There exist things worthy of disdain, and for every individual across time and space, hatred is a natural response. Why, then, is there a prevailing narrative advocating for the abolition of hate? While the concepts of senseless, remorseless, and naïve hatred may be questionable, outright banning them raises intriguing questions about the temporality of hate.
This contemplation has lingered in my thoughts for many years. Hate, I argue, is an essential facet of human nature, serving as a mechanism for survival. This evolutionary adaptation shields us from both natural and social threats that could otherwise cause harm by: Identifying threats; enhanced vigilance; fosters in-group cohesion; imbues avoidance behaviours; and enforcement of positive social behaviours. It acts as a defence against pointless suffering, akin to love in its capacity to diminish human distress. The abolition of hate undermines humanity and the wisdom passed down through generations, rooted in real suffering that culminated in liberation from the Edenic Bestial Unconscious.
Would our current politically liberal elites, "enlightened secular humanist" leaders, (though some would identify as Marxists) guide us back to a bestial slumber, advocating for a return to Eden, a utopia of bliss and boundless abundance? The answer is a resounding no. Eden's gates are forever closed, and the loss of accumulated knowledge and experience awaits those who forsake the wisdom derived from God's grace in our liberation from the Edenic Bestial Unconscious.
These “leaders” advocate for "love" and "tolerance," and rightly so; however, extremes in either direction can be perilous. Excessive hatred can lead to unrelenting destruction, consuming the individual and perhaps erasing a part of the self forever. Similarly, an overpowering love can result in destructive consequences, from suffocating embraces to revealing vulnerabilities to adversaries. Temperance becomes our restraint, guiding us away from excesses, both material and emotional. Through the exercise of prudence, we strive to perceive the world beyond our superficial material and emotive states, finding beauty in a world saturated with sin and indulgence. Cautiously proceeding forward, we advance without faltering. To proceed without due caution will eventually bring our demise.
The proposition to abolish hate without addressing the excesses of love is untenable, and ugly, as both emotions, when taken to extremes, can be dangerous and corrupting. Recognizing the unworthiness of such a project, many rally under the ugly banners of love, riding out against hate. So, what will save the world, and how can one discern those seeking its destruction?
Drawing from my favourite author, Dostoyevsky, I posit: "Beauty will save the world." This quote appears in his novel "The Idiot." The context of the quote involves a discussion about the redemptive power of aesthetics, spirituality, and the transcendent in the face of the moral and existential challenges of the world. He was grappling with the idea that pure, selfless beauty has the potential to inspire and elevate the human spirit, leading individuals toward a higher moral and spiritual existence. In the novel, Prince Myshkin utters this phrase, and his character is often seen as a Christ-like figure, embodying qualities of compassion and innocence.
The quote suggests that the appreciation and pursuit of genuine beauty, whether in art, nature, or virtuous human actions, have the capacity to bring about positive transformation and salvation. It implies that the aesthetic experience, when grounded in truth and goodness, can serve as a powerful force for healing and redemption in a world fraught with moral complexities and existential challenges.
This is precisely what the true enemy, demoniac materialists, the people who care only for the pursuit of pleasure (at any and all costs), aim to annihilate — the suicidal destruction of beauty as an assault on existence itself. Identifying this, we must defend Beauty as the shining light upon the hill, not merely out of love for our kin or hatred for our rivals, but for the intrinsic value of Beauty itself. Beauty is worth defending, because ugliness is the alternative. It serves as a much more accurate compass than the virtues of anti-hate or even love.
Beauty is easy to detect. It is selfless sacrifice versus the selfish betrayal; it is the mother caring for their infant, in contrast to the murdering rapist; it is the father who goes out to work each day to provide for his family, in contrast to the abusive alcoholic father; it is the carved reliefs on the sides of buildings where it could have otherwise been left plain or blank; it is the offering of warmth to a suffering stranger versus the quiet dismissal or turning a blind eye to it; it is the gentle petting of a cat who crosses your path, versus treating the cat meanly.
Likewise, it is attending your father’s funeral, versus ignoring the invitation; it is confessing your sins, versus taking them to the grave out of pride; it is the felt warmth from the sun on your face on the coldest winter day; it is to understand the innocent man upon the cross, and the guilt within each of us. All of these are forms within which a man partakes in his life, and there are many more. But that a man might take them, might live them, might be them, might suffer them: that is the beauty of being which saves the world against darkness. We hate, because we love, in the name of Beauty.