Thursday, December 20, 2007

This Careful Generation

Published by Wake Up America - December 15, 2007
"What can I say except thank you for speaking the truth."
-- Susan Duclos (Spree)


This, my friends, in case you haven’t noticed, is a very careful generation. In fact, I've lived in this wonderful country of ours for a little over seven decades now, and this is without a doubt the most “careful” generation that I have ever had the misfortune to live amongst. Somehow we have managed to become the most careful people in the world, maybe the most careful people in history. We live in constant fear that we might inadvertently say something truthful that might offend someone, somewhere. We’ve learned to call this pervasive state of denial Political Correctness. But is it really Political Correctness, or is it something else?

I ask myself, is this present pacifistic crop of Chamberlainesque appeasers really being “careful” of other people‘s feelings, or merely being cowardly? Are all of our so-called PCisms truly demonstrations of our consideration for others, or are they rather an expression of our fear of others? Are we avoiding confrontation with those who threaten our lives and our culture out of kindness and tolerance, or are we just desperately trying to avoid that confrontation? Are we perhaps concerned that we might just antagonize our antagonists even more by naming them? Are we hoping to avoid the inevitable nastiness of these confrontations by hiding behind this intricately-wrought screen of euphemisms called Political Correctness?

When you think about it, isn’t this really that same old weasely logic that in the 1950s induced us to call a Jew “someone of the Jewish persuasion”? As though they had somehow been persuaded to become a Jew. Isn’t this just the latest manifestation of that same old hypocritical crap? Did we also talk about “someone of the Christian persuasion” in the 1950s? I don’t think so.

In short, this is nothing all that new, it’s that old familiar circuitous obfuscation that wouldn’t allow us to call a Jew a Jew. Why? Would a Jew be offended to be called a Jew? Hardly. Every Jew I’ve ever known was proud to be a Jew. Could it be perhaps that we found that word so offensive that we could hardly bring ourselves to say it? Were these semantic acrobatics really evidence of our consideration for others or evidence of that intransigent American brand of anti-Semitism? Was this an example of some early form of Political Correctness in action? Or are we really talking about something else here. Something a little bit easier to understand, but something too awful to actually put it into words. Something called the truth.

Well, I’m going to get a lot of people pissed off right now -- or at least I‘m going to give it a good try. You see, I’m getting sick and tired of being careful. I don’t know how the hell I ever let them talk me into all this bullshit in the first place.

This all started when I read that incredible little article, which I’m sure you’ve all heard about by now, about that Santa school Down Under that instructed their student Santas to no longer say “ho-ho-ho”, because it had a double meaning in the American Black Community, and that some people might find it offensive.


My God, what have we become? We stand by meekly and watch as our wonderful English language becomes increasingly denigrated and devalued, we allow the primitive animalistic gruntings of our Black Inner City Gangsta Rap, pants-falling-off-the-butt “culture” to infiltrate and diminish almost every aspect of our lives: our music, our movies, our television, our sports, the way our kids act and dress -- and now we’re going to tell our Santa Clauses not to say “ho-ho-ho” because it too closely resembles that Gangsta Rap word for “whore”?

Wait a minute. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?
Who are the folks here who should be offended?

After that, I read another article that purported to be an investigation into the causes of the enormous increase in the murder rate in one of our largest East Coast cities -- actually, two articles written explicitly to address this single major problem. However, throughout the entire two articles, not one mention was made of what had actually happened to this city. Not one single reference to the fact that this wildly escalating crime rate just happened to correspond to the most catastrophic societal upheaval in that city’s four-hundred year history. Not only did the articles not even mention these irrefutable truths, but somehow the author ingeniously avoided mentioning that any racial changes had taken place there at all. If someone didn’t know the actual facts of the city in question they would be left to surmise that the city had just suddenly started becoming more criminal for no apparent reason. This, my friends, is what currently passes for Political Correctness. But is it?

Here’s what happened: the Inner City turned Black and the crime rate soared.

Sorry, but that’s what happened.

And I really am sorry; because it was my city of origin that was the subject of these counterfeit articles. I was born and brought up there.

And this Black murder rate in this Black Inner City is a Black problem, not a White problem. These Inner City Black Gangstas are not selling crack because their great-great-grandmothers were slaves. And that disingenuous author who so adroitly skirted the most obvious by never once mentioning race, by referring to “these people and their drug problems” would have had that same delicate problem back in the 1950s calling a Jew a Jew.

The murder of young Black males by other young Black males in the Black Inner Cities is a Black problem and can only be solved by Blacks. Blacks who are willing to be honest with themselves. Blacks who are getting sick and tired of that criminal-worshipping, female-degrading, drive-by shooting, Gangsta Rap drug world of self-destruction. Blacks who are willing to listen to those honest and tough love messages of respected Black people like Bill Cosby, and even from those unapologetic liberals, like Juan Williams. Blacks who are willing to accept responsibility for their own lives and want to quit blaming everything on the Whites, who finally have the courage to disassociate themselves from those so-called Black Leaders, like Al Sharpton and that extortionist Jesse Jackson, who are nothing more than enablers, living off the suffering of others. Offering their followers that same old false comfort of self-pity and victimization by perpetuating the myth of White subjugation.

By pretending that this is still a White problem, that only White people are smart enough to fix it, those delusional liberals are only making matters worse. It’s trying to cure the alcoholic’s problem by telling him he has good reason to drink. And it just ain’t gonna work.

So, what are we really talking about here? Blacks? Jews? Racism? Anti-Semitism? No, we’re still talking about Political Correctness -- or perhaps, more precisely, that same old cowardly dis ingenuousness in it’s latest disguise? A problem we’ve been wrestling with throughout that whole tumultuous course of human history. It’s called moral integrity. Some people simply call it honesty.

Now, before all you liberals out there rush to get your ammunition and start bombarding me with those familiar epithets of Racist and Bigot, just answer this one simple question. If we are afraid to even identify a problem, how the hell can we expect to fix it? If no one can even address these issues for fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then tell me how we are going to discuss the issues? With obsequious code words like “these people and their drug problems“? For God’s sake, what people are we talking about? The Swedes? The Chinese?

