Monday, May 11, 2009
Love as the Flipside of Hate and Vice Versa?
The misconception of love as pacifist.
Since at least the time of Jesus, there's been this idea that love is about peace, harmony, and so on. This concept of love is pacifist if not exactly passive--Jesus urged his followers to go out, actively embrace your fellow men, and love.
And, it's true that there has long been an idea that dichotomized love against hate and linked love with peace while linking hate with violence. But, as the great Stanley Kubrick understood, love is just a flip side of hate, peace just a flip side of war. Both love and peace are really about security or survival. Security is about strength. Strength allows your side to stand up to or destroy your enemies. So, all peace is a kind of a cold war, even among friendly nations.
Think of the term 'to pacify'. It means to bring about a peaceful state, but how does one pacify a territory? It's done by vanquishing or conquering one's enemies or rivals thru violence and then maintaining peace thru threat of violence. Many rogue nations will not mess with a big powerful nations out of fear. Rogue nations are also less likely to mess with small weak nations if the latter have the backing of big strong nations.
Of course, not all means to pacify the world is thru military or physical might. It can also be done thru the spread of ideas, ideology, values, etc. Christianity, Islam, and Marxism tried to do such. By creating a universal idea of brotherhood under god or sage, they hoped to create a one-world order of spiritual or social camaraderie. But, even such ideas always needed the backing of arms. Christians used the sword as well as the pen. So did Muslims and Marxists who felt no moral compunction against using the sword to create a peaceful harmonious order. This made Christianity look bad because Jesus stressed the importance of the means as well as the end. Islam and Marxism were less troubled by the means as long as the ends were desirable.
Mankind has always sought to pacify the world, to create a peaceful world order. As most peoples thru history thought and fought in terms of blood and soil, the only way they could bring total peace upon the world was to wipe out one's enemies and take their lands OR enslave and exploit them OR subjugate one's enemies and convert them toward your culture. Another way was to absorb the aggressor and turn them onto your culture--what happened to Mongols and Manchus in relation to the Han Chinese who, though conquered, swallowed up their conquerors.
But, this concept of world peace based on blood and soil was unstable. There was no concept of peace except based on brute force. Also, without a powerful moral or ideological system to unite the populace, a vast empire based on common blood and soil could easily splinter into different sub-tribes or sub-clans and bring about new wars. In the distant past when people did not have means of communication to stay in touch, even peoples of same origin separated by great distances over a long time would very likely develop different values, loyalties, and etc. So, the Mongol empire could not stay together indefinitely. Some Mongols were Sinicized, others were Islamicized, and others were Slavocized. And, the Greeks who conquered much territory under Alexander the Great were soon splintered against one another after his death. This was especially true as people such as the Mongols didn't have a great ideological or philosophical or spiritual culture. (This is also true of pack animals. Suppose there's a wolf pack that grows larger and larger. Eventually, though of same origin, the pack will break apart into separate packs and wander into different territories. Were they to meet up again, they would see the other pack as an enemy than as canine brethren of same ancestry. So, unless an empire is cemented by historic memory, culture, and values, it will reach a point where its various factions will end up developing new interests and identities. To be sure, such breakages can happen even when the cultural connection is maintained. Consider American independence from Britain. Still, the idea of an Anglospherical world has survived and thrived from UK to US/Canada to Australia to etc.) In contrast, Chinese who traveled outside China--in southeast Asia, America, parts of Europe, etc--all maintained a core sense of Chineseness as China had a powerful cultural philosophy. The same could be said of Jews. Though many Jews became separated by great distances and time, a core sense of Jewishness remained among many different Jews, and it was possible for the modern state of Israel to bring together Jews from all over the world. As different as these diaspora Jews were from one another, they shared the common Jewish identity, historical sense, and general values.
Romans--and later the British--found a more advanced way to establish peace than the Mongols or such ilk. If Mongols merely subjugated and united much of the known world thru force, Romans initially conquered by force but kept their empire united thru universality of the Law and extensive commerce. Romans ruled over vast territories populated with great many non-Romans but allowed non-Romans to fully participate in the Roman way if they so chose. This system worked for two centuries, but it couldn't keep the peace forever. In the end, proto-nationalisms trumped Law and Commerce. And, by the time Roman military might waned, its laws could not keep the empire together. Though Roman peace had been buttressed by law and commerce, military might had been crucial. Roman identity which became fixed to law and politics proved to be less powerful and lasting than the Jewish identity based on blood and spiritual values.
Still, as resilient and secure as Jews were among themselves, Jews could never establish a peaceful world order based on Judaism since Jews didn't try to convert non-Jews--same was true of the Chinese and Hindus.
So, the idea of pacifying the world thru a moral-spiritual system came about with the rise of Christianity and Islam. Christians sought to unite the world in peace thru the spread of a spiritual/moral idea. Though Jesus stressed using love and peace to spread love and peace, Christians often resorted to violence and force. Even so, those conquered by Christianity found much of it appealing and empowering. And, nearly all of Europe did come under a common Christian order. To be sure, cultural or 'national' divisions still existed, and Christians often battled each other over religious issues or political issues cloaked in religiosity. But, there was a sense of united Christiandom thanks to shared moral/spiritual sense--though the fact that most Christians were white Europeans surely helped. The Spanish arrived in the Americas and created a long lasting empire. They did so with the use of arms and thru the spread of Spanish culture. But, without the spiritual/moral component, Hispanic civilization might have gone the way of the ancient Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks. There was a sense of unity and continuity despite Spanish settlers being out-numberd by non-whites BECAUSE of the unifying values and identity of Christianity. All the natives came under Christian influence. Even as many Indians and Mestizos were resentful toward the whites, all people in the Hispanic Empire worshiped the same God and shared the same moral/spiritual principles. In more modern times, Hispanic intellectuals have tried to replace or fuse with Christianity the ideology of Marxism.
Generally, the most lasting and stable empires or nations have been founded upon unifying a people of same race in shared territory under a complex spiritual/moral system. This explains why Japan has been a peaceful nation since it had been unified under much bloodshed by the Tokugawas. The wars in Japan were some of the bloodiest ever. Samurai armies hacked each other to pieces like crazy. But, when Japan was finally pacified, it was a nation of, more or less, same race. Japanese culture was also deeply influenced by the complex spiritual/moral ideas of Confucianism and Buddhism. So, while the fortunes of Japan may rise or fall, Japan as a unified cultural/racial entity was secure for all time. Much the same could be said of China. The wars to unify and pacify China in ancient and modern times were bloody. China was harder to maintain as a unified nation than Japan because it was so big and populous. It was a huge territory with different regions speaking different dialects. But, Chinese unity was bound to be more stable than such in comparable nations because Chinese were mostly of Han stock, read the same language, and revered the same sages, Confucius being the most important among them.
Unifying forces in history are common race, shared values, same culture, and shared historical perspective. Disuniting forces are racial differences, cultural differences, different ideas/values, and contrasting historical perspectives. Japan and China need not worry too much about differences within their own countries. Japan only had a few non-Japanese minorities. And, though China had more minorities, the Han Chinese made up 95% of the overall population.
The nations or empires of the Americas were more problematic. The people in the Hispanic empire shared the same God and, to a great extent, the same language--Spanish. But, whites and non-whites were not of the same race. And, though the non-white Indians came under Spanish cultural influence, they also felt oppressed by foreign ways. As the races were different, neither side could simply melt into the other as was the case with the Mongols and Manchus--all Asians-- who melted into Chineseness. Most problematic of all, they shared different historical perspectives. As far as the Hispanics were concerned, they 'discovered' the Americas and civilized savage peoples; as far as the Indians were concerned, they'd been subjugated, enslaved, and exploited thru the centuries and robbed of their indigenous culture. It was a love/hate situation.
