Here’s a thought I had:

THE “HATE MYTH”

I have always felt that hatred is used as an explanation for far too many things. Its almost like hatred has become an overly simple “blame-all” of problems between people. To me, it always seemed that there were more to things than hatred in problems and people. There are many more important issues and themes that are left out and not even mentioned. In many cases, hatred may not even be involved. But, to them, its all caused by hatred! Its because of stuff like this that I speak of the “hate myth”.

Because of this, I believe many situations are misunderstood by the “hate myth”. In fact, I think it has even given a misunderstanding about human nature in general and peoples association with each other. In this way, I tend to feel that the “hate myth”, overall, is more destructive and deceiving than anything else.

Some examples of the things I consider reflecting the “hate myth”, and are misunderstood as a result, include:

That wars are caused by hatred

That the Holocaust is caused by hatred

That the “race problem”, in the South of the U.S., is caused by hatred.

That Middle Eastern problems are caused by hatred.

I think that there are a little bit more to these problems than “hatred”. . . and these are only the tip of the iceberg.

Origins of the “hate myth”

I tend to believe the “hate myth” originates from a number of sources, such as:

Christianity. This, of course, preaches love and peace. The opposite of these, its generally assumed, is hatred. Therefore, in this point of view, problems between people obviously do not entail love and peace. Its often assumed, then, that these problems are caused by hatred (or some other malicious intent). In this point of view, the solution to these problems is not “hate” but “love”. Since this “message” is perceived as god-ordained, Christianity gave the condemning of hatred a self-righteous and Divine cause. The religious aspect of this also gave it a “moral condemnation” quality. These attitudes dominate the “hate myth”.

This, of course, preaches love and peace. The opposite of these, its generally assumed, is hatred. Therefore, in this point of view, problems between people obviously do not entail love and peace. Its often assumed, then, that these problems are caused by hatred (or some other malicious intent). In this point of view, the solution to these problems is not “hate” but “love”. Since this “message” is perceived as god-ordained, The religious aspect of this also gave it These attitudes dominate the “hate myth”. The horror of war as a result of the World Wars and Cold War. The horror of war, that WWI and WWII displayed, as well the threat of nuclear annihilation of the Cold War, have all contributed to a need to “explain away” these horrors. Since war is a conflict between people it made it so that hatred became an easy explanation of why they happen and to condemn its horrors. In this way, war is often automatically assumed to be a result of hatred.

The horror of war, that WWI and WWII displayed, as well the threat of nuclear annihilation of the Cold War, have all contributed to a need to “explain away” these horrors. In this way, war is often automatically assumed to be a result of hatred. The Nazi’s and Holocaust. The attempted extermination of a mass of people have horrified many people. As a result, hatred became an easy way to explain why people would do this to another group of people. It seems to me, that the Nazi’s and the Holocaust have made the greatest contribution to the “hate myth” as it has caused the greatest horror in people, reflecting the extreme of what problems between people can do to each other. In some, the Nazi’s and Holocaust has caused a need to easily “explain” these horrors, regardless of its truth, simplicity, or narrow-mindedness. In the U.S. the horror of the Holocaust would be as if turned into the Civil Rights Movement, and its association with slavery. I jokingly call this “America’s holocaust” as the U.S. basically turned it into essentially the same thing. As a result, the Civil Rights Movement – “America’s Holocaust” – would bring the horror of the Holocaust home and make it more personal .

The attempted extermination of a mass of people have horrified many people. As a result, hatred became an easy way to explain why people would do this to another group of people. It seems to me, that In some, the Nazi’s and Holocaust has caused a need to easily “explain” these horrors, regardless of its truth, simplicity, or narrow-mindedness. In the U.S. the horror of the Holocaust would be as if turned into the Civil Rights Movement, and its association with slavery. I jokingly call this “America’s holocaust” as the U.S. basically turned it into essentially the same thing. As a result, . The Vietnam War era protests. I tend to believe that the Vietnam War era protests united all the above qualities into one “philosophy” or point of view. In this way, one could say that the Vietnam War era protests created the “hate myth”.