If the Chinese people were the major contributing factor to the rise of the crime rates in most of our major cities, then we should most certainly be able to acknowledge this fact and try to do something about it. But it isn’t the Chinese people who are causing these terrible Inner City problems, is it? And it isn’t always the Blacks. Sometimes it’s the Mexicans, and sometimes it’s somebody else. But, if we ever hope to do anything about these enormous and growing problems, we had better learn how to talk about them honestly. And have the courage to say who it is we are really talking about.

We have, it seems, traded our language of truth for some weak-kneed second-rate vocabulary of denial; and, most unfortunate of all, some of us are actually pleased with this ignoble transaction. They call it progressive; I call it regressive. They call it Political Correctness; I call it cowardice.

Right now, during this very special season, when a television commercial entices us into thinking about buying a brand new Lincoln for our lover, while adroitly managing to circumvent that contentious word “Christmas”, substituting it with that inept and meaningless word “Holiday”, are these car manufacturers sincerely interested in promoting cultural inclusiveness, or just afraid of the ACLU? Is this just one more example of this new-fangled ideology called Political Correctness? Or is it just that same old-fashioned cowardice hiding its ugly head?

We are losing our national nerve. We live in constant fear. We are afraid of being sued, afraid of being attacked, afraid of being disliked, and we are afraid of being called names. Fear has infiltrated every area of our lives and corrupted our ability to be effective as a people, as a nation. We are even afraid to admit that we are afraid. We are even becoming afraid to be patriotic Americans.

The school board who lifts the Lord’s Prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance from that unfortunate school’s curriculum isn’t doing this out of some high-minded noble concept of inclusiveness -- they’re afraid of being sued by some loathsome Dr. Newdow (described by one enthusiastic atheist as “…one of the greatest heroes in the war against religious demagogues”).

To attempt to hide this blatant cowardice behind some shining shield of Political Correctness is a lie which we can no longer ignore, and which we can no longer afford to tolerate.

When we choose to refer to our brave Israeli ally’s ongoing attempts to protect their tiny nation from that continuous generational onslaught from their vicious and hate-filled neighbors and their brutal suicide-bombers as an “Arab/Israeli conflict”, rather than calling it what it is -- "The Arab War Against Israel” -- are we not demonstrating to the world our unconscionable lack of moral fiber? Did we refer to that WWII horror show in the Pacific as some morally-neuter “Japanese/American Conflict”? Hell no.

If I get stopped by a cop for driving without a license, will he let me go if I explain that what I’m doing isn’t really illegal, that I’m really just an undocumented driver? We have become so accustomed to navigating through the perils of this world using these subtle subterfuges and lies we no longer even notice them.

On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by nineteen Muslim terrorists. They left final testaments clearly explaining their motivations for committing this horrendous crime against humanity. They wanted to kill the Infidels. And they killed 2,987 innocent people that day -- and we have still not managed to conjure up the political will to profile Muslim men at our airports.

Does anyone still believe that this is truly an expression of Political Correctness, our good-hearted and sincere efforts to avoid offending anyone of a different faith or race? Or is this just one more instance of a government and an industry caving in to fear. The fear of being sued by CAIR or their faithful ally, the ACLU.

While Islamic leaders worldwide exhort their eager followers to kill the Infidel, and describe this monumental struggle with unabashed clarity as a War of Islam against the West, of Muslims against Infidels, our own president very carefully describes this same militant religion as a "religion of Peace". We console ourselves with the comforting illusion that what we are really up against in this so-called War on Terror is just a small fanatical minority who have hijacked a "peaceful religion". We ignore all information to the contrary, no matter what its source, no matter how valid. Islam has declared War on the West but, none the less, we must be very careful not to offend any Muslims. They might think we're racists. CAIR might sue us. Jimmy Carter might get upset.

Somehow, my friends, before it really is too late, we have to come out from behind our warm and fuzzy euphemisms and have the courage to confront this world that‘s really there, not the one we wished was there. We can no longer blame our dishonorable inaction on Political Correctness. For, when all is said and done, our so-called PC culture is nothing but another form of cowardice. And this cowardice is not only never going to allow us to solve any of our problems, it’s going to get us killed.

Comments cross posted from Wake Up America:


Anyway, great piece! I betcha it will go over like a turd in the Baptistery!

"...It�s trying to cure the alcoholic�s problem by telling him he has good reason to drink. And it just ain�t gonna work..."

Excellent analogy!
Snooper | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 4:08 am | #


Tis remnds me of a few years ago when D.C. Mayor forced a white city worker to retire because in a report, he used the word "niggardly."

While it may resemble the hated "n" word, the defintion, Grudging and petty in giving or spending, has nothng to do with race.

I also recall while in Germany, the Blacks were up in arms because hte German word for them was "Niger," taken from Nigeria. Although it has no derogatory connations, they demanded to be known as "Schwarz's" instead, the German word for "Black."

I wonder what ever happe3ned to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me?"
LewWaters | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 5:36 am | #


is always a pleasure when I find
a good article like this one
telling the truth
an reasoning the stupid way of humans
to try to put a race over another
names can never hurt but can make me laugh
Jeyc | 12.15.07 - 7:53 am | #


You hit one out of the park again Roger.

What can I say except thank you for speaking the truth.
Spree | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 10:42 am | #


Roger, that is awesome. You hit the nail on the head my friend.
I sure can't add anything to what you said, it's so truthful & refreshing to hear that.
Thank you dear.
Cassie | 12.15.07 - 2:09 pm | #


Great article and I agree with you completely. One question we need to ask ourselves is: "Who are the Americans that are pushing this PC crap?" The answer is NOT Conservatives or Republicans, it is majority Liberals.

All the more reason to keep them OUT of positions where they can influence laws in this land.

Vote Republican.
Debbie | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 3:31 pm | #


This is a wonderful article. Very well said and very courageous! I loved this: "If I get stopped by a cop for driving without a license, will he let me go if I explain that what I�m doing isn�t really illegal, that I�m really just an undocumented driver?
Faultline USA | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 3:48 pm | #


Thank you all for your wonderful comments. Once again I am pleasantly surprised by your enthusiastic reactions to my controversial essays.