There was less of this problem in United States. The overwhelming number of first Americans were Anglos and some Northern European whites. There were a good number of blacks but they were kept separate. And, Anglo settlers of America were far more race-conscious than the Spanish and, for the most part, didn't mix their blood with that of Indians. Indians were either rubbed out or pushed westward. Later, the United States opened its doors to immigration but the first wave mostly came from Northern Europe--from places like Ireland and Germany--, whose people were racially much like Anglo-Americans and could easily melt in. Upon adopting Anglo-American culture, a German-American or Irish-American was hard to tell apart from any other American whitey. Also, as most of these people arrived in America to find a new life and new hope, they shared the sense of optimism and pride in American history held by Anglo-Americans. If Indians in South America did not and could not share the historical perspective of the Spanish conquerers/settlers, non-Anglo white settlers in America could adopt the Anglo-American perspective of (1) leaving the poor, oppressive, nasty Old World (2) coming to the New World filled with freedom and opportunities (3) realizing one's dreams and (4) pursuing and finding happiness. Even poor whites shared this basic of can-do and limitless optimism. The Westward expansion was merely an extension of this American mentality. For those eager to go West, the Eastern part of America had grown Old, stale, rigid, and oppressive. So, just as their ancestors had left stuffy Old Europe, they were eager to leave stuff Old New England for fresh America in the West.
There was a good number of Negroes, but whites kept them 'in their place', and so black problem didn't much interfere with the progression of American history. Was this a good or bad thing? Though it was 'unfair' to blacks, US would have turned out more like Latin America had whites had loosened their grip on power. Indeed, even the Civil War was almost strictly a white affair. It was white folks fighting white folks. If the Northern whites had not insisted on war, there would have been no war, and blacks couldn't have done anything about it. Though we like to pay attention to black activists and soldiers in the Civil War, the war happened purely because of the actions of all-dominant whites in the North and South.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, US faced a new wave of immigrants who were more problematic. With rising industries and new cities, US needed labor. And, most Americans figured that any white guy was better than a 'nigger' or 'chink'. So, a whole bunch of Mediterranean, Eastern, and Southern European folks poured in. Many of them were stinking poor, unhygenic, and strange and offensive to Northern European sensibility, especially them garlicky and temperamental Italians. Poles were nicer but dumb as hell. Even so, they arrived at a time when the Melting Pot was the model of assimilation, and most of these people became fully American as previous waves of European immigrants. Today, a Greek or Serbian American is hardly different from any other kind of white American.
Though the American constitution didn't stress race and culture so much as Law and Rights, one of the main reasons for American stability and power throughout its dynamic history has been the rough constancy in its racial and cultural make-up. The Anglo-American racial and cultural model was the most crucial. Even non-Anglo whites melded together in terms of racial and cultural identity with Anglo-whites. Different peoples brought something new--mostly in terms of food such as pizza, kielbasa, gyros, etc--and added another layer to Americanness, but the basic Americanness remained constant. Non-Anglo peoples and cultures were new alloys melded and pounded into the basic Anglo-American iron.
Still, unlike the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, or Greeks in their own respective nations, Americans like to take pride in and explain their uniqueness and success in terms of Americans Laws and Rights. But, would the US constitution have worked if the 13 colonies had each been settled by a different race with different religion, values, and historical perspectives?
Sure, whites committed tremendous violence, but many of today's historians don't understand that peace is established thru violence. (How else could the Allies have pacified the enemies in WWII, for example?) If peace is a good thing, you must be prepared to use violence because violence--at least of the proper kind--brings peace.
Though whites practiced much unfair bigotry, there might have been EVEN more violence had whites in the 18th and 19th century been more tolerant. There might have been more racial violence between blacks and whites, or between whites and Indians. We live in a rich and powerful America today that can afford and deal with many of our social problems, but America in the 18th and much of 19th century was relatively an unstable, weak nation that could have fallen apart without powerful values and identity--and violence and threat of violence--to hold it together. Just look at African nations where blacks gained freedom and independence from whites, and they are not Edenic paradises of love, peace, and brotherhood. It's possible that had whites given full rights to blacks in the early 19th century, much of America would have turned into a vast Haiti or something like Zimbabwe under Mugabe--indeed, much of black America has gotten worse since blacks were fully liberated in the 60s. It was blacks who lived under the rule of Afrikaners who fared best in Africa. When South Africa was still under apartheid and neighboring African nations were 'free', not a single South African black fled to 'free' African nations. Indeed, the opposite was the case. People from neighboring African nations ruled by blacks came to Apartheid South Africa to find work.
Zimbabwe has been 'free' since 1980 whereas South Africa gained 'freedom' only 13 yrs later. Since Zimbabwe had enjoyed a headstart in black liberation, it should be in much better shape than South Africa. Yet, Zimbabwe is a tyrannical basketcase, and millions of Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa to seek food, shelter, jobs, and opportunities. And, it's South African blacks who are 'xenophobically' attacking Zimbabwean refugees. (Though the actions of South African mobs are indeed brutal and ugly, why is it 'xenophobic' for a people to want to save their country from foreign invasion? I see a lot of liberal Jews condemning the actions of South Africans, but how would Israel react if a million Arabs sought to enter Israel as 'refugees'? The actions of South Africans are ugly and hideous, but they could be avoided if the South African government protected the borders. It's not like South Africans are invading Zimbabwean territory but merely reacting to invasion of their own territory. If liberals said it was justifiable for non-whites to drive out white colonialists from Asia and Africa in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, why do they say it's wrong for South African blacks to drive out new waves of invaders. Of course, these new invaders are poor people, but such folks are likely to have a much greater long term impact on a nation. In other words, it was easier for Indians to deal with a small number of snobby British colonialists than it would be for Indians to handle the influx of 100 million poor Chinese into India.) Though historians today routinely mock the views of past white historians who argued that blacks brought to the US were the lucky ones and that blacks needed to live under white control to make gradual and constructive progress, all the evidence around the world seems to bear this out. South African blacks lucked out because they were 'enslaved' under white rule longer than other Africans who gained 'freedom' and ended up living under their own savage tyranny. And, blacks in America, who came under the greatest white influence and domination, are the luckiest blacks in the world. This doesn't mean that slavery or racial discrimination are inherently good things. It merely suggests that with white oppression of blacks there was also white suppression of black craziness. It would be great if white people could have ended the oppression of blacks while still suppressing black craziness. Indeed, liberals tried to maintain such in the 50s and in the 60s, with their naive notion that all blacks would become like Sidney Poitier. Instead, there are far more Flavor Flavs than Poitiers today. And, so we have the liberal Obamania, merely the repeat of the old white liberal naivete, which Obama is fully aware of and milking for all its worth. Maybe, just maybe, if we elect a 'nice' black guy to presidency, black people will stop acting up and frightening whitey. Maybe, all blacks will be just like Obama and smile alot and 'not make sudden moves.' They thought this way when they gave the Oscar to Poitier in 1961 or when Americans all tuned to the Bill Cosby Show.
Anyway, the American way of peace and stability is now being challenged like never before. There is a flood of non-white immigrants and even illegal aliens. Also, the mainstream culture and institutions are not even encouraging these people to assimilate. Worse, they are being taught by schools and even popular entertainment to hate white America. Even white Hispanics are pretending to be 'people of color' united with non-whites against the Yankees. They wave the banner of Che Guevara, a nut worse than Osama Bin Laden who wanted to nuke American cities. Even non-white immigrants who come to this country with respect see their children turn anti-American upon attending American schools which are now dominated by leftist teachers--a good number of them Jewish--who instill their impressionable hearts with hatred of white America.
Also, all of American history is discussed mainly in terms of slavery, genocide, conquest, and so on and on, as though US is the only nation that did such things. Of course, Americans have exposed themselves to greater moral bombardment because of their exceptionalist claims of moral goodness. Just as a Christian who preaches high virtue opens himself to greater accusation of hypocrisy, American preachment of its virtues has opened it up to its critics. Perhaps, it's about time white Americans stressed the normality than the exceptionality of America. Then, the critics of America will have less cause to expose its hypocrisies.
Anyway, the Christian West never practiced real Christianity and gained much power thru war, violence, and wealth. The West raised aloft the banner of Christ but held a sword in their hand.
American peace was said to rest on Law and Rights, but much of it was guaranteed by race, culture, and historical perspective.