Because of these, hate became an all too easy explain-away that “seems” to explain the problems even though hate, in reality, reveals nothing about why they happened. Its association with Christianity also gave it a “righteous” quality and, therefore, the explanation of hatred gave a “high and mighty” explanation. Because of this, there becomes no need to go further than to say “its caused by hatred”. In effect, this “righteous” quality tends to cause a “dead end” to any real inquiry into these matters. The net result is the creation of the “hate myth” that seems to explain it but really reveals nothing.

Because of the “hate myths” association with the world wars and Holocaust, it became particularly necessary when there is any form of violence involved. This reveals that the “hate myth” is really rooted in a horror of the effects of war and a need to explain this horror away. In this way, the “hate myth” is associated with an emotional reactionary tendency that has a tendency to distort things, which is exactly what it has done.

What all this means is that specific events of past history are being used as a basis to judge, condemn, and explain away problems between people. The problem with this, of course, is that current conditions do not match the past conditions. Because of this, the “hate myth” tends to be “disconnected” with current history as it is based in specific events in past history. Its because of this, in particular, that hatred-as-an-explanation tends to be “disconnected” with current conditions and, accordingly, it tends to distort things.

Forms of the “hate myth”

The “hate myth” tends to appear in different forms:

As an explanation. Here, it is primarily used as if was a legitimate explanation of why things happen but usually reveals nothing.

Here, it is primarily used as if was a legitimate explanation of why things happen but usually reveals nothing. As condemnation. Here, it is used to condemn people, usually with a “self-righteous” or “moral” right.

Here, it is used to condemn people, usually with a “self-righteous” or “moral” right. As villainizing. Here, it is used to make people look bad. In many cases, this is done as a form of “moral outrage” more than anything else.

These forms are primarily reactions to dealing with something that is feared. This is because, as I said above, the “hate myth” is rooted in the horror of war and the Holocaust. What this reveals is that the “hate myth” is used more as a means to deal with fear than as a real explanation of whats happening. This gives the “hate myth” more of a quality an “explain away” than anything else. In this way, we can see that the “hate myth” really reveals nothing about hatred itself.

THE “THREAT REACTION” – THE POWER OF THREAT

If we cease to look at hatred in the context above (as condemnation, villainization, etc.) and look at the behavior spoken of it seems that most of what people call hatred is a form of “threat reaction”. This is basically a reaction to a “perceived” threat. In other words, they are reacting to something which is viewed, by them, as a threat. In other words, people aren’t just reacting this way for “malicious” and “sinister” reasons, which is what the “hate myth” usually implies or states.

This “perceived” threat can appear a number of ways:

A real and actual threat

An imagined threat

A combination of the above

One must keep in mind that a “perceived” threat is viewed as an actual reality and, as a result, instigates a “threat response” . . . whether it is real or imaginary does not matter. It just has to be “perceived”. The important point about this is that noting that the threat is imagined or false does not mean that the response is “bad”, “malicious”, “sinister”, etc. Regardless of this, any “perceived” threat, regardless if it is real or imagined, still receives a genuine response from the person. This point must be understood.

A “perceived” threat, by nature, instigates a “threat response” which is a reaction to the threat. This response often has these qualities:

A sense of uneasiness or insecurity. This can range from a mild uncomfortable feeling to a feeling that ones life is in jeopardy.

This can range from a mild uncomfortable feeling to a feeling that ones life is in jeopardy. A need to rid oneself of the “perceived” threat. This could range anywhere from getting away from it to attacking it.

This could range anywhere from getting away from it to attacking it. In some cases, a violent reaction to the threatening element takes place . This often creates a predisposition to violence toward the threatening element whether provoked or not.

This often creates a predisposition to violence toward the threatening element whether provoked or not. A need to respond . As a general rule, the “threat response” can be described as a reaction to a condition of potential harm in which one MUST RESPOND.

