Banned Books Week 2021: A Book Review on In Defense of Hatred by C.B. Robertson
When researching relevant and current arguments of definition while preparing for one of my critical thinking courses, I found myself going back to a book in my collection: In Defense of Hatred by C.B. Robertson. I am a fan and follower of C.B. Robertson’s work, recently reading his book Letter to Anwei, a text that explore transgenerational ethics with an important discussion on blue zone culture. His book In Defense of Hatred pulled my interest simply because of the unusual title. Knowing Robertson to be both a logical and innovative thinker, I was curious what he had to say. After rereading the book several years after purchasing it, I still think that the book lends itself valuably to the exercise of critical thinking. If offers a complex, multifaceted examination of what hatred really is, what it is not, and its true function while fairly and accurately representing and addressing opposing viewpoints. I didn’t use the book in my class, mainly because of the social climate, but I do think that it is a text that would enrich the discourse in a college level critical thinking or philosophy course, not only because it illustrates a well-thought out argument of definition and value but also because it challenges people’s assumptions and explains the importance of hatred: it is requisite, according to Robertson, for people to feel hatred if they are to truly feel love and to try to control that invites totalitarianism.
Robertson’s book offers a logical and powerful voice to why hatred can be a positive and necessary element of human existence. To do this, he clarifies what hatred is, using formal definitions from reputable sources, explaining why the most common definitions of hatred are at times imprecise, confusing the symptoms of hatred for the thing itself, and he offers contexts where hatred is not simply a destructive force. Readers can learn a lot about arguments of definition from his precise and varied exploration of the definitions of hatred as well as how he counters them. One shining example from the first portion of the book is a definition of hatred supplied by Freud, which names hatred as the ego destructively defending itself. Robertson uses the classic example of Achilles to show that sometimes hatred actually means withdraw.
Robertson’s text also is ideal for use in a critical thinking classroom as it fairly and accurately represents, addresses, and counters viewpoints that differ from his own. Most critical thinking textbooks offer safe, bland opposing arguments or ones that mirror whatever mainstream opinion is getting the most coverage. It is refreshing to encounter a thinker who is willing to defend a controversial topic and who is not afraid of giving due respect to opposing views even if he explains where those views fall short. He does not hide or distort the viewpoints of those who are against hatred as his text includes quotes from notable and diverse voices who have famously articulated the idea that hatred is to be avoided at all costs, including Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, and Gandhi who all would agree that hatred is the root of all evil, a notion modern society generally accepts to be true. He counters this idealism with a discussion of hatred as a natural emotion, one that many Western governments, academic institutions, and social organizations have endeavored to make illegal in various ways as they seek to eliminate bias. Robertson then shoots an arrow at a frailty within the anti-hate argument. These rules, laws, and penalties and the defense of them are framed as a remedy primarily at what is framed to be the source of hatred, white, Christian, heterosexual males. The problem with the framing of this, however, is that all fully functioning people experience bias in one way or another, and all people experience the emotion of hatred. There are plenty of multi-cultural, non-heterosexual, and liberal people who feel and exercise hatred. They do so without facing the same ostracism and penalties; however, they often cannot perceive their own hateful attitudes, speech, and behavior. At this point, Robertson clarifies his position, explaining that hatred isn’t so much an evil as a moral good within limits, which he further outlines.
Robertson builds toward a defense of hatred as a moral good by examining various elements that demonstrate the utility of hatred. He discusses the role of evolution in the emotion of hatred. Since hatred is a taxing emotion, it seems contrary to evolutionary principles that human beings would continue to feel something that is draining and at times destructive. To balance his evolutionary analysis of hatred, he introduces and counters the somewhat popular transhumanistic idea of mind/emotion compartmentalization. Some people do think that we can section off and remove unwanted emotion from our psyches, but Robertson indicates that in the long-run and under close scrutiny the compartmentalization theory falls apart. One of the most compelling aspects of Robertson’s argument is his differentiation between the universal utility of hatred and the appropriate timing of such hatred. Human beings cannot remove hatred from their psyches, despite what the woke may preach, Robertson argues, so then humans must endeavor to use hatred at times when it is useful. After all, without hatred, our ancestors would more likely have died than survived, turning their check as those who hated them crushed them underfoot. One way he illustrates this concept is with the great Shakespearean tragedy Titus Andronicus, which shows how one person’s forbearance might only be met with hatred, and thus hatred becomes necessary for defense. He also brings up Vlad the Impaler’s cruelty toward invading Turks, which saved his land from the invaders who had kept him hostage and tortured him as a child. If Vlad turned the other check, so to speak, his people would have suffered at the hands of an enemy exercising their hatred upon them. As Robertson explains, it is hatred that gives people the motivation to fight back against hostile forces although he is careful to mention that not all hatred necessitates violence or cruelty. What it can do is optimize the body for escalated threats, which Robertson shows with a researched discussion on the stages of combat. Robertson’s argument shows that without hatred people cannot successfully defend what they love, and simply because there is hatred does not mean there is no place for mercy after survival is assured.