Americans got especially moralistic after WWII after defeating an Evil White Nation. During the Cold War, US was eager to show the world that it was fair and just to ALL peoples. So, non-whites saw a chink in the armor and attacked white power. Many Jews, sympathetic to the other side in the Cold War and angry over the Holocaust, wanted to undermine any notion of white Christian conservative patriotic power as much as possible. American immigration policy changed, and a flood of non-white populations poured into the US.
Can this changing America with a demoralized and diminishing white population carry on and maintain the peace simply with the Law and Rights? Or, will it go the way of Brazil, which is 30% decent, 30% out-of-control, and 40% totally crazy. It will probably turn into another Brazil, with Jews at the top pitting one bunch of goyim against the other. Snoop Dogg sang about the Gangsta Paradise but US will really be a Jewster Paradise. Some will say this is obsessing over Jews, but why shouldn't we 'obsess' over a tremendously powerful people or a grave threat to us? Don't Jews at the New Republic not obsess over Iran, Muslism, and China? Indeed, The New Republic's obsessing over Iran and China is almost pathological. It's hostile, 'xenophobic', us-against-The-Other, and even downright hateful and contemptuous. The liberal Jewish press hasl no friends in much of the Middle East or Asia. Even as the liberal Jewish press mocks and insults white Christian America, it wants to manipulate and use White America against 'Islamofascists' and Yellow Peril. (This must be what Mel Gibson meant by "Jews start all wars").
On the one hand, Jews tell white Americans, 'you're a bunch of disgusting, vile, racist, lowlife, murderous scum who've enslaved and killed all those wonderful peoples of color'; on the other, Jews tell white Americans, 'wake up White America, the ragheads are planning to kill us all and enslave us thru OPEC while the yellow chink bastards are gonna spread their tentacles all over the world to challenge and overshadow American economic interests--much of which is actually Jewish'. So, Jews denounced whites as 'racists' when it serves their own purposes in America but then play on white 'racism' against non-whites in world affairs--again for Jewish interests. IN America, Jews want whites to be sorryass and castrated and apologetic to all minorities, especially to Jews--since they are a minority--and their useful black allies. In world affairs, Jews want white Americans to be brash and ballsy--at least in dealing with the enemies of Jewish interests. One of the main reason why The New Republic hates China much is that the latter has close ties with Iran and other Muslim countries. The New Republic is not wrong in saying Chinese are disgusting--they are--and that China is an hideous nation--it is. But, why would TNR obsess over and over about China? There is the Israel factor. Of course, one bunch of Jews praise China to high heaven because they want to do business and make a lot of money while another bunch of Jews beats up on China day and night so as to use white goyim against China. So, are these Jews with opposite views on China bitter enemies--like Christian philosemites are enemies of Christian anti-semites? No, both the pro-Chinese Jews and anti-Chinese Jews are very chummy with one another. It's the Jewish way of playing the game across both sides. But, Chinese do this shit too. They smile a lot in international affairs but they got fangs underneath their lips.
Though Holocaust is history and Germans/Austrians today are nice, Jews still obsess about the Germans and Austrians. Though Poles suffered greatly in WWII--and a good number of them were killed by Polish-Jewish collaborators of Stalin from 1939-1941--, Jews only obsess about Poles as 'anti-semitic' Nazi-collaborators, a vile slander considering no people stood up to Nazi invasion as courageously as the Poles.
Since Jews are the most powerful people in the US and have done most to create a new American society which looks upon white US history as all shit, illegal alien invasion as all good, black crime as all excusable or justifiable, 'gay marriage' as sane and desirable, and etc, what in the hell is wrong with 'obsessing' over Jews? How about this deal? Jews stop obsessing about their enemies or perceived enemies, and we'll stop obsessing about Jews. Jews don't just attack people who criticize Jews or Israel but everyone who disagrees with the Jewish agenda. So, if some Christian group loves Jews and supports Israel, Jews will piss and shit on it if it's opposed to the gay agenda favored by Jews. This is all the more hilarious when no culture was as anti-homosexual as Judaism. The reason why there's such a strain of anti-homosexuality in Western and Islamic cultures is because both were heavily influenced by Jewish morality. So, at the VERY LEAST, Jews should accept responsibility for unleashing the 'virus' of anti-homosexuality upon mankind. But, of course, we cannot criticize or condemn anything about Jews who've always been perfect saints and sages, martyrs and victims.
Not all unifying, pacifying, or stabilizing moral systems are the same.
Christianity stressed the importance of common spiritual values.
Confucianism stressed the unity of the empire upon the theory of the just and virtuous leader. It had lasting impact on China because it didn't merely say might-is-right--like the Mongols did--, but said a leader must have the moral right to rule or step aside to make room for a better moral leader. There was the idea that an empire must be united thru and under the virtuous, noble, honorable, and wise example of the ruler. Confucius family-ized the political system.
The unity and stability under Hinduism was far more complex and strange. If Christianity and Islam stressed One God, One Truth, One Way, One Tradition, and One Future, Hinduism found an integrative way of maintaining social peace and longevity. Hinduism didn't so much swallow other traditions and ideas as find ways to interweave and link them altogether. Often, it didn't make much sense, but Hinduism made a virtue of illogic by saying the universe and god and such were really strange, mysterious, and unknowable, and that was that. So, Hinduism was less a religion than a process of knitting together religions, customs, superstitions, ideas, values, etc. Hinduism worked beautifully in theory; in reality, it produced something of a topsy turvy socio-cultural mess which India is still today. But, whatever its shortcomings, it has come upon a way to maintain some semblance of historical continuity and social stability.
Anyway, what is this thing called Love? Is it really the opposite of Hate? Is love linked with peace and as such, opposed to violence and war? Ostensibly yes. But, wasn't love really a weapon for survival? Wasn't its evolutionary purpose to strengthen 'my side' so that you could prevail over the other? Biological scientists today understand this, but it's still an difficult idea to swallow for social scientists with their do-goody dogmas.
