an old, unpublished piece on hate

3 may 2010, in response to seeing the phrase "i only bring out what is already within you."

i saw something today that made me think about hate and what it really means. now it's easy to get upset. it's easy to say who made you feel upset. x did. but heres the scoop: x doesnt own your feelings. there is a point somewhere along the line that we must define who is responsible for what.

do this: remember the last time you were in love with somebody. or maybe youre in love now. lets call that person y. remember y? when y was around, you were happy. you liked being happy. you like yourself when youre happy. ah, its all because of y. i love y. i love y because when y is around, i am better than when y isnt around.

now think about x. x did something. or wait. x made you do something. x made you say something. x made you feel worse than when x wasnt around. but is it really x's fault? is it possible that you hate x because x made you hate yourself? it is possible, isnt it? after all, what x did is forgiveable. but how x made you feel, is unforgiveable.

but if you love y for being able to bring out the best in you, it means you hate x for being able to bring out the worst in you. people around us have different abilities. some of them evoke parts of ourselves we want to see, and some of them materialise our shadows better and show us our ugly sides. realise now: neither x nor y created any part of you; they merely forced it out all on display. so who is to blame for the existence of that monster?

y constantly reminds us of why life is good. y reminds us why life is worth living. as social creatures we are in perpetual need for such reminders. far be it from me to trample on love or to trivialise it, but love is simply in the reminders. and just as love reminds us of our good side, hate reminds us of our bad side.

and that really is the crux of the whole issue with unfair hate. we hate x because x reminds us that we are capable of atrocities. heck, x might even remind us that we are atrocities. but x is there to keep our heads out of the clouds. x grounds us. just as y makes life fantastic, x makes life real. if hatred did not exist, we would not be capable of fully appreciating love.

brace for the incoming paradox. stop hating the people you hate, because the reason you hate them is only because you would rather not hate yourself. and that isnt fair to x.

the alternative is to be unfair, and hate x, for x wasnt fair to you in the first place. heck, the world isnt fair. maybe we should just love the people who make us happy and hate the people who dont. let us become vectors for the propagation of unfair hate. then we can all wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and see x, the person we hate.

fate of the species

we would expect that the early men back in the day were also able to conceive the notion of alliance over the option of tribal war for the purpose of progress in other areas. the idea of banding together for better survival is a precept from antiquity. the only thing that has changed over time is the size of this band. so while small families might have grouped together millienia ago, these days we are looking at numbers on the order of millions;remember the fascist era of the early 20th century.

the general idea of one leader uniting the masses against a looming external threat is a sweet one. yes, squabbles between sovereign entities are a tradition of very old, but neither the egyptians nor the persians nor the greeks possessed weaponry that could end the world--the kind of weaponry that causes us, in these times to frown and shake our heads at the thought of war instead of group up and thump our chest armor for the sake of protecting "our own". nationalism is the same today as it was 5000 years ago, yet even its purpose has come to pass now that we with our global connections can no longer deny that "their own" are just as deserving of peace, security and progress. it is without doubt that any nation with sufficient globalising exposure becomes less and less inclined to hostile inclinations towards fellow inhabitants of the globe itself (separatist nations being negative examples).

yet even within the most peaceful and so-called progressive nations i see cultural segregation causing inter and intrasocietal conflicts impeding a One Kingdom agenda. i discover myself wondering sometimes if it is even within the realm of possibility for the people of this planet to ever unite under one goal(ie. leader).  i find it extremely improbable if not impossible. now mass unification of the major religions culminating in a massive religious war of two or maybe even three parties--that is something i believe is rather possible, but for muslim and christian, negroid and caucasoid, conservative and liberal and man and woman to unite there must be a common threat large enough to compel a negation of longstanding differences and discrimination--a threat to humanity if you will. i am speaking of a hostile alien species. without this impetus, every prime minister or every president would only work for the benefit of his own country, every governor or duke, only his own state, every mayor only his own town, every parent only his own family.

every man, truly for his own self. fundamentally, this is the case, and it is a rule coming straight out of the animal world. but it is via advancement of a species that softens this requirement by enabling each individual to think for more individuals outside of himself, hence the advancing roles of self-leader->family leader->town leader->state leader->country leader etc. naturally, the inner conviction weakens as the role continues to advance, after all, who feels more compelled to die for his country rather than his family, or who would sacrifice his life and limb for a stranger rather than his friend? yet throughout the civilizations there have been a handful of superior individuals who were not only able but willing to lay themselves down for the sake of a purpose or role larger than themselves. some of these men started entire religions, some others created lasting ideologies. ironically, while their ideas were almost always with the intention to unite the people, because of the selfish limitations of the individual man, division also resulted. if history is to repeat itself for good, then some great man--or woman--will arise from the civilizations yet again to melt barriers and homogenise the people. but as history is famous for taking its time, and looking at the state of the world today, i honestly do not expect homogenisation within my lifetime.

assuming we have the foresight not to destroy ourselves with our weaponry, we will one day find it in us to set aside our petty rabble in the face of an enemy alien race we discovered with our technology, and then unite in arms to point those weapons in the same direction to ensure our survival. when that galactic war is over, the same dilemma would be applicable: will we ever unite with another sentient race to ensure survival? or would be attempt to eradicate each other with our terrible weapons? the scale will continue to increase, and nationalism will phase in and out with the times but it seems to me that every time it phases in we run the risk of destroying everything.

therein lies the paradox: uniting against a common enemy is trying to remove what could be part of one's larger self. unless we abandon the need to survive, we will forever struggle for it and forever run the risk of ending our survival itself.