. As a general rule, the “threat response” can be described as a reaction to a condition of potential harm in which one MUST RESPOND. It tends to be impersonal. The “threat response” often has the quality of a reflex action. Because of this, it often appears “inhuman” and can behave in an inhuman way. In this way, the response tends to be impersonal and cold.

This potential harm can appear a number of ways:

A harm to ones physical body. This is like being shot at with a pistol.

This is like being shot at with a pistol. A harm to ones ability to live or condition of livelihood. This can be compared to an economic depression which upsets the economy and ones ability to make a living.

This can be compared to an economic depression which upsets the economy and ones ability to make a living. A harm to ones sense of security and safety. This is like a war that makes one feel insecure and unsafe.

This is like a war that makes one feel insecure and unsafe. A harm to ones social reality. An example of this is like having a new culture or belief system come in and upset ones whole social structure, lifestyle, and belief system. This could happen when another culture, country, or religion invades your country. It can also be caused by an event that upsets society such as some forms of change.

An example of this is like having a new culture or belief system come in and upset ones whole social structure, lifestyle, and belief system. This could happen when another culture, country, or religion invades your country. It can also be caused by an event that upsets society such as some forms of change. A harm to ones personal inner calm. It can also be perceived as something very personal, that hits ones self deep down, and which does not bother anyone else.

Its not uncommon that these forms of potential harm often instigates a response from people, sometimes very severely. Often, the reactions to the threat follow a pattern similar to this:

Avoidance or ignoring. This is one of the earliest and most common reactions. In many cases, just ignoring a situation can diffuse a situation or let the threat diffuse. Its because of this tendency, I feel, that more things do not get out of control. In other words, if everyone reacted to every threat we’d be in perpetual conflict. This is why, in any conflict, the first thing to do is “calm down”! An uneasiness or nervousness. This is the beginning of a sense that “something is wrong”. Stress. This is when the threat is realized which causes a sense of something “weighing upon us”. This is often what forces a person to try to react. Acts to try to remedy the situation. These often start as “honest” and “good-natured” attempts. When it doesn’t work it tends to lead to the next phase. Acts of desperation. Here, people can do all sorts of weird responses, even to the point of that it appears hard to understand or bizarre. They may do things such as develop conspiracy theories, plot against things, and so on. In some cases, an act of desperation is nothing more than an intense form of one of the earlier forms, such as ignoring or stress. A violence of some form. In many cases, violence is the result of desperation that failed. Often, the first act of violence is toward ones own self, such as when one “eats ones heart out”. In many ways, suicide is this form of violence toward ones self as a reaction to a feeling of some threat. If the threat comes from without then the violence tends to end up being outward though.

Keep in mind that not all threats go through phases such as these. Some threats are so intense that the immediate response is violence, such as being attacked by someone. This shows that there are a number of forms of reactions, depending on the nature of the threat:

An immediate threat. This is when the threat is about to happen, such as being attacked.

This is when the threat is about to happen, such as being attacked. An immanent threat . This is a threat that is not about to happen but could be a threat at any time. This is like the possibility of losing ones job.

. This is a threat that is not about to happen but could be a threat at any time. This is like the possibility of losing ones job. A long-standing threat. This is usually an immanent threat that has not been realized over a long period of time.

This is usually an immanent threat that has not been realized over a long period of time. A historical-based threat. This is a threat that has caused a reaction in the society past but has become so long-standing that it has become part of the culture. In many cases, people are reacting to a threat from the past but that does not exist at the moment.

Each one of these has variations in the reactions phases of reactions described above, such as:

An immediate threat. This often causes a tendency to violence.

An immanent threat. This often causes stress, acts to try to remedy the situation, and desperation but could become violent in some situations.

A long-standing threat. This often causes an uneasiness, nervousness or stress

This often causes an uneasiness, nervousness or stress A historical-based threat. This often causes an uneasiness and nervousness.

What is particularly interesting is that the long-standing and historical-based threat tends to show that the sense of a threat can lie passive and dormant not only within a person but in a society. Perhaps we could call this a “dormant threat”? This form of threat can appear a number of ways, such as:

It is unconscious and unknown .

and . It appears in patterns of interpretation of events and life .