We tend to think of love as a concept, but it's an emotion. Dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, and chimps cannot understand language or concepts, but they can feel the emotions of love. They can feel attachment, kindness, tenderness, sympathy, caring, affection, sadness over loss, loyalty, and all such. Now, this may appear almost perverse. When we love a dog and vice versa, it's seems only natural in our human world where we can enjoy peace and security and luxuriate in such emotions. But, why should animals be capable of love when they--even ancestors of dogs and cats--live in the wild which is brutal and literally dog-eat-dog? If nature is in a constant state of warfare and devourment, shouldn't all animals be about hatred and on war-footing than be capable of love and peacefulness? (To be sure, much of nature was 'sociopathic' than hateful before the rise of complex species. Snakes, fish, and frogs don't feel hatred or hostility when they strike their prey to attack their rivals. They just follow their mechanically or 'sociopathically' aggressive instincts to obtain food, fight dangers, and stay alive. It's almost machine-like than emotional in the 'personal' sense. But, a complex mammal can really develop hatred for other species or its enemies. Indeed, prior to the rise of feelings of hatred, there was no sense of 'enemy' in nature; there was only the sense of prey, rival, danger, etc. The concept of 'enemy' implies that you hold a special hatred or grudge against it even when it no longer poses no danger to you. So, sociopathy is the nature way of simpler organisms. Frogs and fish kill and are killed emotionlessly. But, chimpanzees may develop real hatred for other chimp tribes, baboons, or leopards. This hatred isn't capable without complex memory. It makes an organism remember in emotional terms an intense hostility it has developed for certain 'enemies'. It has survivalist advantages because it fills the organism with greater will and determination to fight the enemy, wipe it out, and so on. Most animals will only fight or kill those animals that pose immediate danger. But, if you have hatred, you will tenaciously go after your enemies to kill them and totally wipe them out. 'Patrols' of chimpanzees have been observed stalking about to find more enemy chimps to kill. And, early man was not content to kill only enemy tribes within sight but even to seek out enemies beyond the horizon so as to strike a greater blow and wipe them out--thereby preempting potential danger in the future. So, hate is a very advanced and complex emotion and even has a certain 'moral' component. It was because of our capacity for hatred that US decided to totally destroy Japan and Taliban in Afghanistan. If we were incapable of hate, we would have tried only to save US from further attack. But, the attack by Japan made us hateful and angry. We decided to go after them and totally smash them so as to prevent them from ever doing such again. This is why a simpler animal will fight you if you attack, but will not come after you with a vengeful agenda--hatred--to wipe you out to secure its future for all time. In contrast, its our ability for hatred which makes us more tenacious in going after our enemy. We justify it in the name of 'justice' but hate has a lot to do with it. So, if an animal kills a child, we go after the animal and exterminate it. A mother grizzly bear will get very violent if you try to hurt her cub, but if you kill her cub and run away, the angry bear will not feel the kind of human hatred that will compel her to come after you for 'justice'. She will wail over the dead cub and get over it. But, we don't get over it. To be sure, she may recognize your face for a long time and kill you if she bumps into you again; similarly, a dog will recognize the face/smell/sound of people it hates and may attack such people if they were to encounter the dog again. But, animals will not develop an agenda to go after its enemies forever and ever out of vengeful hatred or 'justice'. In the movie "Orca", a killer whale has that kind of agenda to ceaselessly go after the man who killed its mate, but that's fiction of course. The people in "Jaws" didn't get over the shark attack. US didn't get over Pearl Harbor. Jews haven't gotten over the Holocaust and still want to hurt Western Civilization. Germans didn't get over WWI and made way for WWII. Blacks haven't gotten over slavery and being called 'nigger'. Chinese haven't gotten over Western/Japanese Imperialism. Palestinians haven't gotten over the Jews. Usually, the only thing that finally makes one bury the hatchet is total victory--as US over Japan--or total defeat--like European pagans before Christianity. All these vengeful examples of agenda-drive hatreds have been moralized by their practitioners. So, Americans and Brits still feel that the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Hiroshima were justified. Americans say the Japanese attacked first, so US had to cross the Pacific to take out the enemy so it won't do such ever again.Of course, Japanese argued that Western powers had transgressed and humiliated Asia--and especially Japan--first, so Japan had to cross the Pacific to hatefully and vengefully take out American naval forces so Japan would be safe in the East. In some ways, hate may be more moralistic than love. Justice is meted out because of injustice which fills the victim with hatred. If all we could feel was love, there would be no need for morality since we would love those who kill our loved ones. Morality is possible and necessary because we hate and want to get even with those who threaten or hurt us. The movie "Memento" offered an interesting narrative in the relation between hate and memory. Hate--and morality and justice linked to it--is only possible thru complex memory. It's because the humans never forget that they are capable of great hatred. In the movie, the guy had been attacked and his wife raped/murdered. But, since the crime, he's no longer capable of storing new information into long term memory. So, it doesn't matter what he does since the crime. He's forever fixated on the crime and his hateful need for vengeance/justice can never be satisfied. Since the time of the crime, he's been terribly manipulated, used, and wronged by others but he could never store any of that experience into long term memory so he cannot develop new hatred no matter how people abuse and use him; he only feels hatred at the moment but forgets it all and goes back to fixating on finding the man who killed his wife. So, he's a man wrapped up with complex human hatred but with a reptilian memory since the crime. He's on an intensely personal, human, moral, and hateful mission but with a 'sociopathic' memory incapable of storing new emotions. In a way, civilizations are like what happens in the movie. Why were Germans so hateful toward Jews and blamed them for everything under the Nazis? Because the Nazis only played on THAT memory will erasing all else. Why were Chinese youths during the Cultural Revolution so worked up about 'capitalist-roaders' while exhibiting no outrage over the 30 million Chinese killed by Mao in the Great Leap Forward? Because the regime only played on the hatred of the 'bourgeoisie' while erasing the truth of what had happened under the Great Leap. How come Jews since WWII only see themselves as victims yet don't dwell on what they did as communists--killing millions of Slavs--or as Zionists--dispossessing and humiliating millions of Palestinians? Because Jewish elite only focused Jewish attention on Jewish victimhood. How come Cubans still believe in the Revolution? Because Castro has replayed 1959 over and over while allowing no new narratives to be stored in the national memory. Similarly, North Korea is frozen in time. And, it's because Africans have stuck only to the narrative of liberation from white rule that a total thug like Mugabe can still be regarded as a hero. For many Africans, Mugabe's triumph in 1980s is replayed over and over while all that has happened since has been erased from daily memory.)
Why did God or evolution create or produce such tender vulnerable feeling such as love in animals in such a horrifically violent world? It seems like a sick joke. It sounds like sending a naked fireman into a burning house or sending a soldier to war with smiley face t-shirt and no guns. But, as biologists well know and have explained, the emotion of love is really a weapon. It is necessary for survival and victory over other organisms. Without love, offsprings have no protection. This is why organisms that are not capable of emotions or attachment lay a 100 to a 1000 eggs. Some even lay close to a 10,000 eggs. The simple-organism-mother lays eggs like we take a shit--without emotional attachment to what comes out. But, more complex organisms feel greater attachment--or proto-love--for their offsprings. A few reptiles try to 'help out' their young to some extent. This is even truer among birds. Though the emotional world of birds remains a mystery to us, they do seem to FEEL something like emotion to their offsprings. And, some birds even mate for life. Is it just a matter of instinctive programming or are birds capable of emotional attachment?
Among mammals, it's obvious that it's not just instinctual. There is a close bond among mammals that mate for life. But, the closest bond is between mother and her offsprings. Some mothers feel a powerful emotional attachment to their litter and vice versa. And, there is a kind of love or powerful emotional attachment among pack animals. When a hippo or elephant dies, the entire herd grieves over the loss. Wolves, chimps, dolphins, and lions also take care of their own. When one of their kind is hurt or ill, we see genuine sympathy by others in the pack.
So, there is love or lovesque feelings among higher animals. This may sound crazy and useless in wild and brutal nature. Isn't love about tenderness, emotional vulnerability, peaceful sentiments, and such? Wouldn't animals afflicted with such 'sentiments' be defenseless against aggressive and violent animals? Yes, if love were a universal concept practiced by organisms under threat. Instead, love operates within a highly selective enclosed group--mother and offsprings OR within a pack or herd. It is a way to forge or cement emotional bonds so that a group of animals can better struggle against its rivals, enemies, or prey. So, love or affection among wolves within a pack allow them to work together to bring down a moose which a single wolf cannot do. So, love among a pride of lions or a pack of hyenas allow them to work together to bring down a full-grown wild buffalo which no single lion or hyena could do. A herd of elephants with mutual trust and love is invincible in nature. Even a pride of lions will run from such. And, offsprings protected by mother's love are much more likely to grow up protected and be taught the complex skills necessary to survive. So, love is essentially a ruthless weapon in nature. It increases the power of certain organisms thru unity and increases the chance of their survival in competition with other organisms.
So, practicing love is a form of making war. Through love/peace within a herd or pack, it is able to launch a greater assault on its enemies. Evolution favored love not as a luxury or an ideal but as a weapon for survival. Yet, it is so strange that what seems so weak and vulnerable should produce such awesome power.
Love is also about attachment, and that leads to hate. A mother snake doesn't care if one of its offsprings is killed. It feels no love or motherly attachment to its baby. But, if you threaten the cub of a Grizzily mama, she will hate you and try to rip you to shreds. Why? Because she feels a great deal of love and attachment for her cubbie. If you kill the mate of a frog, the latter will just hop along and find a new mate. But, if you kill the mate of a gorilla, killer whale, or human being, the latter will be filled with rage and hatred and seek to kick your ass. So, higher the organism and more capable it is of love and attachment, more capable it is of hate and attack-ment. (To be sure, humans of the most 'advanced' cultures are also capable of expanding one's love while limiting one's hate. This can be noble, suicidal, or both. The original purpose of love was to strengthen one group's power of hatred against others. So, love between mother and offspring strengthens that unit against its enemies; the love and trust among wolves in a pack strengthens it against other packs and enemies.
