Expanding the “Hate” Horizon: When “Love” Inc. Becomes The Gatekeeper of Totalitarian Dogma

One of the most frustrating, widespread and potentially harmful fallacies of the contemporary age is this notion that hate is synonymous with evil & love is an unconditional good. Like all effectively superficial platitudes, it sounds self-evident, even enlightened. Yet, the invidious but all too easily accepted implication is obvious: surely no one in their right mind could possibly defend “hate” and criticize “love”, anyone who does that just needs to love more and hate less in order to be a better person.

However, the problem with overly simplistic equivalencies like the above appeal to emotion fallacy is that complex emotions such as love and hate and convoluted moral designations like good and evil are all too often so intertwined and mutually interpenetrative that attempting to set up tidy syllogisms regarding their relationship amongst and between each other leads to a naive and oblivious lack of comprehension of all of the categories in question.

Firstly, without a natural hostility like hatred for that which threatens to harm, usurp or destroy who and what we love, the pervasive dissemination of the concept of “love” all too easily becomes an empty slogan for hapless degenerates, predatory perverts and spineless parasites to cloak their ulterior, inimical and self-serving aims under a banner of affection, good intentions and compassion for the downtrodden.

Secondly, hatred is best defined as the intense antipathy towards that which causes revulsion, instills contempt and fosters condemnation. Despite all of the (mostly semantic) casuistry surrounding the conceptual differentiations between justice and vengeance, on a practical and instinctual level, there wouldn’t be any organized system of criminal punishment if not for appropriate and measured applications of hate. 

Keywords being appropriate and measured. For these are the exact criteria that distinguish between the “love” that exists between parent and child and the purported “love” that can occur between a pedoperv and a young teenager, for example. The former is appropriate and measured, the latter is virtually always not. 

Similarly, the “hate” towards a military occupation that indiscriminately murders women and children is comprehensively rational compared to the “hate” that fuels the abject cruelty, brutal indifference and unfettered disposal of life by the military occupation. The former is appropriate and measured, the latter is virtually always not.

The unreasonable stigmatization of the term hate is often tied to an irrational glorification of the term love. This terminological dominion via an emotivistic-nominalistic framework embeds a series of philosophical presuppositions that clearly have psychological, political and spiritual motivations. 

In the case of the irrational glorification of the term love, we can see that people who want to be thought of as loving can all too easily be duped into concluding that love is some kind of universal panacea, a one-size-fits-all cure, an unassailable bromide that always produces more solutions than problems. 

Even just a cursory glance of 20th century history shows us how love can be weaponized as a form of therapeutic triumphalism, a truism masquerading as truth that can deceive even the most well-intentioned among us. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions and love is the best intention of them all.

Likewise, the unreasonable stigmatization of the term ‘hate’ comes with utterly heinous consequences as well. We can see that when people don’t want to be thought of as hateful they can be coaxed into tolerating and accepting a wide variety of conditions that run counter to their better interests, their own basic well-being and even their baseline survival—not only on an individual level but perhaps especially on a collective one. 

Even just a rudimentary grasp of the present day is rife with examples where people would be far better off learning how to instill a sense of rational hatred towards that which deserves to be hated instead of sheepishly accepting and stubbornly tolerating their own oppression, immiseration, erasure, obliteration and destruction in the name of “being compassionate” or whatever popularized form of “keeping calm and carry on” social engineering rules the day.

common sense is gaining ground again.

When people understand that, for example, ‘hate’ and ‘heat’ are primordially connected on not only an etymological and linguistic level but also on a psycho-spiritual level (in terms of our elemental dependencies within physical existence), we can produce more dispassionate and therefore more accurate frameworks for comprehending emotional states that lead to hatred. 

By incorporating a perennial philosophical framework in this manner it is possible to produce a wiser hermeneutic that has clear practical and intellectual advantages over the all too reflexive adoption of Christian pathological connotations surrounding the term, idea and presence of hate in the world.  

In just the same way that we require controlled applications of heat to survive, controlled applications of hate have a deeply seated and important place in human affairs as one visceral method whereby one becomes aware of what should not be tolerated, ignored or allowed to persist to the point that the urge to, at a minimum, punish it on a given tangible, material or physical level becomes an overwhelming objective.

The contemporary Christian pacifistic insistence on rejecting the idea of ‘righteous hatred’ as some kind of oxymoron, violation of first principles, or an ethical category mistake relies on 1. a fallacious oversimplification of the term as an automatic pejorative that relies on a mono-dimensional and unsubstantiated characterization of hate as a self-evident synonym for violence or a symptom of evil or the result of some intrinsically negative, perhaps even demon-produced impulse and 2. The inability to parse an abundant set of examples in which different levels of unwavering antipathy and abject intolerance (notice how these compound terms are more accurate synonyms for hate) can be justified and indeed deemed necessary to maintain social order. It is an indispensable part of upholding a common good for a wide breadth of social, political and economic ills, vices, deviancies and perversions to be reviled and even violently opposed to the point of severe or even terminal punishment.