. It appears as attitudes.

In these ways, a “dormant threat” often creates a “threat-based worldview” in a person or society. In other words, a “dormant threat” tends to mold a person or societies perceptions of things and the world and in how the world is interpreted. As a result of this, the “dormant threat” can have great impact on things and is not something to look at lightly.

In addition, it seems that a “dormant threat” often tends to predispose a person or society to an over-reaction to a threat, even a mild one. Often, this entails an easy, and often over-willing, tendency to violence. As a result, a tendency to easily become violent is often a sign of a hidden “dormant threat”. Depending on the situation this “dormant threat” can range from a personal threat (such as the result of being abused as a child) to a historical or culturally based threat (such as the threats caused by a war). What all this shows is that many people are living with a “silent threat” within them.

HATRED AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THREAT

As I said above, hatred is a form of a “threat reaction” and, as a result, has many qualities described above. Its seems, to me, that hatred is a unique form of “threat reaction”. In particular, hatred is when there is a “threat response” but no threatening element. To be more precise, the threatening element is lacking. The “threatening element” is the thing that provokes the threat . . . it causes the “threat response”. In other words, without the “threatening element” there is no threat to respond to. It can be a number of things:

Some thing, living or inanimate. This could be an animal, person, or a building falling on you.

This could be an animal, person, or a building falling on you. A condition. This could be something like poverty.

This could be something like poverty. A situation. This could be like an accident or a war.

This could be like an accident or a war. A mental idea. In many cases, our greatest threat is the ideas we have about things. In fact, many threats are mental non-existent fabrications we’ve created in our own minds.

The “threatening element” often seems lacking in a number of ways, such as:

It is not seen – the threat is not overly demonstrable or observable.

– the threat is not overly demonstrable or observable. It is not perceived – the person senses no conscious threat.

In other words, they are acting to a threat when none is seen and/or perceived. In this way, its not really a reaction to something. Instead, it seems more of a self-instigated impulse. Because of this, hatred is more of a psychological matter of the person feeling the hatred. Since the threatening element is lacking the “threat” comes from somewhere within.

Being based in the psychological makeup of the person reveals that hatred is often really an expression of an unconscious threat and fear. Hatred, then, tends to be based in more personal and deeper issues that has origins in things like:

A belief system. Some belief systems can promote or cause a fear (such as Christianity’s fear of satan).

Some belief systems can promote or cause a fear (such as Christianity’s fear of satan). An experience. A bad experience can make a person hate to be in that situation again. A traumatic experience even makes it more so.

A bad experience can make a person hate to be in that situation again. A traumatic experience even makes it more so. A condition. Being poor or the “bottom man on the totem pole” are good examples of what can make a person feel threatened.

Being poor or the “bottom man on the totem pole” are good examples of what can make a person feel threatened. A thought pattern. Some patterns of thinking can make a person feel threatened. In some people this thought pattern can become like a habit, influencing their thoughts and behavior.

Some patterns of thinking can make a person feel threatened. In some people this thought pattern can become like a habit, influencing their thoughts and behavior. A psychological issue or problem. Various psychological problems can, of course, cause feelings of being threatened.

Various psychological problems can, of course, cause feelings of being threatened. A long-standing condition. Having feelings of threat for a long-standing duration can cause an unconscious fear.

Having feelings of threat for a long-standing duration can cause an unconscious fear. A culture-based fear. As described above, some cultures a threat-based mentality that affects some people more than others.

As described above, some cultures a threat-based mentality that affects some people more than others. A mixture of the above.

One can see that these are really aspects of a “dormant threat”. In this way, one could very well say that hatred is a manifestation of a “dormant threat” within. We could then speak of hatred as an “internal threat” whereas the normal “threat reaction” is an “external threat” as the threat is seen externally.

Being that hatred is internal-based it tends to be detached from the outer world. This is what gives hatred some of its unique qualities, such as:

It often does not seem to be connected with the situation and is often out-of-place.

It tends to be over-reacted and over-played.

It tends to get out of control.