But, when love came to be conceptually separated from hate and vice versa, spiritualized mankind saw love as the universal, unconditional, and eternal good while hate was the universal, unconditional, and eternal bad. This separation of love from hate was both profoundly moral and profoundly simple-minded--and even stupid. This kind of love demanded that one love the man who killed your loved ones. You must love All humans. And, you mustn't hate those who would harm you or your loved ones. Hinduism allowed for both love and hate, 'good' and 'evil' in its cosmology. God according to Judaism was both the God of love and God of hate. The Jewish God really hated His enemies. His love of his 'chosen people' was reason to hate and destroy all the enemies of his 'chosen people'. God had no use nor love for other gods--false idols--and paganish humans. Jewish God's concept of love was to strengthen his own power, to strengthen the special bond between Himself and His Chosen People, and to punish with extreme prejewdice all the enemies of God--those who worshipped false idols--and of the Jews. But, Jesus came along and disassociated love and hate. Love was for All Time and for All People. Jesus said love all mankind, even those who rape your children. Jesus said not to hate anyone, even those who rape your children. Love was good always and everywhere, and hate was evil always and everywhere. This was both profound and deep AND idiotic and retarded. To be sure, there is something advantageous to those who forgive and bury the hatchet. Hate is a negative emotion that can eat away at one's soul. Those filled with hatred produce a lot of psycho-toxins in their brains and go crazy. Just look at Hitler and Jeremiah Wright. And, blood feuds between families or clans have led to a never-ending cycle of violence. Indeed, just look at the spiraling madness of vengeful killings in Iraq or in the West Bank. So, one could argue that Love is better. But, Love, though a positive emotion, can be just as harmful as hate. Lovey-dovies tend to be helpless, defenseless, dorky, and wussy. They may lack the balls to stand up to danger and to evil forces. Unconditional white liberal love for the negro has only made the negro despise the pussy-wussy white boy even more. In the past, the negro may have feared and hated the white man but there was also respect and awe of white power. It was this respect and awe that made the blacks want to work with whites and co-exist as equals. But, when blacks look upon 'faggotyass liberal whiteboy' America, they only want to exploit and manipulate the 'white wussies' to their own advantage, not work in good faith with white folks. The defeated Japanese had no special love for Americans but they feared and respected American power and so were willing to work with American occupiers. Japan never would have settled for peace and democratized along the American model if US had been weak little Switzerland nicely pleading with Japan to be nice, stop its aggression, and allow liberal democracy.
Anyway, it's obvious that in the real world, neither hate nor love is the answer for everything.
There is a time for love, there is a time for hate; indeed, they are linked. It's disingenuous to say we are always against hate and that our wars are always for love. When US was attacked in Pearl Harbor, US didn't fight Japan out of love of Japanese and in order to bring freedom, liberty, and love to the poor Japanese living under brutal military rule. No, Americans fought out of hate to kill the 'yellow-bellied Japs'. And, though we justified our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as an expression for love of oppressed Arabs and Muslims we wanted to liberate from tyranny, the truth was many Americans were filled with hate for 'ragheads' and wanted to whomp them real good and make them our bitches. But, because of our democratic/Christian sense of moral exceptionalism, Americans like to think they do everything for love. So, did we drop the big ones on Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of love for the Japanese--to liberate them from the cruel military government? And, are Palestinians being honest when they say they really love Jews but only hate Zionism, or are Jews honest when they say they have no problems whatsoever with Arabs or Islam but only hate Islamic radicalism? Bullshit.
Anyway, real peace in the modern world wasn't so much achieved thru love or hate but thru order maintained by force/threat of force or order. In ancient times, clans or tribes would slaughter one another in a never ending cycle of blood feud. These feuds were about love/hate. Since the other side killed someone you loved on your side, you had to kill someone they loved on the other side and the other side would seek hateful vengeance to avenge the loss of their loved one and so on and on. Some people would like to romantically think that such craziness was brought to an end because an higher concept of love conquered the more elemental/tribal kind of love. It could be argued that the simpler or more elemental kind of love only attached itself to people close to you and was suspicious or even hateful of outsiders who might do harm to your side. In contrast, the higher form of love embraced and empathized with All human beings. So, this higher concept of love made extensive social peace and stability possible. Bullcocky.
The real reason for greater and more extensive peace was the idea of fair laws, objective justice, and force/threat of force upholding such system. So, if a member of another clan kills someone in your clan in the US, you know you can rely on the police and the courts to seek the murderer and bring him to trial and jail or execute him if found guilty. It is because the laws and the government took over the duty of vengeful Hate that we don't resort to blood feuds; it has little to do with the triumph of higher love. All justice is a form of vengeance. Even if we ban the death penalty, murderers will be harshly punished and live out their miserable days like animals behind bars. The family of the victim can take special pleasure in knowing that the person who raped or killed their loved one will be punished severely by the state. We don't like to call this 'hate', but hate is a big part of it. We HATE those who do harm to us or to those close to us. And, we want to harshly punish those who do harm. Since the state takes up this duty, we don't have to bloody our own hands. We can pretend that hate has nothing to do it. And, the state can pretend it's all only about 'justice', not hate or vengeance. But, it is about hate and vengeance. If indeed we are truly committed to the concept of higher love, then we should abolish all prisons and love/forgive all criminals. But, who does that? Who wants to do that? So, hate is as valuable as ever before. Just as the one-and-only God banished all pagan gods, the concept of Love came to banish all notions of hate. But, just as paganism always remained subsumed within the Christian order, hate is an important part of our Love-ish order.
So, America came to dominate the world after WWII thru its use of force and its implemenation of a relatively fair system enforced by Laws. It was American contractualism and controllism which ensured the new world order. Nations came to work with the US not because they appreciated the love Americans felt for them--a funny notion since most Americans are ignorant of the outside world--but because Americans were legalistic and had the means to force the terms of the Law. So, America was a nation you could do business with and was a nation that could protect and guarantee the contract made with you. So, it was Laws and Force than Love and Forgiveness.)
Certain animals don't feel attachment just to one another but to territory. So, a bear will fight another bear that has entered its territory. Humans feel more than mere attachment to territory; they feel LOVE of 'sacred land' People LOVE their countries--or even objects like cars or hats(remember Wild Bill Hickock killed people who touched his hat in Walter Hill's movie). It's because both Jews and Palestinians feel a great love of the Holy Land that they are filled with hatred for the another.
This is why a new kind of love was conceptualized by Buddha, and to a lesser degree by Jesus. The Detached Love. Buddha said Desire leads to attachment. Attachment leads to base emotions Base emotions lead to greed, warfare, passions, fanaticism, etc. And, Jesus told people to love unconditionally all of mankind, even your enemies. Don't become attached to family, friends, spouses, girlfriends, etc. Though Jesus, unlike Buddha, did say something about the need to help the sick and the poor, he stressed detachment than attachment. He told rich people that it was wrong to be attached to wealth. Jesus said the rich should give to the poor, but it was all the better if rich people gave away all their wealth--detach themselves from the material world--and be poor like everyone else. (To be sure, one could argue that Jesus wasn't so much for detached loved as an expanded concept of attached love. Jesus wanted people to love everyone as though he was part of one's family. A tall order indeed. And, it could be argued that Buddha wasn't so much about love as about compassionate pity for those who still felt the need for love. If Buddha was for love, it was an aloof kind of meta-love which looked upon mankind as a man might look upon a dogs or cats. It was as though Buddha reached the next or the ultimate level in consciousness and could look upon people as benighted and lost. Buddha's message to mankind was not love your fellow man as your equal but to rise above your fellow man, reach nirvana, and feel sorry for your fellow man because he hasn't achieved what you have achieved.) There was an element of this in Judaism too. The Jewish taboo against idolatry was a way of favoring love of detachment over that of attachment. Though Jews were all for attachment between human beings, they distrusted humans becoming attached to objects. The only attachment that was spiritually correct was with God--and with fellow humans based on the laws given handed down by God. Of course, Jews became attached to a piece of land called Israel so they too fell into the trap of becoming attached to objects. Israel is the idolatry of the Jews.
Anyway, it is for this reason why so much liberal discussion on love and hate is bullshit. Hate grows out of love, and love is the backbone of hate. "Racism" is as much about love as it is about hate. It is the strong attachment that one feels toward one's race that may lead to hatred of races who threaten the autonomy or sanctity of one's race. Same can be said for nationalism. This is why it's ludicrous when Jews and Chinese always bitch and whine about hatred toward Jews and Chinese when the Jewish love of Jewishness had led to the hate-fest in the West Bank and the Chinese love of Chineseness has led to their contempt for every people and nation they see as the enemies of China.