Without a real and actionable revulsion against that which seeks the ruination of civil relations for private gain, the public good is little more than a golem created by oligarchs who operate with relative impunity and invulnerability over the robotized masses; unthinking hordes that can be pitted against one another and easily manipulated by this utterly undeserving host of cunning fools who, with their largely ill-gotten and disproportionately influential advantages, couldn’t care less if most of the world’s population was decimated. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that real, grounded, intelligent people know that hatred of such misanthropic aims is justifiable and there ought to be controlled applications of this appropriate form of hate called severe punishments to combat those aims. Yet this instinctive grasp of pragmatic revulsion seems stymied by the sheer number of people whose cognitive associations around this issue have been programmed, in an almost pavlovian manner, to reinforce this anti-intellectual chilling effect around preventing these misanthropic aims—simply because they have been conditioned to think such measures could be deemed “hateful”! 

This absurd psychopathology amongst the masses has produced a situation in which it can be deemed hateful to want the corrupt to be punished, hateful to be sickened by perversions, hateful to think that sanity is preferable to insanity, hateful to want a cohesive society, hateful to enforce laws, hateful to desire safety, hateful if there’s any desire for kinship and shared national heredity, hateful to oppose foreign hordes overrunning the country, hateful to want grandchildren that look like you, the list is much longer.

Fire and the heat it produces can certainly be dangerous and indeed catastrophic if not wielded in a purposeful and cautionary manner. Yet, without fire and the heat it produces, much of what we call modern society would not exist. Factories, forges, engines, generators, electricity, trains, mines, the entirety of society really depends on the precise application of heat production, even though fire and heat also can result in bombs, munitions, explosives and a myriad of other heat producing, fire-derived instruments that can cause great damage.

The position is not that hate cannot cause harm, clearly it can in the same way that no one would argue that fire cannot burn and cause harm. Rather, when hate is treated like a pariah, thought of as an outlaw in the world of emotions—a pathos-non-grata that should only have scorn placed upon it, a feeling that should be universally and at all times replaced by forgiveness and compassion, the result is all too easily perceived: populations targeted with such messaging are being engineered to lower their guard, being taught to denigrate their own natural instinctive defenses against threats, and being incentivized to quell themselves into a indolent stupor. 

This form of hypnosis operates under the false premise that everyone is automatically a better person, a morally superior unit, if they simply abandon any and all rationale within which hate is not only an appropriate and justified response to present conditions, but that it has any constructive use case or purpose at all.

Much of this false premise has been constructed within the  philosophical milieu of spiritual humanism and universalistic religions. An emphasis on peace is often central to the countless platitudes about “love is God” being the highest virtue; despite the fact that throughout history those who disagreed with the theological implications of this premise and did not want their culture predetermined by such a virtue were summarily forced to comply or be eliminated if they resisted. 

Herein lies the astounding insight: those who espouse and internalize this overemphasis on love require a group psychology of acquiescence to the idea that in order for love to be held up as the ultimate, overriding virtue, an equal and opposite acrimony and stigmatization of what is deemed hateful must also persist. In other words, this “Welcome to Costco, I love you” paradigm operates under the aegis that whatever can be labeled “not loving” is therefore a form of potentiated hate itself which must be (paradoxically) despised and in and of itself in order for “love” to reign. 

Such a widespread schizomoralism turns specific, complex and inconvenient emotions like hate into excommunicated, banished categories of thought while a puerile and insipid dominion of “positive-vibes-only” ethics remains. I argue this counterfeit, “love above all else” progressivism has contributed to a form of cognitive lobotomization amongst the public resulting in a reduced ability to assess and contain threats, identify corruption and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

In the present time, I propose a repudiation of this all-too-prevalent “robo-love” hegemony. Love, in its most meaningful and sustainable manifestation on a civilizational level, ought to be the end product, indeed the summary result of a society that has exerted exhaustive efforts in eradicating counterfeit, corrupted forms of parasitic power mongering.  Love must be re-imagined as the crown jewel of a polity that has purged itself of perfidy, pettiness and mass psychosis. How can love regain its meaning in a world awash with nihilistic superficiality and duplicitous counterfeiting of the term? We have to collectively begin to reject that which is presented and upheld  by the parasitic system as “loving” and learn to appreciate and respect what is touted and slandered as “hateful” by the parasitic system.

The sheer speed with which “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws are being greased through the corruptocracy should tell anyone who has been paying attention that the parasitic hoi oligoi want us all to stop noticing the obvious, to stop wanting a future not dominated by them and their scuzzy worldviews, to put on our VR headsets, eat the bugs, enjoy the cardboard residence and “love” thy neighbor as thyself. 

Related posts

Leave a Comment

Please enter CoinGecko Free Api Key to get this plugin works.