In anticipation of pacifist concerns, Robertson’s text builds up a logically and emotionally poignant explanation of why combat is sometimes the more virtuous choice. While some philosophers, especially those of the enlightenment, see humans as outside the web of reality, Robertson reminds us that, really, we cannot extract ourselves from it. As creatures that rely deeply on connection and guidance from other loved and trusted humans and their teachings, to view life as a thing that can be isolated from this larger web would be deeply damaging since so much of our identity is shaped by those we love and trust. When those we love and trust are attacked, when our identity is attacked, it by extension is an attack on the person. If someone wants to destroy one’s culture, one’s faith, one’s reputation, the virtue of one’s identity, the natural reaction is to want to fight back because each human being loves these things and one’s happiness relies upon them. Those things are natural and necessary for human health. The larger problem some might argue is that Robertson’s defense of hatred would by extension seem to defend genocidal tendencies, yet Robertson views Hitler as the worst thing to happen to Germany albeit he does explain that Nazis were acting out of misguided love, using commentary from Rabbi Yosef Ben Porat to support his claims. Porat discusses that Hitler hated the Jews because he viewed them as instrumental to the communist takeover in Russia that resulted in the deaths of 30 million people. Robertson explains that the Nazis took up combat to defend what they loved but that they erred critically in irrationally scapegoating an entire people. Robertson deepens his explanation with contexts in which hatred is to be discouraged, such as in times of fiery and irrational reaction or hatred with no just cause. For those who argue that hatred is an ignorance that education can remedy, Robertson explains that although this is true some of the time, education can actually deepen hatred and conflicts because upon learning more, one might discover that those who oppose them may actually be seeking their destruction.
In a world that seeks to impose anti-hatred with a frenzy, hatred is depicted as the root of evil and must be removed at all costs, but this sentiment can only be enforced with a totalitarian hand. Robertson see the anti-hate goal as essentially utopian, and those who espouse anti-hate rhetoric view this utopia as so important that it must be imposed on others despite the inherent contradictions in their position and despite what other people believe. Robertson explains that if enforcing a utopian vision necessitates the destruction of one’s culture, one’s people, one’s faith or some other aspect of one’s community, then hatred is the natural defense mechanism needed to preserve that which is in one’s heart. If people do not express their love and fight for that love if necessary, then people are at risk for betraying those they love and falling into nihilism. It creates a problematic position where a person becomes “as unworthy of love as he is incapable of expressing it” (92). An examination of the historic conflict between the native Britons and Imperial Rome drives this point home. When Rome invaded Britain, they abused their power, and when Prasutagus king of the Icena peacefully cooperated with them, his house was pillaged, his relatives made slaves, and his daughters raped. By not hating the invaders and using that hatred to fight back immediately, that which the Britons loved was harmed: their people died in mass; their culture was damaged; their possessions were stripped of them; and when they finally fought back, they won at first only to later perish in mass numbers when the Romans returned.
Although Robertson provides a well-researched, balanced, and logical argument in defense of hatred, there are elements of the book itself that may cause people to reject it without even reading it; however, those elements provide rich ground for discussion. One element of the text that may be off putting is the title itself. In an “anti-hate” culture, the mere mention of defending hate is likely to illicit a knee-jerk reaction of disdain. However, the title simply identifies what the book does. To imagine one knows an argument before reading is problematic indeed. The text’s cover is another element that some people may take issue with as it depicts a flame in the darkness. Because the word “hatred” is featured in the title and fire is associated with hateful acts committed in the American past, some people may mistakenly believe that Robertson’s book defends racial based lynchings, which it never does. In fact, the book argues against any hatred enacted from an unjust, irrational place: fiery hatred is not recommended, and in no way does Robertson celebrate such. Another element that may upset potential readers is the fact that its forward is by the dark intellect Augustus Sol Invictus. This element deserves further comment.
