What if I told you that in this discussion of hate with which you've posited, there is nothing to understand, merely the convincing delusion that discussing this in it's particulars will somehow reveal hates true nature. But any understanding that arises from this is building a tower on the shaky sands of ignorance. Which conclusion did our author arrive at? The only conclusion drawn of the intricacies of hate resulted in uncertainty–i.e. more ignorance. A tower on sand. There is only one truth when examining the nature of hate, hate is merely the sum of it's parts, it's a fermentation of wrong thought and misdirected mental qualities that appear on the surface to be a subject of hate, when in actuality hate is the sum of it's parts. Recognizing hate as an obstacle for serenity, this person relinquishes hate, they relinquish the discussion of hate, the relinquish the mental processes that lead to the arising of hate, they treat hate like a fire of the mind extinguishing it as soon as it arises, protecting their happiness like a homeowner would extinguish a fire in their living room to protect their material acquisitions. Inconstancy is stressful, what is impermanent is stressful, not getting what one wants is stressful. When we dwell with our mind focused on the inconstancy of the internal and the external, that one would find serenity, that is impossible. When our minds dwell relinquished from the inconstancy of the external and the internal, that one would find serenity, that is possible. Hate, I tell you, is that inconstancy of the external and internal, it is nothing to cling to, and the one who clings to hate, holds views associated and born of hate, uses the illusion of views to define and categorize hate? They dwell in the realm of inconstancy, and find it impossible to find serenity.3 We live in an age in which even discussing race hatred scares me. I have long had the conviction, though, that that which cannot be discussed cannot be understood.
With regard to ourselves, it freely surrenders the notion of freedom to the vicissitudes of external circumstances.
I'm thinking I have encountered a Buddhist -- or someone of that ilk. I'm thinking that because you write a little like the Dhammapada -- which used to be one of my favorite books. But maybe I'm projecting. In any case, I don't think you're looking for an argument -- so I'll refrain. I am open to discussion. Or not.