Terrorists Murder Out Of Love, Not Hate

Terrorists Murder Out Of Love, Not Hate

Terrorists know we have no particular love for our civilization, and that is why they can batter it. If we loved it as they do their religion, we would destroy them.
George Fields
By

The Left fantasizes there is a cosmic conflict between “love” and “hate.” You see, “hate” has built up a rather sizable and diverse army of Muslims, Christians, Russians, Sudanese, Syrians, Somalis, isolationists, conservatives, dead philosophers, and living clerics, all bent on terrorizing the world. Luckily, “love” and its posse of white western liberals rapidly counter this “hate,” using whatever exotic rubbish they have forsaken the nobility of their native cultures for when taking a woman’s studies course. All conflicts can be understood within this Love-Against-Hate dichotomy. It is a sort of religion, though for simpletons—a simpleton’s Manichaeism.

This convinces the average liberal that, as a servant of “love,” he is more loving than anyone on earth. But I am rather convinced their thinking proves they have never loved anyone or anything in their entire lives.

We Hate for the Sake of Love

Anyone who has ever hated anything knows it is first because he loved something else. Anyone who has ever loved anything knows that this love is the root of all hatred. What did that brilliant ox once say? “Love must needs precede hatred, for nothing is hated save through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved.”

Some equate love with non-violence, peace, passivity, and openness. Quite the opposite is the case. There is nothing more violent than love. In fact, most often it is love that commands brutality. Hate is the handmaiden of love. One should not be surprised that the love of a good face burnt Troy to the ground, and love for a good wife caused the downfall of Tarquin the Proud.

“Make love not war.” Oh no. “Make war, because of love.” This gives due honor to the story of mankind, and due fear to the ruthlessness of affection. What is truly foreign to love is not hatred, but aloofness—or, perhaps more accurately, equality.

The Laziness of Mere Solidarity

Let me illustrate. Suppose there is a certain man who is married to a certain lovely woman. Day in and day out he goes to work. They kiss at the door and he says “I love you.” Now suppose one day he comes home from work, and hears a sort of panicked screeching. He runs up the stairs and sees that his wife is beaten, bleeding, and being violently raped by some stranger. As he bursts in, the wife cries to him: “Save me! Darling!”

Solidarity looks a lot like love, but is much more lazy.

If he truly loves her, there is only one thing he will do: brutally murder his wife’s rapist. I may even posit that the more his love for her, the more torturous and rending the rapist’s demise.

Some may be high-minded, and say that they would not resort to violence, even in such a case. Such as these are not high-minded. They are liars, and not only liars, but cowards; and not only cowards, but sociopaths. Whatever they may be, they are not loving.

The fact that so many liberals do not perceive this obvious fact proves they have never loved anything in their entire lives. I detect that the average liberal is quite aware of this. It is why they are so enamored of “solidarity.” This looks a lot like love, but is much more lazy. In reality, it is merely a shadow of love; and the fact that the average progressive does not realize this is telling. “Solidarity” is the equivalent of looking at a poor soul on the streets of New York in the winter and saying, “Brr! Looks cold there!”

With this in view, it is always necessary, when one sees hate, to see what love it is based on, for it is always based on love.

Our Love Grows Cold

So Paris is attacked. What hate caused this? It was the love of Allah’s law, which gave rise to hatred for French lawlessness. The Nazis hated the mentally ill. Their love of sanitation gave rise to hatred of insanity. So a woman murders her cheating husband. It was because she so loved her faithful husband. It was never “hate” at all that prompted these acts of evil, but love—though love misplaced. The question then must be “Why do they love what is evil, and not what is good?” But hush, we must not speak of “good and evil.” This is the twenty-first century.

They strike us for the same reason bored hoodlums strike homeless people: because they know that, ultimately, no one will care.

I have heard from several quarters the absurd statement that ISIS “is trying to get us to hate” and that we must not give in, otherwise we are doing what they want us to do. This is preposterous. They do what they do because they are so certain we will not hate. If we did hate them because of this, we might very well destroy them.

Their terrorism fundamentally depends on the tepidness of our hearts. They know we have no particular love for our civilization, and that is why they can batter it without notice, or at least with only a token statement of meaningless and unbacked “solidarity.” They strike us for the same reason bored hoodlums strike homeless people: because they know that, ultimately, no one will care; at least not enough to do anything about it.

Some will think I am hot with madness for defending such a thing as hate, and I expect such ridicule. “There is ice in their laughter.”

But a question arises in my mind. If liberals have never loved anything before, then whence comes all the liberal rage, that unconditioned and diffuse hatred of so many undefined others and “-isms” which pervades the University of Missouri and Yale University and wherever else leftists aggregate? If there is such a hate, there must be some love. But love of what? Ah yes, I remember now. The love of self.

George Fields is a rather unimportant person who delights in unimportant things. Little is known about him. He currently resides in the Land of Cotton, since old times there are not forgotten.
Photo Shutterstock

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.