It tends to be very directed to specific things.

It is felt deeply and personally.

It overwhelms the person and can dominate a person to the point that it can “eat you up”.

My own experience with hatred is that it has these qualities I would describe hatred in this way: “Hatred is a strong overpowering and fierce reaction to some ‘thing’. This reaction seems out-of-place and disconnected with things. What’s even more interesting is that its so disconnected that I do not consciously or overtly feel a cause, or threat, for this feeling. The hatred just exists. I only began to see the cause, or threat, only on reflection.”

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE “THREAT REACTION” AND HATRED

The “threat reaction” and hatred are closely related in nature. Because of this, they are often blurred together and can easily change from one to the other. My observation is that most hatreds originate from a legitimate threat, and “threat reaction”, that has been turned into an “internal threat”. It does this because the “threat reaction” tends to “simmer” slowly turning it into hatred. Some of the ways this happens include:

A prolonged conflict.

An unresolved reaction.

A reaction that does not take place.

A philosophy that intensifies or prolongs the threat.

Psychological problems.

There are many conflicts, such as wars, which are caused by a “threat reaction” initially. If it remains unresolved it will often slowly turn into hatred. In other words, a threat that becomes apathetic tends to turn into hatred. As time goes on, and the threat simmers even more, hatred often turns to something like a “dislike”. This is like hatred but without the “oomph”.

Interestingly, its not uncommon that hatred is confused with contempt. They are totally unrelated though. Contempt is more like an “outrage”, so to speak, and is not threat-related.

THE THREAT TO CULTURAL IDENTITY

The condemnation of hatred has only misled us about what causes it. Most “hatred” is caused by some form of a threat, not by some “malicious” or “sinister” or “evil” cause. Some examples include:

Most wars are caused by some form of threat, usually a threat to ones way of life and a fear of being taken over.

That Holocaust is caused by the Nazi’s feeling threatened by the Jews (as a result of a philosophy they developed) when their way of life and identity were threatened after WWI.

The “race problem”, in the South of the U.S., is actually caused by a threat to the identity of the South, and way of life, by the North. The so-called “hatred” toward blacks was just a contempt . . . the real threat was the threat to the identity and way of life of the South. This means, more or less, that the real issue of the American Civil War was not slavery, as is often supposed.

Middle Eastern problems are caused by long-standing conflicts between people which threaten their way of life, culture, belief, identity, etc.

We see one interesting theme here: cultural identity. What we find is that some of the greatest “perceived” threats, and which causes some of the deepest responses, is the threat to cultural identity. There are a number of reasons for this:

It hits a person on a social level It hits a person on a personal level

As a result of these two reasons, the threat to cultural identity tends to particularly hit deep within a person. This is one reason why the threat to cultural identity is so impactful and causes such a reaction. In fact, it seems that the greatest reactions to threat, that we have seen in history, tend to involve threats to cultural identity. As a result, threats to cultural identity are nothing to look at lightly.

Oftentimes, though, the threat to cultural identity tends to sit and simmer for a number of reasons:

The threat never happens. The threat never materializes but its threat hangs over them.

The threat happens but is not resolved. A country, for example, is invaded and taken over but nothing happens to them so the threat simmers.

When things, such as these, happens the threat simmers and eventually turns to hatred. This, and its deep-rooted nature, means that threats to cultural identity tend to turns into hatred very easily. This is seen in a lot of the world.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THREAT

Overall, it seems that we have forgotten the importance of threat in our lives and have forgotten to appreciate its power. All we do is condemn its effects. Its far more prevalent than people realize and has tremendous impact. It is so prevalent, in fact, that I’d say that many forms of behavior in life are threat-related. Certain facts are clear:

There are many threats in life.

There are many forms of threats.

We all react to threats.

Sometimes, the reaction to threat is not good.

These are things, it seems to me, that need to be acknowledged, accepted, and appreciated and not continually condemned. They are natural human reactions and must be looked at from that angle.

