WHEN HATERS AND HATERS OF HATERS MEET

Last Saturday in Charlettsville Virginia, minority groups who are known to hate (i.e., the KKK, the neo-Nazis, and various white supremacist groups) were involved with others to protest the removing of a Confederacy General from the Civil War era (1860-1865). As extremist groups, they tend to be ugly in their protests and to invite violence. Then others from the left who hate those who hate showed up to protest against their protest. If that sounds like a dangerous and explosive situation— you’re right. It was!

Those who hate diversity and multi-culturalism were met by those who hate their hatred. And all of them seemed to personalize their hate so that they did not just hate the other side’s ideas or beliefs, they hated them. Watching the riot scenes on TV — both groups were carrying bats, clubs, rocks, and some had guns (although apparently not fired), and both got into fist-fights as they pushed and shoved each other. This was not freedom of speech; this was violence. This is what happens when people do not distinguish person and behavior.

Then the media people began asking, “Who’s right and who’s wrong?” But this question from the media is far too simplistic a question. It creates as many problems as it solves. That’s what either-or questions often do. Consider this from a meta-state perspective: those who were part of the anti-protest were protesting the protest; they were hating the hate. No wonder the two groups clashed! No wonder both sides were violent and ugly— both were involved in hate to such an extent that they were absolutely intolerant of each other. This is not the way a democracy or a civil society should work. It is a revival of medievalism.

In President Trump’s first statement, he said there were problems on both sides—a fair statement. It was a reasonable and calm statement seeking to hold both sides responsible. But did the media see it that way? Of course not! For two days the unending media kept asking him to name the KKK and Neo-Nazis. So he did. Did that end things for the media? Of course not. They needed a sensationalize story and so they invented one. Given how President Obama jumped to conclusions at similar incidents and ended up making statements that turned out to be completely false, it was mature response for Trump to withhold judgment and wait for more data.

The Sources of the Problem There are many. The problem goes, first of all, to all of the people on both sides who grabbed clubs and rocks and chemicals to spray and blow-torches and other weapons and went to a protest! Who does that? Who has time to do that kind of thing? Who has any desire to go mix it up with people with a different view and yell and scream at each other— with no one listening? Who considers that fun or a way to spend your weekend? Don’t the protesters have a life?

The problem secondly, goes to the media— they want to highlight anything they can spin as sensational, they want simplistic answers, and most of all, they want to bash Trump (at least that’s what they are constantly doing). How is it that with all of the violence of that went on—the only injuries that required hospitalization was what one person did, what the 20-year old who ran his car into the crowd killing one and wounding 19 others?

The problem also goes to the psychology of dogmatism in the protesters and the protesters-of- the-protesters. Personally I would guess that anyone attracted to those minority groups do so because of personal psychological problems of insecurity, low self-esteem, traumatized childhoods, meaninglessness, etc. Bringing hate to their own self-hate and protesting their right to protest isn’t going to improve things. How could it? How much better to meta-state the hate with kindness or love or understanding, etc.?