A note from Radarsite: I am resurrecting this older article in response to two current developments. The first is the report by Holger Awakens of the brutal murder of a defenseless female Western Aid Worker [in photo above] in Afghanistan by the Taliban.
The second reason is to respond to the avalanche of outraged and indignant liberal commenters to my October in New England article cross posted to Susan Duclos' fine Wake Up America website.
Basically, October in New England attempts to address the liberals adamant refusal to acknowledge the existential threats that confront us, or to accept the premise that an Obama presidency is one of the worst of these threats. Interwoven into this premise is a refutation of the liberal concept of tolerating the intolerant. This is the offending paragraph:
Then I see another little sign, tacked up on a telephone pole. An innocuous little sign, weather beaten and torn at the edges -- it's been up there for quite a while now. "No room in this town for hate" it reads. And I shudder to myself. This is the sign that advertises our vulnerabilities and our weaknesses. This is what makes this beautiful little town of mine so friendly and pleasant and so blind to the steady encroachment of that other less friendly reality. We have no room here for hate. And without hate we are vulnerable to those who hate us. We are, this sign proclaims, a community determined to be tolerant and just. We are fair-minded and trusting. We don't just welcome the Other into our midst,we eagerly embrace them. And if you are different than us, we say, if your culture is different than ours, and if your values are different from ours, no matter, we will embrace you just the same. Our survival is secondary to our tolerance.
Here is one response:
I don't know what Sharia law and socialism have to do with what Roger was warning against. Does he mean that these are evils and that only hatred can protect us from them?
This post reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently..."All Fanatics Must Be Killed" it said...Apart from the hysterical thinking behind the idea that a Democratic administration won't care about protecting America, or that the public sector's role in responsible regulation of the economy is somehow equivalent to Stalinism I would point out that hate is always the product of fear. I refuse to live in fear, and it frankly saddens me to see how many Americans have chosen to do otherwise.There is nothing courageous or noble or useful about hatred; being able to defend ourselves depends on courage, foresight and thoughtfulness while hatred brings blindness, paralysis and violence. I wish more Americans would forget their hatred and embrace courage.
And here is a short exchange with a commenter to that original article:
All hate is self hate.
Mr. Golyadkin 12.04.07 - 11:33 pm #
Sounds pretty catchy Mr. G., but it just ain't true.
Hate is not always some sort of psychological transference of a self-destructive impulse. It's not always a sign of moral sickness or weakness.
Hate is a legitimate emotion, like love or fear, and sometimes, under certain circumstances, it's quite appropriate. Sometimes, as I tried to point out in that article, it's even essential as a source of strength.
I'm sorry, but if an enemy hates you enough to want to kill you, and is attempting to do just that, clever words like yours just won't help us.
It would be wonderful to live in a world where hate was unnecessary, but I'm afraid we're not quite there yet. And until we are, hate is a weapon we still need in our arsenal. You can not win a battle against people you merely dislike; your lack of passion will be your downfall.
Save your pacifist wisdom for a battle against other pacifists. Against naked aggression your lofty sentiments are useless.
Roger W. Gardner Homepage 12.05.07 - 2:09 am #
This I believe has become a truly crucial topic, perhaps even more critical today than when this article was first written over a year ago. To put oneself in the position of promoting hatred, violence and war is certainly not a way of winning any popularity contests. But, unfortunately, the problems addressed in these essays are not just going to go away because we find them unpleasant to deal with; if anything, they have become even more pertinent and deadly.
At the very core of this monumental debate is the concept that we are presently in a war, a war for our very existence. If you still doubt the validity of this basic premise, if you still honestly believe that this recent Taliban murder of this innocent and defenseless young aid worker is just an aberration, an unfortunate episode that should be addressed as an isolated criminal act; that the proper response to this criminal act should be some form of formal diplomatic indignation; if you still believe that the threats posed to our nation by unchecked Muslim immigration and the slow, subtle but undeniable infiltration of sharia law into our American judicial system; and that the gradual Socialization of America and the accompanying inevitable loss of our national sovereignty are merely the twin bogeymen of right-winger conspiracies, then there is probably no point in reading further.
If, however, this particular Afghan murder of this particular young woman makes your blood boil and pushes you beyond outrage and indignation; if you see this great nation of ours slipping away from us; and all of the core values upon which this great and noble experiment was founded being eroded, undermined and displaced; if you feel, as I do, that within a very short span of time our national resolve will be tested in ways which today may be inconceivable; and that we are in so many ways increasingly vulnerable and imperilled, then please read on. - rg