And, it's ludicrous to expect any race or any people to practice perfect love. It never worked with Buddhists, never worked with Christians, never worked with Muslims, and it never worked with Marxism. And, it will never work with liberalism. Brazil is not the Eden of liberal love despite its 'wonderful' diversity. Nationalism or my-people-ism will have its appeal. Just look at Tibetan Buddhists. As Buddhists, why should they feel attached for the national idea of Tibet? A perfect Buddhist shouldn't care if his land is ruled by this people or that people. He should just shut up, shut his eyes, and seek nirvana. But, Tibetans are nationalists first and Buddhists second. And, the liberal West champions the essentially nationalistic character of the Tibetan struggle for independence. So, why can't white folks love one another, care for one another, fight for one another, struggle for one another? But, that is labeled as 'white supremacism' when it's plain and simple 'white survivalism'. It goes back the original intent of love in the evolutionary process. Love was meant to be practiced selectively within a group to ensure its chances of survival against other groups. It was not meant to be practiced loosely and unconditionally and render the group vulnerable to the attack of other groups. Love, like trust, must be guarded cautiously.
Some people may glorify and champion Trust but only a fool would unconditionally trust everyone. FDR trusted leftists, and Soviet agents were crawling all over the State Department. Trojans trusted the Greeks, and Greeks poured out of the wooden horse and slaughtered the Trojans. Unconditional love and trust are weapons turned against oneself. Those who have no love or trust for their own people should not be preaching trust and love for others. This is where white liberals are stupid. They look upon white society--of which they are a part and are very knowledgeable of--and complain about how imperfect it is. Well, what makes them think non-whites--of whom they know very little--are any better? It's funny how white liberals distrust fellow white people they know but trust non-whites they know little or nothing about--except thru NPR news, jazz cds, and tv shows. Indeed, based on the available evidence, non-whites around the world seem to practice far less love and trust--even among themselves. If non-whites treat their own kind so miserably, what makes white liberals think that non-whites will be nice to whites when they gain power over whites in Western nations? And, if based on their own white experiences in a white world, white liberals have concluded that human nature and human beings are not very lovable and trustworthy, what makes them think non-whites are any more lovable or trustworthy? Europeans took in tons of non-whites from Africa and the Middle East out of love, trust, and compassion. What did the get in return? Angry African and Muslim youth singing rap music against the white man.
This isn't to say that liberal cosmopolitanism is inherently stupid or bad; it's merely means that such an idea is really for the highly educated and refined elites. Most of the world is not made up of effete, sophisticated intellectual types. Besides, who wants to live in a world where everyone's like some eccentric Jewish cafe intellectual in fin-de-siecle Vienna. We need some people like that but they should not serve as the model for most people. Nothing would get done in the world. Despite the high opinion intellectuals have of themselves, the world and its billions of people do not revolve around smarties sitting around cafes, reading books, and talking fancy shit.
Liberalism and diversity-ism works best when there are only small minorities. Small minorities understand that they must go along with the majority dominated system. And, the majority is much more likely to be fair-minded to minorities if it doesn't feel threatened by them. So, Europeans were far more liberal-minded when the Muslim and African populations of Europe was miniscule. But, with more and more Muslims and blacks as a result of immigration--both legal and illegal--and higher birthrates, white people are waking up to the foolishness of liberal diversity-mongering. And, more and more Europeans are seeing the stupidity of Moral Supremacism. Every idea or value has its 'useful limit'. The primary function of Love and Trust was to strengthen a group of organisms against other organisms. So, the capacity for Love and Trust among wolves or wild dogs gave them an awesome, united, and ruthless advantage over other animals. When a single wolf snarls at you, it's scary. But, if whole pack united in 'love and trust' snarl at you, it's downright terrifying. Such can even bring down a moose weighing a ton. Even Grizzly bears are scared to death of a wolf pack.
Mankind was able to create larger communities of cooperation and co-existence if not of love and trust. Let's face it, most of us don't feel any emotional love for people outside our inner circle, and we certainly don't trust most people. Otherwise, we would sleep with our doors unlocked.
Of course, it varies from community to community. Some small towns are very closely knit, and people do sleep with their doors unlocked. Also, some peoples--especially the Japanese and the Scandanavians--are much more likely to mutually trust one another. The racial homogeneity, geographical isolation, and historicultural emphasis on social discipline and cooperation created a people who are much more likely to respect and work constructively with their own kind. Even so, this capacity for peaceful co-existence is based more on common identity, common values, common manners, and a common sense of social honor and dignity than outright trust or highfalutin love. Those waxing romantic about the Scandinavian model have fixated only on the laws and social policies while ignoring the racial composition, national character, and other such 'blood and soil' aspects. If it's only a matters of laws and social policy, Scandinavian laws and policies should work EVERYWHERE. In truth, any set of laws or any social policy is only as good as the people practicing them. So, I doubt if the Swedish system will work in the Congo or Bolivia. And, whether Western-style democracy will work in Iraq is open to question simply because the historical, racial, and cultural realities of Iraq are so different. Whatever democracy there may be in Iraq, it will not be of Western liberal kind.
Indeed, we don't even have to look that far. Look at Italy which was never physically isolated but at the center of much political/military/demographic pushing back and forth. Italians conquered and were conquered by everyone during their long history. Such unremitting violence did not favor stability. The one best chance for longterm stability was the Roman republic but Romans decided to conquer others. In time, Romans came to be conquered by others. Italy became mixed with all sorts of folks--Latins, Greeks, Germanics, Arabics, Moors, etc, etc. It made Italians distrustful of one another and the world. Because Italians had to survive in rapidly shifting political conditions, they grew weasely and came to favor opportunism over honor. So, Italians turned on Austrians in WWI, and when WWII was going badly, Mussolini was overthrown by his subordinates who turned against Germany. Mussolini was a disaster for Italy but we can see why he stuck by Hitler to the end. He wanted to create a new kind of Italian character and had felt deeply ashamed of how Italians shifted their alliances like a jackal. He made a pact of steel with Hitler, and he was going to play it out to the end. But, he couldn't have made a worst choice for himself and his country.
Anyway, we need a better understanding of love and hate, peace and war, trust and suspicion. Nature was about hate, war, and suspicion. Animals devoured one another. Even plants competed for wet soil and sunlight. Every organism sought to best other organisms.
But, organisms replicate thru intercourse or some such. This need for organisms of the same kind to come together to mate created a need for attachment and co-mingling. This predated consciousness as we can observe it in simple organisms. But, this proto-loving coming together of the male and female was only temporary for simple organisms. They mated and then separated--though certain insects like ants and bees had a very elaborate system of cooperation and hierarchy. In most cases, it was more like praying mantises or spiders where the female ate the male.
As organisms grew more complex, the emotional bond between male and female could outlast mere sex. But, most males didn't stick around for too long. Male bears will dillydally with their female partners for a month and then split. It was the emotional bond between the mother and offspring that was most important among higher animals in nature. This was the birth of the kind of love that we humans regard as true love. Sexual love has a lot to with pure and simple lust, but the love between mother and offspring is of a 'nobler' nature. Among most organisms, the mother and her offsprings eventually separated and went their own ways. And, they would become strangers if they were to meet again down the line.
But, some organisms--such as wolves, elephants, warthogs, etc.--found a way for the family to stay together 'permanently'. This was a new kind of love based on 'frienship'. This bond wasn't as powerful as the mother/offspring love but it was powerful enough. Certain prey animals stuck together for protection. Certain predator animals stuck together to hunt and to fight as a group against their rivals. In the wild, chimps and orangutans developed the most elaborate and complex social form of this bond. And, early man was very much like a tribe of chimps.
As the organization grew larger, its members needed something other than emotional bonds to stick together. A family stays together out of emotional attachment with one another. This was possible in a tribal community of limited size made up mostly of kinsmen.
But, for human communities to grow larger and still maintain a peaceful social bond among its members required different ideas.