It’s astounding that a three page forward could potentially be more controversial than the book itself even when the forward is as of moderate a tone as one can imagine from a man eating breakfast. I discovered Augustus Invictus through his recitations of literature and knew nothing more of him until YouTube suggested the speech “The House Negro and the Field Negro.” Invictus, a lawyer who had a fellowship studying human rights, uses Malcolm X’s commentary on “the house negro and the field negro” to build the argument that Americans need to rebel against a system that Invictus views as totalitarian rather than choosing comfort. While this may seem controversial, the surprising thing is that this sentiment seems to parallel the reasoning of some of the biggest “anti-hate” bullies, Antifa, who as anarchists, also believe the government should be overthrown. Now, the main point of controversy surrounding Invictus, which I came to discover, is that he has been labeled as racist by Antifa, a group who is not only anarchist but that also uses mob rule to suppress freedom of speech and batter opponents in the name of anti-hate and anti-racism. The problem is that they’ve been known to label people as racist who do not view themselves as such because they may be both white and nationalist or reject politically correct language. Antifa preaches anti-hate while being hateful. They preach inclusion, but it seems like their inclusion is only for people who mirror their opinions. Oddly, Invictus and Antifa seem to have some things in common, like wanting to get rid of the police and overthrowing the government. Still, Antifa interprets his style in a negative way. Choosing Malcolm X’s words to support his own views, however, suggests that Invictus not only extends genuine respect towards black thinkers, more specifically a black nationalist, but also reads their writing. I find it unlikely that a bigot would extend that respect. Invictus is also a deeply committed Thelemite who practices his beliefs regardless of mainstream society’s ridicule. Thelema, a spiritual philosophy developed by Aleister Crowley, a controversial figure in his own right, honors the Egyptian gods and follows a central tenant of “Love is the law, love under will.” I have heard some critics argue that Invictus is an ignorant Thelemite who doesn’t understand his own spiritual school, but I am skeptical of that analysis. Esquires don’t typically have problems understanding what they read and practice after all. As such, it seems to be the case that Invictus worships or at least honors Egyptian gods. Because of these details, people’s may need to reexamine their knee jerk reactions of viewing him as a bigot and of Antifa being a credible authority. The man likes shock tactics, but the details suggest that accusations of racism may be distorted, especially since his own children are multi-ethnic. Whatever the case may be, Robertson’s choice of Invictus as author of the forward deepens potential discussions of hatred since so many people seem to deeply hate the man. It certainly brings up the question of how much ideas can be circulated when three pages of forward by a man with unpopular and perhaps misunderstood opinions carry more weight than the actual argument itself.
As a former organizer of college Banned Books Week (September 26th to October 2nd, 2021) events, sponsored by the American Library Association, I take controversial literature as an area of interest despite my mild and introverted nature. I have always felt that banned books have merit as conveyors of idea and that one doesn’t need to believe an idea to be aware of it or to listen to it/read about it. Some of the world’s banned books have been powerful works of literature that do nothing more than question the sometimes unconscious totalitarian tendencies of certain governments or other ideological trends. There’s nothing like jolting an audience out of their comfort zone if only to hold a semiotic mirror to the shadow of the civilized world. As science fiction often reveals, one person’s utopia is another’s dystopia.
Robertson’s book is not a banned book, but it is one that is under appreciated or rejected despite its quality. If it started gaining more popularity, I can see it being banned because people see superficial elements of the book itself and decide that the ideas aren’t worth exploring. This is shocking during a time when people are so passionate about diversity. Diversity of appearance seems to be emphasized while diversity of idea is rejected. That a large portion of people act hatefully and fail to see their own hatefulness is problematic. Ideological dogmatism is often seen as the high road rather than as a strangler of ideas; as such, our society deprives itself of discussion that can help bridge divides. All the while, people’s friendships and families are being torn apart by ideological intolerance and hasty generalizations based on underdeveloped understandings of the opposition’s beliefs. What’s more troubling is that even entertaining an unpopular idea can now result in deplatforming and loss of employment. People are entitled to their thoughts and have a right to exercise their speech. To silence people to increase safety may actually increase misunderstanding and create a shallower intellectual culture. This even extends to Banned Books Week. Plenty of people will support it if the event highlights books they like, but if books they don’t like are discussed, we see their commitment to liberty rapidly wane. Whatever your position may be, Robertson’s book will deepen your understanding of human nature and our society.
Edited for spelling 9/25/21