Interestingly, the “hate myth”, as well as the condemnation of hatred, is based in the same threat-based mentality that causes the “threat reaction” and hatred . . . people feel threatened. In this way, the people who condemn hatred, and endorse the “hate myth”, are really not all that different from the people they are condemning. Its just appearing differently.

LOOKING AT THREAT IN LIFE

I often think its good to think about what we feel threatens us in life. My experience is that most of what we think is a threat is not a threat after all. In this way, we are reacting to a threat that doesn’t exist. There are a number of reasons for this, such as:

We assume its a threat.

We reacted to a previous threat but the reaction went was unrealized . . . it lies dormant.

Psychological problems.

Social problems.

We convinced ourselves its a threat in our mind.

The threat is based on a philosophy, belief, or point of view.

One thing that I found is that we tend to “hold onto threats” and don’t let them go. It seems to me that we tend to “hold onto threats” because it gives the illusion of control. Why is this? A threat means that there is potential harm to oneself. This causes a response to end the situation. In order to end the threat we must “control” the situation. As a result, a threat tends to make us want to have some form of control. Since a threat is often dormant, unrealized, simmers, as described above, one has nothing to “control”. Despite this, there is still a tendency to want to control the situation. By “holding on” we get the illusion of control.

I have found that I recognize things as a threat only on reflection. In other words, I do not recognize threats as a threat as they happen. I tend to feel that there are a number of reasons for this, such as:

The response to threat is instinct-based. As a result, it tends to be unconscious and is not part of our abstract conceptions of things.

As a result, it tends to be unconscious and is not part of our abstract conceptions of things. Civilization has suppressed the instinct-based response.

Society gives the illusion of safety which we use as a basis for a life.

Many threats are not that dramatic to be noticed.

In these ways, the threat reaction tends to be “silent” and unconscious. As a result, we are not all that overtly aware of threats. Its because of this that I often discover a threat on reflection.

Some of the ways to find a threat include:

A tendency to avoid something.

A tendency to ignore something or pretend its not there or happening.

Something that makes one nervous or stressed.

A dislike for something.

Something you hate.

Like I said, many of these are not recognized as a threat when experienced but often have the quality of an “irritation” or something “bothersome”. They are usually discovered as a threat on reflection. Because of this, they are really describing what can be called a “subtle threat”. That is to say, they are not all that dramatic (like being attacked by a bear). Despite this, they are reactions to a threat and entail the same themes.

When one looks more closely one finds that each one of us is filled with many forms of “subtle threats”. In fact, they are everywhere and in everything and in varying degree’s. Some are particularly strong and some are so subtle to barely be noticed . . . but they are there. What this all reveals is that threats, and the reactions to threats, are a big part of life, whether we are aware of it or not.

Just as we look at what threatens us, and how we react, its good to also look at how other people feel threatened as well as their reactions. What I’ve found is that people are also feeling threatened by many different things and, accordingly, are reacting to threats. This is happening all around us and in many different ways. Common reactions include:

They ignore things and are indifferent.

Nervousness and stress.

Anger.

Violence.

Many people react to threats we all feel and understand. But there are people who are feeling threatened by threats most of us don’t feel and, accordingly, are reacting to it. This can cause some weird or dramatic reactions. Some of these reactions can be so severe such as war, extermination of people, violence, and so on, that they are horrifying.

THE CONTINUATION OF THREAT

It seems, to me, that many things in life are caused by feeling threatened. Many people react to a threat in normal ways that are not threatening to others. But, sometimes, these reactions can be extreme, such as entailing various forms of violence, which threatens other people. This causes them to find a way to defend themselves from it. One form of defence is the “hate myth” where people are condemned and villainized as being motivated by hate. This point of view appears particularly justified with the righteous cause coming from Christianity and its view that hatred is “bad”. But all it does is foster more sense of a threat but nothing is solved. Its just an easy explain away. In this way, a supposed solution to the reaction to threat – the “hate myth” – actually keeps the feeling of threat alive but, in actuality, solves nothing. This is the irony of the “hate myth” . . . they think it answers the problem but they are actually continuing a sense of threat.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen