaved. Roman officer and historian Velleius Paterculus
recorded the mayhem:
The body of Publius Quinctilius Varus was decapitated, and the head
was sent back to
Rome in a basket, whereupon Emperor Augustus, hearing of the totality of
their defeat, walked up and down the palace, shouting “Quintili Vare,
legiones redde![3]”
Though two of the Aquila—the Eagle standard used by each legion—
were eventually retrieved, around 16 AD, the legions were never
reassembled. After a fruitless campaign of vengeance against Arminius and
the Germans, the Romans withdrew, never again to expand the Empire north
of the Rhine.
The stories of Boudica and Arminius are not the purest independent
examples of “hot” and “cold” hatred, but they are comparable. Let your
emotions drive your actions without knowledge, and you may fail in
humiliation and defeat at the hands of your oppressors. Channel your
emotions, and pursue their fulfillment with knowledge and discernment, and
perhaps you may get the chance to humiliate and eviscerate them.
It should be said that hot, unjustified hatred is not the worst thing, since
it at least signifies a moral pulse. So long as you are not a nihilist, you are not
dead, and until death, there is always time to improve and grow in your
character. But the ineffectiveness and dangers—physically, emotionally, and
psychologically—of unjustified, hot hatred should be in your mind when
running down the warpath. This is not so that you avoid hatred altogether, but
so that you execute its purpose most effectively and safely for yourself and
those you love.
What happens if you do not righteously pursue those who you ought to
hate? Is it so bad to abstain from hate?
Enter Segestes, the man who tried to reveal Arminius to Varus in 9 AD.
It was known that Segestes had not approved of his daughter Thusnelda’s
marriage to Arminius, and from this we can infer that his attempted betrayal
of his son-in-law was not circumstantial, but rooted in a hatred of his own.
Tacitus makes clear that Segestes preferred Roman rule, and resented
Arminius’ love of German independence and, more crucially, his willingness
to fight for its attainment.
In 15 AD, Segestes took his pregnant daughter away from Germany to
give to the Romans as a hostage, as a sign of loyalty. Tacitus reported his
words as something to this effect:
This is not my first day of steadfast loyalty towards the Roman people.
From the time that the Divine Augustus gave me the citizenship, I have
chosen my friends and foes with an eye to your advantage, not from hatred of
my fatherland (for traitors are detested even by those whom they prefer) but
because I held that Romans and Germans have the same interests, and that
peace is better than war. And therefore I denounced to Varus, who then
commanded your army, Arminius, the ravisher of my daughter, the violater of
your treaty. I was put off by that dilatory general, and, as I found but little
protection in the laws, I urged him to arrest myself, Arminius, and his
accomplices. That night is my witness; would that it had been my last. What
followed may be deplored rather than defended. However, I threw Arminius
into chains and I endured to have them put on myself by his partisans. And as
soon as you give me opportunity, I show my preference for the old over the
new, for peace over commotion, not to get a reward, but that I may clear
myself from treachery and be at the same time a fit mediator for a German
people, should they choose repentance rather than ruin. For the youth and
error of my son I entreat forgiveness. As for my daughter, I admit that it is by
compulsion she has been brought here. It will be for you to consider which
fact weighs most with you, that she is with child by Arminius or that she owes
her being to me.
Despite destroying Varus utterly, and fending off the attempted punitive
campaigns of General Germanicus, Arminius was robbed of his wife and son
by the very people he had attempted to free from ignominious servitude. In
21 AD, his own family and tribe (most likely with the aid and direction of
Segestes) killed him.
Having grown up and served as a Roman, he knew the Romans well,
and he rightly pointed out that his father-in-law did not know the eventual
price of Roman rule:
Perhaps Arminius did not understand the nature and intentions of his
own people well enough, to whom he had given his loyalty. This
demonstrates once again that understanding does not always eliminate hatred,
but proves and justifies it, and that the consequences of refusing to hate what
seeks your destruction can be fatal. One can only wonder if, in his love for
his own people, he was afraid to recognize the existential danger that his
treasonous father-in-law posed to himself and to Cherusci independence from
Roman tyranny.
Hate, Love, Fear, and Theology
“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear
hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.”
—1 John 4:18
It may still be difficult for many Christians to accept that hatred can be
a good thing. They have been taught to believe—rightly—that God is love,
and that we are to love our enemies. Why synthesize something like hatred
into our moral arsenal, when God seems to explicitly command us not to
hate?
There are two theological answers to this.
First of all, the passage which commands us to love our enemies comes
from the Sermon on the Mount, which is intended to supplement the word of
the law with a mindset to hold, not behavioral injunctions to override ancient
and tested laws for action. The full section reads as follows:
“Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye
bloody men.
For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name
in vain.
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with
those that rise up
against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
everlasting.”
—Psalm 139:19-24
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the
heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant,
and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to
build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to
dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast
away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to
speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be
exercised in it.
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also
he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that
God maketh from the beginning to the end.
—Ecclesiastes 3:1-11
One need not be a Christian to see the truth and value in religious
passages such as these, and Christianity is far from the only faith that
supports this notion. A passage from a core text of another religion I have
grown familiar with in recent years grasps the concept as succinctly as any
Biblical passage:
“The mind only knows what lies near the heart, that alone is conscious
of our affections. No disease is worse to a sensible man than not to be content
with himself.”
—Havamal
Sincerity
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that
claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the
validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly
denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And
what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two
make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is
unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind,
and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”
—George Orwell, 1984
Lying about hatred is a big lie. It is like saying that two and two make
zero, and the conclusions are just as dire. Without objective truth, without
values that you care strongly enough about that you would be willing to
defend their preservation with violence, then you have no map, no compass,
no orientation to guide you. You cease to have an interest at all, and have no
reason to resist others who would happily use you for their own interests,
whoever those others happen to be.
Perhaps they simply forgot to drop their own preferences, loves, and
hates.
But this book is also for them. I do not want my enemies lying to
themselves. Perhaps they have something important to say, that I can learn
from. I can see the hatred of my enemies—Social Justice Warriors,
Feminists, Marxists, Multiculturalists, and many, many more—and I can see
the psychological damage they are wreaking upon themselves by lying. I
want strong enemies. When I was in debate club in college, I could demolish
liberal students whenever a politically partisan issue came up because none of
them had read conservative arguments, as I had. They were unprepared,
weak. And I was a less skilled debater than I could have been because of it.
Lying to their enemies, I can understand, and would expect. That’s Sun Tzu-
101, and a favor I’m happy to return to them. It is the lying to themselves,
and amongst themselves, that is… problematic.
And is it not simply more satisfying to defeat stronger enemies?
Whether it is in literal warfare, or the more metaphorical variety—politics,
law, culture, or even sports—the strong man never gets a sense of satisfaction
from defeating pathetic, weak enemies. It is only from defeating challenging
enemies, worthy of one’s hatred, that your own strengths can be vindicated
and demonstrated. As Nietzsche pointed out many years ago, it is in this way,
at least, that we can learn to love our enemies.
It is not love of my enemies, however, which motivates me to write this
book. Rather, it is hatred for them, and love for the things and values which
they threaten. I hope that those who share my love of freedom, of beauty, of
justice, will read this, and free themselves from the fear of being “hateful.” I
hope that they will see and understand that we cannot love without the
possibility of hate. I hope they will see that nothing is worth avoiding at the
expense of love. I hope they will see that hatred is love, and is love’s greatest
and last defense.
[1]
“The passions must be suppressed.”
[2]
Dio estimated that Boudica’s army approximated 230,000 men, though Tacitus believed
this to be an exaggeration.
[3]
“Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions!”
[4]
The others being eros (sexual love), stergein (familial love), and philia (affectionate,
brotherly love).