After Consideration

I decided that I was too hasty in my conclusion to try to work up a "hate". I can't do it. It is too energy wasteful, expensive, draining, etc. Also with so much out there to spontaneously throw you into some kind of spin I've decided that I can wait for such an occasion, while at the same time trying to avoid one, before I test my theory on whether my tearing the phone book was a fluke. To be scientifically responsible experiments must be replicated or repeatable to be valid. If I am to get a true test of my theory I should wait to replicate the circumstances so as to be accurate in my assessment.
The trouble with that seems to be that the circumstances are not replicable and science has nothing to do with emotional outbursts unless it is in some political, that is agenda driven, way. The same circumstance I found myself in could have elicited or been met with any number of possible responses such as acceptance, indifference, humor, denial, gratitude, etc. Rather than be bitter, which is energy inefficient I've come to be grateful which is much more pleasant.
Is it Orwellian "doublespeak" to hate hate? Can it be done? What about love hate or hate love; aren't they the same some how which ever way you say it. I don't know I'm just asking. I do know I want to avoid hate but think it can't be done. It seems that all history for the most part is controlled by it. I hate it when that happens.
Men, ideas, religions, customs, forms of government or lack thereof are more or less hated by groups and individuals. I hate tyranny and can't tolerate it but then that makes me tyrannical maybe; how's that work? Should I say that I just don't approve of a thing or idea or even a person. That I don't accept, I don't submit, I won't sign onto or up for, or refuse to recognize the validity or authority of something or some one cannot protect me from any harm they may cause.
No matter what if you can't provide all your needs by yourself, and you can't, you are a pawn in multiple games on many levels like the multi-layered chess boards seen in Star Trek and other SciFi adventures. Why do I stray here? I'm thinking in terms of holding conflicting beliefs and not even knowing it.
In school I was taught that George Armstrong Custer was a patriot, a warrior, an officer and a gentleman who met a tragic death at the hands of savages and he and his men are memorialized. I was taught that Hitler was a dictator, possibly a madman or syphilitic occultist who would have conquered the world if allowed and he should be reviled forever. Both could be true but the common thread between the two is that they supported and furthered genocide as program and policy. The problem I have here is that although ultimately responsible for the death of many I can't remember Hitler actually killing anybody after becoming fuhrer, maybe he did as a corporal in WWI. Custer was in the thick of it himself killing men and animals, probably women and children too in his attempt to eradicate complete cultures. I think Custer even had ambitions to be president one day. What is the difference between the two? What does it all boil down to? I think I can conclude safely that both were murderous if not murdering bastards maybe even literally but especially figuratively. One held in esteem and the other loathsome. Somewhere between the two hate is a common denominator.
I tell what I think in order not to tell how others think because how can I know except to extrapolate from some theorized common denominator of being human. This has only got me back to where I started and is going nowhere fast.

Mahabuhay