The Laughing Wolf

A World Of Hate?

In the comments to this post below, Jack of Random Fate appears to raise the specter of hate in my works and apparently in the Blogosphere in general. For some time now, he has posted his thoughts on what he appears to feel is a growing wave of hate, and it appears to be his contention that many in the Blogosphere are supporting same. I doubt that this will reassure him in any way, for while he does raise some good points, it also appears that we have very different definitions of hate. Please be assured I do not hate the people of any nation. I have never done so, and do not plan to do so.

It would have been very easy to do, but as a child I had a lesson in this from my father. In a spark of 5-year-old spirit, I announced that I hated the Japanese, because they had killed my Uncle Foster in WWII. Dad sat me down, and explained that he did not blame the Japanese people as a whole, and why he did not even though he had helped fight them. That lesson stuck, and at no time since have I ever held the people of a nation as a group with hatred.

Have I hated, disliked, or even cordially loathed individuals? You bet your bippy I did and I do. Have I identified movements or groups within a nation as a target or thing for concern or action? Yes, I have and I will do so. For anyone who does not do this is a fool, and is destined to repeat history in very bad ways.

For example, I know from Jack’s site that the term Wahabism Delenda Est! appears to bother him greatly. He apparently sees it as a broad racial slur, rather than a statement of fact. I disagree with it on one level in that I think it should be Islamofascism Delenda Est! because I think that while Wahabism is a large part of the problem it is by far not all of it. It is the greater whole, the linking of various groups sharing a common ideology that demands a return to a 12th century idealized way of life, the destruction of almost all research and development, the elimination of all non-approved literature, the elimination of most music and art, and in short the elimination of Western Civilization that is a grave threat. They are an enemy, and they like any other fascist group or cause should be the enemy of anyone with half a brain.

Does this mean that I hate them? As a group no, on an individual level, yes. Does the need for avoiding even the appearance of hate mean that we should not identify those that do hate us and want to destroy us? No. We must do so, for we have a moral duty to identify such threats and to deal with them as needed.

Identification is not hate.

Calling for the elimination of a threat is not hate.

Killing those who would kill us is not hate.

These acts can be called many things, from regrettable to necessary, but they are not hate. Like all things, they can be misused, but with respect to Jack I think he is way off base on this. When John at Castle Argghhh! made his post, he was quite clear that what he was stating was a position based on fact. It was an identification of an enemy, it was a clarification of position, and it was a declaration of war on both the concept of moral equivalence and one of the root causes of modern Islamofascism. Pointing out a problem, and calling it for what it is, is NOT hate, racism, or any other PC doublespeak term. It may not pleasant or polite, but it is not hate. I point out to you and everyone else that at no time was a blanket pogrom called for: no nuke all Arabs, no kill all followers of Islam, but rather a call to wage total war against a targeted enemy who has sworn to destroy us and our way of life.

Nor have I ever called for the destruction of, or war against, the French people. I have no love of their government, but I know also that in France there are good, kind, and decent people in all walks of life just as there are in any other country. The fact is, that for those old enough to remember the war and its immediate aftermath there is a strong sense that America should be honored and thanked for what they did. They recognize the sacrifice because it was a part of their life. For those under 50, it is less so and if you look at recent surveys those under 30 feel essentially NO obligation or cause for thanks.

In large measure, this is because the war is not real to them, it was not a part of their life. It was never made a part of their life because if you check one of the most popular history texts in schools there, you might just find that only about two paragraphs are devoted to Normandy. They learn much more about how bad it was to live in the occupation and what came after, but very little about the war itself and most particularly the invasion.

Do I hate these children because they are, deliberately, being raised without knowledge of history? No. I pity them for that and because their government is selling them down the river on several levels. I would educate them and reach out to them, but never hate them.

Do I hate the government of France? That is a hard one to answer, for I hold it and its leaders in nothing short of utter contempt. I dislike the stated goals of said government, most especially its anti-American stance. It was not America who declared France an enemy of peace despite rampant corruption and open connivance with our enemies; no, instead it was the government of France that declared America an enemy of peace and acknowledged a strategy of containment against America. Is calling out the hatred of the leaders of France, of the corruption, of the connivance, of the determination to humble America so that France can once again be a world power hatred? Not hardly.

As for the specific item that I cited, it was one of dozens that could have been chosen. Some were from the street, and some unconscionable insults were from members of the French government. What would have been the reaction if members of the U.S. Government had tried to muzzle a visiting French dignitary in the same way as was directed at Bush? Is it hatred to point these things out, to let the institutions and individuals within those institutions show themselves for what they are? Not hardly.

Do I hate the people of France? Not hardly. Does this mean that I will not work to make changes in our policy and our thought to reflect the reality that the government of France is openly and profoundly anti-American? Not hardly. By tackling this now, we can avoid worse problems to come, for there are many types of appeasement. Appeasement never works, but education does. I would rather see efforts now that might not be pleasant, but educational for all sides, than to see true hatred and true bigotry come into being.

Calling something for what it is, is not hatred. Doing something about a problem need not be hatred. Failing to call something for what it is and failing to do something about it is self-hatred, and self-defeating. I have no wish to fall into that trap, nor do I wish to fall into the trap of hatred. I will tell all readers now that if you feel that honesty and action are hatred, then do not read in the days ahead. For I will be making recommendations, and I will assure you now that they do not come from the heat of anger. Rather, they come from the cold of logic, and the warmth of hope that understandings can be reached before circumstances make things inevitable and irrevocable.