Mankind found out that a large community or territory can be held together thru pacification campaigns--like what Mongols excelled at. Mongols just killed everyone who wouldn't bow down before them. And, this ruthless kind of pacification--also practiced by Nazis in the East--could be very effective if your side had tremendous military advantage over your enemies. But, such kind of rule didn't not produce any long-lasting trust or bond between the ruling folks and the ruled folks. When the military might of the ruling folks waned, the ruled folks rebelled and a whole new cycles of violence erupted once again until one side restored a new kind of order.
More effective than a purely military-based rulership was one based on laws and political concepts. Such was the Roman way, and it held sway for a good deal of time. But, it too could not maintain peace, order, and stability over the diverse numbers of people it ruled over vast territories. Also, no matter how noble or effective Roman system or laws were, the simple fact was that Romans established that order thru military conquest in the first place. Indeed, no law is worth the paper it's written on unless it can be backed up with a sword. The law can be gentle but the stick has to be hard.
A far more effective way to bring humanity together was thru a universalist vision of morality and progress. Such was the development of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and Democratic Fundamentalism. There was also cosmopolitan liberalism but it was essentially for the educated elite or the elitist-minded. If group comprising a Nigerian, Turk, Japanese, Jew, and an Englishman cared more about modern art, avant garde cinema, fine cuisine, and fancy wines than about god, country, nation, heritage, tradition, and etc, then, yes, they can function peacefully together under cosmopolitan liberalism. But, most people are more down-to-earth. Also, there is an element of 'tribalism' even in cosmopolitan liberalism because there must be a 'lingua franca' and the language that is used has 'imperialist' dominance or hegemony over other languages. Also, cosmopolitan liberalism didn't spontaneously develop from all cultures and peoples desiring to come together but was the product of western imperialism, western domination, western science and philosophy, and western values; and, it was made possible under the peace maintained by Western economic and military might. Japan was liberalized--opened up--with the threat of force. Hong Kong and Singapore didn't voluntarily decide to join the modern liberal global order but were forced open and forcibly developed under Western pressure. So, even if non-Westerners take part in the cosmopolitan liberal order as equal citizens of the world, they are still joining what is essentially a forcibly created Western-socio-cultural universe than practicing their own culture. Even so, those who join the cosmopolitan liberal order maintain much that is nationalistic and 'tribal'. A modern liberal Chinese still feels Chinese, speaks Chinese--as well as English, the lingua franca of globalism--, and cares for China. And, a modern liberal Jew still waves the star of David, still supports Zionism, and so on. Sure, there are cosmopolitan romantics like Tony Judt who loves to play the self-exiled free-souled citizen of the world, but most people would find that precious. Judt wants Israel to become Arabia, Arabia to become Israel, UK to become Pakistan, Pakistan to become UK, and etc. This is utterly fanciful because of demographic imbalances and trends. Suppose Burma and China were to open up their borders. China will remain confidently Chinese even if all the Burmese poured into China as China has 1.3 billion people. But, if 50 million Chinese poured into Burma, we can kiss Burma goodbye as a unique nation. If Israel were the size of India and had 500 million Jews, opening Israel to some degree of Arab immigration might make 'cosmopolitan' sense for the sake of greater diversity. But, just look at the small size of Israel and its low birthrate compared to the vast Muslim areas with Muslims multiplying like cockroaches. Judt is a very decent and intelligent man brimming with goodwill and speaking in good faith, but that's the kind of Love and Trust that will prove to be suicidal for any people. His piece on Edward Said was very touching, but it's intellecto-centric; Judt naively thinks intellectual peace and understanding can be replicated on the ground among common people. On the ground, Iraeli soldiers use live ammunition and Palestinians radicals strap real bombs onto their chests. Intellectuals argue with words but the real people argue with swords. So, it's foolish for any people to embrace cosmopolitan liberalism to heart; cosmopolitan liberalism has genuine worth among intellectuals who make up only a small part of any nation. Given the white birthrates in the US and Europe, it's stupid to bring in more non-whites when (1) unemployment is high enough (2) welfare system is going broke (3) more non-whites are encouraged to come for freebies and (4) nonwhites breed like rabbits. Who needs this shit?
Anyway, all pacifists must understand that all peace was founded thru violence or threat of violence. Even when a people came to be united and ruled by an idea or value system than by knife to the throat, the peace was initially established thru violence. US was founded thru violence, conquest, slavery, war, and expansion. Only thru such could the Anglo-American system be established, ensured, and enshrined. Once these ideas had been spread and used productively to build a great and powerful nation, many people freely came to the US to take part in it. But, it had to be initially established by force. Suppose white people went to savage Indians and asked, 'how about you guys stop fighting amongst yourselves, let us change your lands into a modern capitalist democracy based on equal rights under the law, and then join us in our venture to create a new kind of nation the world had never seen?' The Indians would have said, 'go to hell dumbass'.
And, people say Israel is an affluent, stable, functioning democracy but how was it founded? Thru conquest, war, and violence. How was India unified into one nation? Thru the military might and imperialist administration of the British. How did Japan become one nation? Thru blood and violence. How was the Union preserved and slavery abolished? By a bloody civil war. How did the British outlaw the slave trade in the high seas? Thru naval might and threat of violence.
How did Germany and Japan finally become modern democracies? Because the Allies beat them to a pulp and forced them to become sane democracies with guns held against their heads.
How did Russians save their Motherland in WWII? By fighting to the death. And, how was the Soviet order founded in the first place? Thru great deal of violence.
Of course, it would be much nicer if we could create better nations, improved orders, human progress, and etc thru peace, love, trust, and mutual understanding. But, this isn't usually the case. And, if such is more possible today than in the past, it's only because the modern world is the product of many wars that, more or less, settled the problems once and for all. And, these conflicts and struggles were not necessarily about good vs bad but over this interest vs that interest. Who was the bad guy in America? The white man who wanted to take Indian land to create a modern democracy or Indians who wanted to remain savages to protect their sacred lands and customs? There was no easy good guy vs bad guy. Who was the good guy or bad guy in the wars between Prussia and Austria and between Prussia and France in the 1860s? When Japanese imperialism butted heads with Russian imperialism in Asia, who was the bad guy? Generally, we say the power that started the aggression is the bad guy. If so, was US the bad guy in Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq? In none of them was US attacked first.
Was Japan really evil in attacking the US? Or, was it just stupid? If what Japan did was evil, wasn't it more evil for US to annex Hawaii in the first place? Wasn't it evil for US to have opened Japan by force and threat of violence in the 1850s? Wasn't it evil for US to take the entire SW from Mexico? Of course, we can argue that US had the better ideas for human progress, and so US was right when it attacked first and right when it was attacked first. Americans conquered the world to bring the light of freedom and reason. And, when US was attacked first, it fought its enemies to save itself and the world from forces of Evil. There was much truth to this, but it's simplistic.
Anyway, peace prevails in much of the world not necessarily because good triumphed over the bad, but because all the lands that could be claimed and taken have been already taken, and it's no benefit to anyone keep warring. There are no more new continents to discover and fight over. And, the rising tide of nationalisms around the world and the devastating impact of WWI and WWII--plus changing values--forced European nations to relinquish their empires. Also, modern weaponry made it stupid for powerful nations to fight one another. It's too bad that the atomic bomb was not developed in the 30s by the major powers; Hitler NEVER would have attacked a nuclear armed USSR. And, if UK had nukes, its war guarantee to Poland might have had more bark. Also, in the post-war era, the two giants--US and USSR were satiated giants. Even if no more nations fell to communism, Stalin would have been happy to rule an empire from Berlin to Kurile Islands. And, US was an empire in its own right. Japan and Germany, battered mercilessly, had no stomach for any more empire building. And, UK, Belgium, France, Netherlands, and etc all saw the writings on the wall; they could no longer afford empires. Did good triumph over evil in the postwar order? Is that why there was general peace? No. Evil communism still prevailed in almost all of Central and Eastern Europe. China--1/4 of world population--fell under crazy Maoism. Africa, 'liberated' from colonial rule, turned into pisspot hell on earth. Most of Latin American history in the post-war was miserable, with ceaseless warfare between corrupt elites backed by the brutal military and ruthless Marxist guerillas whose dream was to turn all of Latin America into Stalinist-Maoist theme park.
There was general peace after WWII not because The Good had defeated Evil but because most of the dust had settled. Indeed, had Germans had won, there would have been peace just the same. The only difference would have been that the Cold War would have been between US and the German Empire. The point is, anyway, great long-lasting peace has usually been arrived at thru force. Sometimes the conflict is resolved quickly and sometimes it costs a helluva lot in blood. When wolf males fight for dominance the fights are resolved quickly with little harm when the weaker male back down quickly, but if the two males are evenly matched it can be a bloody mess. In WWII, it was really no match between US and Japan, but it was a close match between German and USSR and both nations suffered mightily from the bloodbath. Anyway, it was resolved for all time. It's hard to imagine Japan or Germany aspiring to rule empires in the future. With the fall of communism and breakup of the Soviet Empire, that leaves the future to the US and China. But, it's hard to see any possibility for any real conflict. Both are mega-empires in their own right satiated with their own size. Little Japan, craving for greatness, once had its eyes on China. Germany had its eyes on Russia. But, US and China are big mothers and need to eye no one else. They just eye other markets for their products, whether it be toys or airplanes.
Anyway, the big nations are at peace not so much because we all believe more in peace now than in the past but because most of the territorial arguments have been settled.
BUT, suppose there's a vast, giant, rich, and almost uninhabited--suppose the entire population is a mere 1000 naked savages--continent the size of Australia in the middle of the pacific ocean. Suppose it has tremendous amounts of oil, gold, diamonds, uranium, lumber, and whole bunch of goodies. Suppose a Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or Turkish explorer comes upon this jewel of a continent and declares it the property of his own country. What with all the fear of the Chinese, let's make the discoverer Chinese. He discovers this continent like Columbus discovered the Americas, but it will be more of a genuine discovery since there are almost no people in the vast continent except 1000 naked savages. Suppose the Chinese guy raises the Chinese flag, and China 'rightfully' declares the entire continent a part of China and names it Second China. Suppose, China are poised to send their engineers there to dig up precious metals and drill for oil. Suppose China wants to send 200 million Chinese to the new continent to settle. Now, do you think US, Russia, EU, Japan, and all the other nations are gonna take it sitting down? They'll try to come up with any excuse--reasonable and lame--to force China to share the booty with the rest of the Big Powers. If China refuses, you bet US, EU, and Russia will find some bogus excuse--"to protect the poor naked savages from the evil chinks!"--to use military might to grab a big chunk of the continent. And, you bet US, Russia, and EU will fume and throw fits over who should control and have what. And, then smaller nations, thru the UN, will demand their slice of the pie. And, then global bureaucrats will come up with high-sounding principles in order to, defacto, take and control the prize for themselves--and their own countries--in the name of 'common good'.
Now, suppose the discoverer of the new continent is not Chinese but an American. Suppose he raises the American flag and claims it for America. And, suppose US immediately annexes it. You bet most Americans will claim it's all theirs to keep, and if any other nation disagrees US will go to war to keep its prize. If China and Russia demanded 1/3 each of the new continent, US will surely flex its muscle and get ready to go to war.
So, the reason why there's peace in the world is not so much because we are wiser but because the great fights have been fought, the winners have been decided, and the dust has settled. It's like two dogs that are used to the daily feeding ritual will not fight and eat their own separate meal. But, just toss a fresh new bone at both of them and they'll be fighting like crazy. Or, suppose you have two clans who've fought over territory for a long time. Suppose they finally settled on territorial boundaries and have settled into long-lasting peace. But, suppose a big herd of wild horses enter their territory. Now, they can be nice and decide to go 50/50. But, if one side argues that the horses appeared more on their side of the territory and the share should be 70/30, the other side will say 'fuc* you' and a whole new blood feud may ensue.
Indeed, the rise of China has drastically changed the nature of discourse in this country. During most of the postwar era, US dominance in the Pacific was assured, and that served as the basic template for all future thoughts and decisions on Asia. But, the unexpectedly rapid rise of China since its modest liberalization of the economy has taken many people in the US by surprise. Even minus the military confrontation between US and China, the growing Chinese demand for oil and other raw materials has made many Americans feel that their way and cost of life are being threatened.
The ruthlessness of love is most evident in our treatment of nature. Human beings love their own kind, especially their own children--and their pets. In order to safeguard their love of their own kind and their own pets--especially dogs and cats--, humans have committed ruthless genocide all all animals deemed dangerous to man, woman, and child. Wolves are ruthless predators but not evil animals, but humans have vilified them as such in order to save human lives, pets, horses, cattle, and other stuff man feels attached to emotionally or materially.
In order to create and build safe communities, humans have ruthlessly wiped out all animals deemed dangerous to man and his well-being--cougars, bears, wolves, even coyotes and raccoons. It's man's love for man and his love for peaceful existence that had led man to commit such wars of hate and fear against nature. Or, man will even ruthlessly kill livestock if
diseases might spread to man. The bird flu scare led many nations to put live birds into bags and bury them alive. Or, entire sacks of live birds were burnt alive. Man did it out of love of man, but this love only led to mass killings of 'innocent' birds.
Man did much the same against other man to create a safe world for 'my people'. So, white people felt a need to kill off or drive out the savage Indians. Whites, fearing the physically stronger Negroes, banded together to punish blacks if the latter got out of line. This led to lynchings. And, blacks banded together against what they perceived as white police brutality to burn down streets and kill 'honkeys' on the street. And, Hispanics band together to fight blacks, and vice versa. And, Jews and Palestinians are killing each other real good in the Middle East. And, we saw the same craziness in Yugoslavia and Iraq. But, is it really crazy or is there a certain logic to the madness? In all cases, it's hatred born out of love: The other people are attacking your people that you love, and so you gotta hate the enemy and fight back.
Generally speaking, in the so-called 'civilized' nations this idea of racial bond/love has been dismissed as retrogressive, dangerous, and harmful. In the future, we should all look beyond race and nationality and so on and blah blah. This isn't necessarily a bad idea, and it's certainly preferable to different peoples all bashing each other's heads all the time. But, what if the feelings are not mutual? What if one side acts on good faith while the other side does not? What if one side respects the other side but latter holds the former in contempt? Suppose the latter holds the former in contempt precisely because of its wimpy wussy 'weakness'. Does a bully respect a sappy-eyed fellow who volunteers to shine his shoes?
This is something that must be asked because much of the people-of-color identity politics in the US and EU has become aggressive, hateful, bullying, and nasty. Why should white people try to Love and Trust non-white folks who feel no Love and Trust for the white man? This is especially troubling since liberal and leftwing Jews have been fanning the flames of hatred among goyim just like Yojimbo character in Kurosawa's movie pitted one side against the other. Thru multiculturalism and radical leftism, liberal and leftwing Jews have been indoctrinating non-whites to see white gentiles as the source of all evil in the world. And, thru guilt-peddling and guilt-baiting, liberal and leftwing Jews have employed a doctor's plot to castrate the once proud white into a pussy wussy 'faggotyass' metrosexual dweeb who rolls at the feet of the likes of Obama.
In a book on Mao Tse-Tung, "The People's Emperor", there's a story where a sentimental scholar once told Mao that “communism is love" whereupon Mao replied, “No, comrade, communism is not love; communism is a hammer which we use to destroy the enemy.” In a way, this makes perfect sense, and both of them were right. Love is a Hammer. Communism was Love in the sense having big ideas about 'social justice', 'brotherhood of man', 'workers' paradise', and 'creating a new man'. But, the ideals it espoused and loved were bound to make communists passionately Hate and Attack the enemies of everything they Loved and wanted to bring forth into this world.
In this sense, Nazism was Love too. Love of German Destiny, Love of Aryan Beauty, Love of Natural Hierarchy, Love of Health and Strength, Love of Whatever Hitler Just Happened to be Wild about. But, such Love could only hate all the things that stood in its path.
Love is a Hammer.
Among movies, Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" came closest to expounding on this perverse paradox. Notice that EVERYONE in the movie acts out of some weird idea of Love--of race, freedom, nation, ideology, women, oneself, etc.--and brings about the end of the world.