I'm still waiting for those "racist" remarks. Not that I really miss them, but it's a little like waiting for that other shoe to drop. LOL

Thanks for your invaluable support.
Roger G.
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 12.15.07 - 10:51 pm | #


What a great read and one of my favorite topics. Straight talk is a lost art but rude words and behavior remain, well, rude. For example, most folks here and in private conversation speak clearly when they say "illegal alien." But when they're in a library or waiting room, many still tend to whisper it or use different words. Pushin' 70, I'm retraining myself to speak loud and clear any words that best describe my meaning, unless they actually cause harm. And I mean more harm than just to feelings. We all fear being rude and causing harm but the limits now are too great. Another pet peeve of mine is the liberal mandate that our military execute measured response. To me, the politically correct mandate merely ensures a tie and that's more infuriating than the softening up of our culture. Apologies for the ramble, it's late. Thanks for the read.
Tom2 | 12.16.07 - 12:26 am | #


Roger,you hit this one outta the park. You have clarified the turgid waters of American political discourse, which has become a turd tank.

I could be in error, but I interpreted "Jewish persuasion" and similar expressions as a sarcastic rebellion against p.c.
Ben | Homepage | 12.16.07 - 6:09 am | #


Thanks Ben. That's an interesting take on that little phrase. But I still remember how difficult it was -- still is to some people -- to say that loaded word JEW.
I'm afraid I had a good dose of inherited anti-Semitism, but fortunately I got out of that Wasp nest at the tender age of seventeen and moved to the Big Apple. It didn't take me very long to realize that virtually all of my cultural heroes and heroines were Jews -- almost all of the major forces in classical music, literature, art and the movies were Jews. Whatever vestiges of anti-Semitism I still might have had left over were quickly destroyed when I found out that my fantasy dream lover, Lauren Bacall was Jewish.
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 12.16.07 - 3:07 pm |

Comments cross posted from Faultline USA:
Mark In Irvine said...
I disagree with you about the religion question, but otherwise this is a very good post. Very articulate. Thanks.
Tue Dec 18, 10:25:00 AM 2007
Faultline USA said...
Roger I agree with you. There is a "pervasive state of denial" running rampant in this country. Unless ended, this will be our eventual undoing. Great article.

Cross posted by Faultline USA - December 16,2007

Crossposted to Chron Watch Forum - December 15, 2007

Transposted by The Huffington Post - December 15, 2007
C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\My Documents\Wake Up America\Al Sharpton - The Huffington Post - This Careful Generation.mht

Recommended reading by Right Truth - December 16, 2007

Memeorandum Featured Post - December 16, 2007

There's My Two Cents - December 18, 2007

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Sleeping With The Bombers

Published by Faultline USA - December 18, 2007
"Even small children can see the problems."
-- Debbie Hamilton - Right Truth


It was Christmas, 1944. We, my mother and father and I, lived in a great big house in a quiet little town outside of Philadelphia. My father was what you might call a “successful man” with a very important job. I always knew this by the way he walked, and by the way he’d clear his throat before speaking, as though he were preparing to address the Chamber of Commerce. His job, he would attempt to explain, was selling stocks and bonds. My earliest conception of stocks and bonds was that they were some sort of disciplinary equipment used in penal institutions. Later, I discovered, with some disappointment, that they were only paper. My father sold paper. Why this should have made him any more important than Fat Herbie’s father who was a postman, with a really impressive uniform, who delivered paper, I could not understand. But every Christmas, when we visited them, the almost reverential awe with which he was greeted soon convinced me that -- whether I understood it or not -- my father’s job must be very important.

These Christmas trips to New Jersey to visit my mother’s relatives were one of the two highlights of the year -- the other being our annual two-week summer vacation trip to Atlantic City. For my mother, these holiday visits were an emotional and sometimes tearful reunion, for me they were an adventure, and for my father they served as validation of his lofty status as a “successful man”, the opportunity to bask for a time in the respectful admiration of his in-laws.

So, every Christmas morning, after all the presents had been opened and we’d had our breakfast in the Breakfast Room, my father would load up the trunk of his big Buick with all the “New Jersey presents”; my mother would get all dressed up, wrapping herself self-consciously in her elegant new fur; and I would attempt to get every one of my new toys into the back seat of that big black sedan. This would of course precipitate a confrontation with my father, until, finally, after much pouting and stamping of feet, a compromise of sorts would be arranged: I would have to settle for a half dozen of my most valuable acquisitions.

That year, I recall, my most valuable acquisition was a gas mask. An authentic, regulation, U.S. Army gas mask. The mask was made of heavy-duty rubber and attached to the head by means of adjustable rubber straps. The front piece consisted of two large goggles, a strange projecting cylinder for the mouth, and two metal canisters, one protruding from each cheek. I wore the mask from the time we left home until the time we reached New Jersey. I fancied that it gave me a certain imposing presence, sinister and mysterious. In reality, I imagine that I must have looked rather like some overgrown, olive-drab insect. The taut elastic pull of the rubber straps hurt my skin, and the stale musty air that filtered through the canisters eventually gave me a headache. But this was a small price to pay for being so completely self-contained in such a formidable disguise.

This was probably the quietest trip to New Jersey that we ever made. I sat in the back seat in proud, impenetrable silence, thoroughly immersed in my new role as The Mysterious Stranger, content to watch the world sailing by my portholes and listening to the enormous sound of my own breathing as it echoed through the metal chambers. Whenever we’d stop at some busy intersection, I’d press my goggles up against the window in the hope of startling some innocent passerby. My mother, with that typical neurotic adult anxiety, would make me take the mask off every now and then, fearing, I suppose, that I might somehow suffocate. Adults, it seemed, had this uncanny ability to always spoil a good thing.

Like any true adventure, these trips served to broaden my perspective on the world. As we drove out from the suburbs of Philadelphia, out through Germantown, and Willow Grove, through Ambler and Hatboro and Fort Washington, the towns got smaller and smaller, until we reached the low, desolate farmlands of Bucks County -- long, monotonous stretches of somber black woods and snow-covered pastures, interspersed here and there by some lonely and dilapidated farmhouse with a refrigerator on the front porch and some old abandoned truck, rusting away in the front yard, half-buried in the snow.

And I might dimly recall my father’s words, when he’d admonish me to “count your blessings” and remind me that I was a “fortunate little man”. And, sometimes I believed him. For I could see through my goggles that not everyone lived in a seventeen-room house with a butler’s pantry and a maid, or cruised through the countryside in a sleek black Buick.

Our arrival in East Orange would precipitate yet another confrontation with my father -- I, quite naturally, expected to greet them all in my gas mask. My father, however, was adamant, clearing his throat, he launched into one of those long meaningless discourses on the subject of propriety: I could not wear my gas mask. To me, this was both cruel and unfair. I think that I suspected, even then, that my feelings about my gas mask were precisely the same as his feelings about his Buick.

When we’d finally pull up to Aunt Lilly’s -- that little white insubstantial clapboard house at the foot of Mount Pleasant Avenue -- the whole family would come tumbling out to greet us -- except for Uncle Duke, who’d stroll out leisurely in his tall tranquil way, still wearing his crumpled old gray uniform and casually puffing his ever-present pipe.

Aunt Lily was short, fat and jolly, low to the ground like a barrel. She had bright, mischievous little eyes, an infectious smile, and strong chubby little arms that hugged you like a bear. Uncle Duke was tall and lanky, with a slow, deliberate Gary Cooper drawl. They had three boys: Fat Herbie, who was built just like his mother (but without that infectious smile); he was about my age. Neat Albert was a couple of years older and considerable slimmer and -- unlike Fat Herbie, whose worn-out flannel shirt always hung out over the seat of his pants and whose socks seldom matched -- he was always neatly put together. Tall Jack, their oldest boy, was away at the War -- that wonderfully explicit contest between Good and Evil which we called the Second World War. He was, of course, our hero (late at night, in Herbie’s room, where we slept beneath squadrons of P-38s and Flying Fortresses suspended, almost invisibly, from the ceiling, we’d lie awake and estimate the probable number of Japs he’d wiped out that day).

Herbie’s house was tiny and warm and -- unlike our house, whose rooms seemed so remote from one another, where a sound would echo as in a marble mausoleum -- it was filled with the sounds of laughter and the heady smell of homemade oatmeal.

Later that day, the rest of mother’s relatives would arrive -- vivacious Aunt Charlotte with her latest conquest, Ells; my favorite, always dapper Uncle Bill and his humorless “girlfriend”, Marge; and Uncle Bob and Aunt Mabel and their precocious, self-absorbed and excruciatingly beautiful eleven year old daughter Amy.

But we, the visiting dignitaries, invariably held the center of the stage, and, rising to the level of their admiration, we performed our respective roles with remarkable conviction. We exuded confidence and charm -- my mother, so tall and lovely, with those wistful sea-blue eyes and her flowing auburn hair; my father, so stolid and sure in his impeccable pin-striped suit; and me, all scrubbed and clean in my Sunday Best, with my well-polished shoes and my well-polished manners. We were the personifications of Good Fortune, the living embodiment of the American Dream, descending once a year from the mythic realms of our respectable prosperity.

Like the illusive fragments of a half-forgotten dream, the grim truths of our lives -- those violent late-night arguments over my father’s alleged “affairs”; my mother’s mysterious “spells”; the fact that I was becoming sullen and remote and not doing very well at school -- all these sordid memories seemed obscure and faraway, like sorrowful ghosts we had left behind to brood through the empty rooms of that great dark house. And I began to sense between the three of us a certain warmth, a rare cohesiveness, an unprecedented unity of purpose, as though we had formed a secret pact and, bound by some unarticulated code of loyalty and discretion, we protected each other with innumerable sins of omission.

While Herbie and I went up to his room to examine each other’s new toys (mine were always more expensive, while his always seemed more interesting), the men would all sit around the living room discussing the merits of father’s Buick or soliciting his opinion on the progress of the War and its effect on the market; while the women would all congregate in the kitchen gathering around my mother, ooohing and aahing over her latest Christmas fur, discussing -- whatever it was that women discussed.

These precious days flew by in a dizzying blur of frenetic activity -- visiting, exchanging presents, exploring the backyards of East Orange with Herbie, until, all too soon, it would be time to leave. After one last supper in Aunt Lily’s warm little kitchen, my father would pack up the Buick, we’d make our goodbyes, and we’d be on our way.

The journey home was always quieter and less optimistic than the trip out had been. If, in some unspoken way, these Christmas visits were intended to be a reaffirmation of our familial success, then, in some unspoken way, they failed --
the only thing they seemed to reaffirm was the hopeless isolation of our loneliness. Oh, my mother had her furs, and I had my toys, and my father had his stocks and bonds and Buicks; but we never had each other, not the way that they did; and we envied them.

I envied them their little cardboard house, so filled with love and people it seemed about to burst; and I yearned for a brother, a glorious hero like Tall Jack. Or even a little unobtrusive one like Neat Albert. Why, to alleviate my loneliness I would have even settled for Fat Herbie -- in spite of his occasional bullying.

And that serious little man behind the wheel, the intrepid pilot of that lonesome craft, he yearned, oh yes, he yearned. My father yearned for an orderly life with a more orderly wife; a more grateful wife who’d respect his position and appreciate her good fortune; a simpler wife whom he could please and understand; a happier wife who -- in spite of all the doctors -- wouldn’t keep slipping away, sinking deeper every year into that dark, unfathomable melancholy. And my mother, my poor fragile mother. For her the furs were never enough and the seventeen rooms were too much. Life was a burden of sorrows, and she yearned, she yearned for something my father could never give her, she yearned for it all to end.

And so we passed once again through that dark oppressive silence of our private discontents until, for no apparent reason, my mother would burst into tears. My father would clear his throat but offer nothing -- he had learned by now not to ask her what was wrong, for even if she knew, she wouldn’t answer.

Sporadically illuminated by the passing lights, my abandoned gas mask huddled in the shadows on the seat across from me, like some poor deflated octopus, its two great lifeless eyes fixed on me with a forlorn and vacant stare.

In 1945, I turned ten years old; and in that year the population of my little world decreased by one. The Great War ended, but Tall Jack never came home; his awesome presence transformed forever into a small photograph that sat silently on their mantle, surrounded by all the carefully polished medals that he’d won for running, and jumping, and dying.

Oh, we still made the annual Christmas trips to New Jersey, but they were never quite the same. Good, sweet Aunt Lilly still laughed and smiled, but sometimes I noticed, when she’d be in the kitchen washing dishes, she’d suddenly stop, her hands forgotten, lost in the suds, and just stand there looking strangely empty and confused. And long, laconic Uncle Duke seemed older now and even quieter than ever, sitting for hours in his big easy chair beneath the mantle, smoking his pipe in a deep, ruminative silence.

These are some of my Christmas memories, which are, like some of yours, I would surmise, joyous, troubled, poignant and dear.

Comments transposted from Faultline USA:
Debbie said...

Oh Roger, what a story. I know it's your personal story, but it could have been written by so many of us.

Your New Jersey family all probably wished they were in your place, with the big car, big house, furs for your mother. But they had no idea (or many some of them did), how unhappy your family was.

Money and goods can never take the place of happiness, peace and contentment. Even small children can see the problems.

Christmas and other holidays can be a very depressing time for even the most stable folks. Many of us remember family members that have died during the holidays.

Thanks for sharing.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
Tue Dec 18, 04:45:00 PM 2007
Roger W. Gardner said...

Thank you so much Deb. This comment of yours is particularly important to me. I've really been concerned that this was not really the appropriate venue for such an article, that it was perhaps too personal and reflective, a little too "literary".

But, so far, the reactions have been pretty good.

I can only hope that my piece doesn't seem relentlessly bleak and pessimistic. Personally, I am neither. I remain very positive and optimistic, and, fortunately, I've had many beautiful and loving Christmasses filled with unadulterated joy.

However, in it's own peculiar way, Christmastime can be quite intimidating to many of us. It almost presupposes an ideal time of love and joy spent amongst some ideal all-American Norman Rockwell family -- a lofty and unrealistic ideal that few of us can ever seem to live up to.

The older I get the more I see how many of us suffered by comparing our own all too human and imperfect families to this unblemished Saturday Evening Post world of make-believe.

Sometimes we come close, but there always seems to be some nagging familial flaw lurking in the shadows -- some uncle with a drinking problem, some kid in trouble with the law, some marriage heading for the rocks.

None the less, believe it or not, Christmas is my absolute favorite holiday of all. Even that particular Christmas, as flawed as it was by family and war, remains in my memory a sacred treasure of a bygone era, with sacred memories of people whom I loved and who loved me, and who are now long gone.

Thank you so much Deb, for not making me feel foolish for having posted this rather unusual and personal essay.

Merry, merry Christmas, my good friend! And many more of them!
your friend,
Tue Dec 18, 06:11:00 PM 2007
Faultline USA said...

Dear Roger:
I’m so sorry that I wasn’t here yesterday to read your Christmas story. What a story! You drew me into your world and I wanted so much to keep reading about your life and family. It wasn’t bleak or pessimistic but so very honest! Our memories of Christmas are always such a mixed bag. Perhaps, that why we, like your father and mother, struggle so hard to put on those lights every Christmas. Now Roger, please, please keep writing about your memories!
Wed Dec 19, 08:32:00 AM 2007
Cyber Pastor said...

Roger, I think stories like yours draw us into our own memories of days gone by, and Christmas seems like a logical place for those memories to return to.

Many, people suffer, as did your mother, through the Christmas season. What should be a glorious and happy time of the year is just another "reminder" of what "real life" holds.

Roger, if you have encouraged one person with this fine piece of writing to reflect in a positive way on their past, or to "face" something they needed to revisit, then your job was done!

Great work my friend!
Wed Dec 19, 11:08:00 AM 2007
Cross posted to ChronWatch Forum - December 19, 2007

Sunday, December 9, 2007

An announcement to my visitors

Beginning November 25, 2007, I will be contributing to Susan Duclos' great conservative website Wake Up America.

I also post at ChronWatch Reader's Forum:
Previously, I had been writing for Political Grind.

Thanks for stopping by,
Roger W. Gardner

The Golden Key

Published by Wake Up America - December 7, 2007
"Jihad is Islam's "highest peak", it's reason for existing."
-- Benjamin C. Powell, Jr.

Reposted by request March 13, 2008.

Moderate Muslims. We search for this mysterious and illusive species as fervently and hopefully as we search for life on other planets. We have set up high-tech listening posts all around the world in the hope of retrieving a single signal from them. Any small message at all, even the most fragmentary sign that would prove their existence. There is, we have been told, good reason to believe that they're out there, but unfortunately so far we've been unable to substantiate this belief.

However, these disheartening results have in no way diminished our enthusiasm for this worthy project, or caused us to lose confidence in the probability of its eventual success. We just keep listening and hoping.

These Moderate Muslims, we have been advised, are the Golden Key to winning this War on Terror -- or more precisely, this Islamic War against the West. It is to them we must turn to solve these intractable problems. Because, our experts have assured us, the problems inherent in Islam can only be resolved from within Islam, by those ephemeral and semi-mythical MMs. Only they have the moral authority to redefine the tenets of Islam and set it on its new course. But unfortunately so far we have been unable to substantiate this belief.

However, these disheartening results have in no way diminished our enthusiasm for this worthy project, or caused us to lose confidence in the probability of its eventual success. We just keep on listening and hoping.

Meanwhile, our brave American warriors are at this very moment confronting this ruthless Islamic menace all over the world, most particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, through their professionalism and their courage and their daily sacrifices, they have achieved some remarkable successes.

But here on the home front we are still in turmoil. Here, we are in the real quagmire, still bogged down in that never-ending, and seemingly-hopeless battle of legalistic semantics. We are still stuck in those preliminary stages of attempting to define the enemy. While our heroic soldiers are fighting and dying on the battlefield, we at home are still in the process of trying to precisely determine who it is we are fighting.

We are NOT, we have been repeatedly admonished by our highest authorities, at war with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. We are certainly not at war with all of those good peaceful Muslims all over the world. And we are most definitely not at war with those Moderate Muslims. They, in fact, are our stalwart allies in this war, which is really just a war against extremism, against just another form of religious fanaticism, kind of like a Middle Eastern version of the KKK.

We have gone to great lengths to get this message out there to the world, we want the world to understand: We are NOT at war with Islam. We take great care to make clear-cut distinctions between those good Muslims and those bad Muslims. And we want those good Muslims around the world and in our midst to clearly understand our position. You have nothing to fear from us, we promise you. We honor your religion and your right to practice it.

In short, if you're a Moderate Muslim you have nothing to fear from us.

But, now, what about those Moderate Infidels?

Surely there must be some Moderate Infidels out there. I wonder, are those eminent religious leaders, those wise and all-powerful imams and mullahs busily engaged in that laborious process of making those important distinctions between those Moderate Infidels and those Fanatical Infidels, whom they are fighting daily on their battlefields? Are they carefully separating out all those good Infidels from those bad Infidels? Are they perhaps bogged down in some moral quagmire of their own?

When they attacked us on 9/11, did they make certain that those killed in the attacks would only be those bad Infidels?

To expect to be saved by these mysterious Moderate Muslims, by their somehow rejecting the fundamental tenets of Islam, rejecting those perfect divine pronouncements of the Prophet, is as foolhardy and hopeless as expecting a Christian to reform Christianity by denying the teachings of Christ, or expecting a Jew to reform Judaism by denying the Torah.

It just ain't gonna happen.

I'm sorry folks, but the time for gentlemanly debate has long passed, it's time to wake up, before it's too late. Our enemy has clearly and repeatedly defined this battle for us, even though our political leaders have yet to find the courage to do so. For our enemy the issues are clear-cut and straight-forward: it is simply a battle of Islam against the Infidels.

We must finally accept them at their word and fight the fight that's there, not the fight we'd rather fight. WE are our only salvation. No one else. Not the British. Not the Australians. Not the Europeans. Not even those brave Israelis.

And certainly not those semi-legendary Moderate Muslims.

Comments cross posted from Wake Up America:
I have done a few posts every time Moderates stand up and speak out but it doesn't happen often enough.

If for no other reason than to protect the integrity of their religion for those that live it peacefully, they need to speak out loudly and consistently.
Spree Homepage 12.07.07 - 9:55 pm #

Muslims may be moderate, but Islam is not. Islam is malevolent, malicious, mercenary & militant.

Ask yer moderate Muslim if he accepts or rejects Al- Taubah 29. Fight those who... until... . Its a yes/no question with no middle ground. Either Allah commanded his slaves to attack Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and extorted or he did not. There is no relief valve; no bypass.

A person who embraces Islam yet hates offensive warfare suffers from irreconcilable cognitive dissonance.

Open Reliance of the Traveler to Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 8 and read. What does the Caliph do, to whom and why. Al-Shafi'i & al-Ghazali have answered how often: at least once each year.

Allah's word is final and perfect; it can not change nor be edited. Since Moe exemplified it,it can not be reinterpreted.

Islam must be eliminated. Lets get started.
Ben Homepage 12.08.07 - 1:03 am #
The 'moderate' muslim is the one that will stand by and let the True muslim do the dirty work of the koran for him- just like the Germans stood by in the 30s and let the Nazis do what they wanted, in hopes of getting past all that ugliness and getting to the better life afterwards.

Too bad for them that means hundreds of millions dead. Just ain't gonna be the Kufr dying.
otter 12.08.07 - 5:25 am #
An excellent article Roger. Otter makes an excellent point. Like Spree, I also make a point of posting when Moderate Muslims speak up. Those posts are very few I'm sorry to say.
Debbie Homepage 12.08.07 - 1:56 pm #
Exactly Debbie, I TRULY appreciate every moderate Muslim that speaks up, some knowing the risk to themselves, but the stories are few and far between.

I still say, even if they don't want to get into the political realm of it, they should speak up to defend their religion because many do practice it peacefully.
Spree Homepage 12.08.07 - 2:44 pm #
but spree, if they are "practicing peacefully" than according to the tenets of their religion they are not practicing it at all and are at least as vile as the infidels...
heidianne jackson Homepage 12.08.07 - 3:21 pm #
Heidianne, they can not practice Jihad peacefully.

Jihad is Islam's "highest peak", its reason for existing. By Jihad, Moe was made wealthy and acquired power. That's what its all about.

Jihad may be performed with one's life and property(by the sword), with one's tongue and pen (propaganda & agitation) with the heart( salat) or with one's wealth(financing Jihad). In any case, the outcome is dead or enslaved Kuffar. The means do not justify the ends; neither do the ends justify the means.

Let us live as freemen, with our bodies & property intact, without chains or fetters; without masters. They will not permit it, which leaves us one choice. Induce mass apostasy or mass subduction into Hellfire. Which will it be?
Ben Homepage 12.08.07 - 4:15 pm #
I too agree with Otter. And I agree with that WWII analogy -- even though some people say that they're getting tired of hearing them. Tough. If they work, they work. And, like it or not, we are reliving some of the same mistakes we made back then.

To me, the issue comes down to this: again using the 1930s Germans -- The German people had ample opportunity to denounce Adolf Hitler, but many (indeed, most) chose not to, some for the reasons Otter suggests. Even after he came into power in 1933, there were still those "decent Germans" who were morally or politically opposed to him.

But there soon came a time when their "opposition" became a moot point. After GERMANY started invading its neighbors, the world had to respond, and -- somewhat belatedly -- it did.

But, it must be remembered, the Allies weren't just at war with the Nazis; we were at war with Germany. And, unfortunately, there was no longer any time -- or indeed any will -- to try to separate out those "Moderate Nazis", or those "Good Germans" from the rest.

The Nazis may have started the war, but ultimately it was Germans who had to be fought and beaten -- unconditionally.
The time for subtle distinctions had passed.

I'm afraid we're facing some of these same problems once again. And, sooner rather than later, these Moderate Muslims are going to have to get off the fence and pick one side or the other or they will suffer a similar fate.

Also, it just occured to me, that those people who have most loudly voiced their disdain for the use of WWII analogies, it seems, have invariably been liberals.
Could it be that they just don't like being reminded of the historical precedents for their cowardly form of appeasement?
Roger W. Gardner Homepage 12.08.07 - 8:28 pm #

Cross posted to Faultline USA -- December 9, 2007

Wrestling With Mohammed

Published by Political Grind - October 31, 2007
Reposted by request March 12, 2008.
"For anyone trying to understand the differences between these religions, this is a MUST-READ!"
-- There's My Two Cents


Is Islam a religion of peace or an imminent fascist threat? This may very well be one of the most crucial questions of our era.
Is there actually a definitive, clear-cut answer to this monumental question?
Yes, there is, but unfortunately it is buried in a miasma of misinformation and religious apologetics. Also, unfortunately for some, there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Islam, just as there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Christianity. You will not get your answers by reading your local newspaper or by listening to the evening news. Knowledge, like any other worthwhile goal, must be earned, you must work for it. In the case of Islam, the answers lie in the Qur’an and in the accompanying expository texts. The answers lie in that abundance of Islamic literature, and in the pronouncements of its leaders and in their actions. The answers are there for all to see. They are clearly stated and unequivocal. But you must take the time to read them and to listen.
However, given the reality of our hectic lives, few of us have the space, or even the inclination to devote precious hours of our free time to this laborious and relatively abstruse quest. For most of us, this means that we have to rely on others to help us form our opinions. Generally, we tend to gravitate toward those opinions which fit most neatly into our own personal worldview. Or, put another way, into the rhetoric of our particular political persuasions. Thus, we rely for the exposition of truth on those purported experts who, whether overtly or covertly, have a personal agenda of their own.
What, you might ask, is my personal agenda?
Did I suddenly wake up one morning and decide to devote the rest of my life to denigrating one of the world’s major religions?Hardly.
Did I suddenly wake up one morning to find that our country had just been attacked and thousands killed by a group of young Middle Eastern hijackers who just happened to all be Muslim?Yes. And I have devoted a major portion of my life since then trying to better understand the true nature of this religion and of this threat.
Opinions, In my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.
Is there perhaps a better way to understand this debate, without having to rely on the questionable opinions of others, while avoiding that impracticable investment of time and energy?I believe that there is. I believe that all it requires of us is the acceptance of the following simple and straight-forward premise: It is possible to understand the fundamental nature of a religion by judging the character of its founder. If one accepts the fairness of this premise, then our task becomes a little easier.
Fortunately, there is an abundance of literary evidence devoted to the lives of both Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The problem for us is that, while almost all of us have a comfortable familiarity with the narrative of the life of Christ, few of us could relate the life of Mohammed with the same confidence.
Therefore, when we are told that Islam is a religion of peace, we tend to accept this statement at face value; all that we can equate it to are those religions with which we are familiar, which, for most Christians is Christianity, which in its present form is basically peaceful.
The contrast between the lives of these two monumental figures could not be more striking or more enlightening. The basic facts of their lives are well-documented and attested.
There are, to the best of our knowledge, no surviving texts which document Christ either injuring or killing any living creature, let alone another human being.Mohammed slaughtered dozens of his unfortunate enemies, personally decapitating his rival Abu Jahl.Again, to the best of our knowledge, Jesus Christ never participated in any acts of piracy, rape, plunder, kidnapping or thievery.Mohammed did.It has never been substantiated that Jesus Christ had ever had any physical relationship with any contemporary female or participated in any form of pedophilia.Mohammad had eleven wives, whom he sometimes enjoyed all at once — including nine year old Aisha. When Mohammed took the child Aisha to bed he was fifty-three years old. He also took the wife of his adopted son to bed for his amusement. Conveniently, for justification of these abominable acts he invariably claimed to have received some form of special divine encouragement or dispensation in the form of a vision from Allah.
Since its inception, two thousand years ago, Christianity has evolved and refined itself through a whole series of reformations and readjustments. The episodic violence of its early years has given way to a generally peaceful coexistence with secular authority.Islam has never changed — except for the negative effects of Wahhabism, which only succeeded in turning Islam further in on itself and away from the world of progress and enlightenment.
Christianity has brought the world the message of kindness and charity. If the world has at times chosen to ignore this message, that is not the fault of Christianity but, rather, a testament to the weakness of human beings. Over the years, Christianity has unquestionably inspired untold numbers of artists, sculptors, writers and musicians to produce some of the most marvelous creations the world has ever known.
Islam has brought the world polygamy, forced female genital mutilation (an estimated 135 million to date, with 2 million young girls presently at risk), forced marriages, pedophilia, officially-sanctioned rape (804 documented cases in the year 2000 in Pakistan alone), along with those wonderful family values, such as honor killings and the total brutal subjugation of all of its second-class females, and has infected the world with it’s most virulent form of anti-Semitism.And let us not forget those unquestionable benefits of global terrorism (between the years 1960 and 2000, 95% of all terrorist attacks were the result of Islam).Here, my friends, is the holy voice of Allah: “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.” (Qur’an 8:12)
In the immortal words of Edward Gibbon, from his monumental “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, long before this cowardly age of Political Correctness: “His [Mohammed’s] voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other…”
Perhaps the most illustrative example of the character of Mohammed in our current age would be a cross between Pol Pot and John Gotti — although, to his credit, John Gotti never had any incestuous or pedophilic relationships that I am aware of. The deadly Fatwas issued in Mohammed’s name, or in the name of one of his mullahs, are morally identical to a mob-sanctioned contract, and should be treated with the same contempt.
If my characterization of this “peaceful religion” appears to some as harsh and brutal, it is because this terrible “religion” is harsh and brutal. However, everything that has been stated above can be readily substantiated with their own writings and in their own words.
But what, then, of those “Moderate Muslims”? What of those decent Muslims who claim that they are fighting back against those particularly violent precepts of Islam?To these valiant apostates I can only answer, if you are truly willing to disassociate yourselves completely from the divinely perfect words of the Prophet, if you are truly willing to turn your backs on the entire force of the argument of his criminal life, if you are truly willing to accept without qualification the natural equality of women, and the right to the existence of a viable Jewish state, then I welcome your rebellion and bow to your courage.
And, might I suggest, that we honor this great internal theological jihad of yours by allowing those munificent Saudis to erect a Grand Mosque in New York City, as they still plan to do in London. I propose that the construction of this Great Monument to Islam coincide with the ground-breaking ceremony for that first great synagogue in Riyadh or with the inauguration of that first magnificent Roman Catholic Cathedral in Cairo.Further, I support the opening of innumerable Islamic Madrases throughout the United States, immediately after our own Pastor Ed is allowed to conduct his first Christian History classes in Damascus.I also believe that it is only fair and right that we provide those Muslims in our midst with their religious foot baths in our universities and our airports, right after that first Christian Science Reading Room opens its doors in Yemen.And, to be completely fair, we should allow full native Muslim dress in all of our schools and universities, just as soon as those Iranian women are allowed to wear short skirts and uncovered hair to the University of Tehran.
Lastly, to the question of whether Islam is or is not a fascistic threat, consider this: according to my dictionary’s definition, fascism is “a governmental system (remember, there exists no distinction in Islam between religion and government) led by a dictator (Mohammed or his imams) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.”Could there be any more precise description of our current threat?
I rest my case and patiently await those inevitable cries of prejudice and racism. And perhaps a stray fatwa.

Comments cross posted from Faultline USA:
Faultline USA said...
Roger, thank you for contributing this article. It is the most passionate piece of writing I’ve seen concerning Islam. No political correctness here. I know that when it was first published on Political Grind, it elicited many, many responses. And it made it to the most voted page at Real Clear Politics.

By the way folks, Roger is our newest regular contributor. Welcome aboard Roger. Your contributions are bound to keep things stirred up around here.
Mon Dec 10, 11:25:00 AM 2007
Ian said...
I appriciate all the work and study you've done trying to understand one of the world's largest religions. I don't know enough about Islam to counter any of your points, in fact, I think you're pretty close to right on the mark. I don't accept your premise that if you understand the founder, you understand the religion, because although Jesus was all about peace, millions of people have been killed in wars started in his name. God, in all his names, is the justification for most of the worlds problems. Which leads me to the biggest problem with your piece. I'm assuming you're a Christian; if I'm mistaken in that, please let me know. You end your piece saying essentially you wouldn't allow Muslims to dress, and practice their customs in this country, because they won't allow the same in their countries. Don't you see the flaw in that way of thinking? We should be more religiously open then a facist dictatorship, not equal. Everyone should be free to practice their religious beliefs, without interference from the government, or anyone else. If accomidations need to be made, we should make them, because that's what we would want if we were in the other's position. That is the essance of your religion, is it not? Instead of demanding freedom for your religion, providing freedom for all religions, including no religion, seems closer to the intent of Jesus.

(In your quest through the history of religions, you must have encountered the Reformation, where Protestants broke off from the main body of Catholicism. This process took literally hundreds of years, and the effects are still being felt. Perhaps moderate Muslims will one day stage a rebellion of this sort. We should be trying to encourage this, by opening mosques here in America and abroad, where ideas can be discussed in open forums. It just seems like a better idea than invading their countries, killing their civilians, and causing them to hate us even more than they did before.)
Wed Dec 12, 02:25:00 PM 2007
Roger W. Gardner said...
Ian -- You start off your comments by saying that you don't know enough to counter my points -- but that doesn't stop you from trying to counter them anyway.

This is a classic example of how the liberal why-can't-we-all-get-along-together arguments completely fail to address the pertinent issues. You seem to conveniently forget that fact that Islam has declared war against the West in general and Israel and the U. S. in particular. You never even mention that non-event called 9/11.

Don't you get it? We are at war. They want to convert or kill us. The time for lofty liberal platitudes about tolerance stopped when they slaughtered 3,000 of our people. You continually want to ignore this horror.

I am -- quite reasonably -- calling for an even playing field. We simply cannot tolerate a brutal intolerant regime that is preaching our downfall and wants to change -- or totally eliminate -- our Constitutional Rights and has very vocal, ambitious, and well-defined aims (which people such as yourself seem to be totallly oblivious of) to eventually subject this entire country of ours to Sharia Law.

Don't you even read the newspapers? Don't you even have an inkling as to what is happening in this world? Look around you. Look at England. Look at France, at the Netherlands, at Sweden, at Denmark. Don't you read at all? Do you have ANY conception of the peril that this country is in?

You say you don't know enough to counter my points but you have the arrogance to go on and do it anyway. If you don't know enough -- and to me this is as plain as day -- then HOW ABOUT STUDYING?

How about starting by reading the Qur'an and the Hadiths? How about reading some of the pertinent Islamist literature? How about studying the precepts and the charters of those wonderful educational movements like Hamas or Hizbullah? How about reading some of their very own correspondence or their fiery Friday Prayer speeches? How about subscribing to MEMRI or SITE and reading daily translations of their own Middle Eastern media and read about what THEY are saying aobut us? How about reading up on some of the articles that have been written about the Islamic menace in Europe by courageous authors and journalists who are now forced into hiding for fear of their lives because they had the audacity to write critical commentary about Islam? THIS is the religion that you want us to embrace.

Your arrogance simply astounds me.
Would I butt into a debate among brain surgeons about the efficacy of the latest medical procedures?
Of course not. I wouldn't be that foolish. I haven't studied medicine. I haven't studied brain surgery. My opinions on those subjects are worse than useless.

But somehow, when it comes to religious or political issues involving current events, there's no need to study the subject, to do any of your own research. Just mouth off your opinions. You expect us to value your opinions just because they are your opinions.

If I sound angry, I am. I am getting tired of debating people who are too lazy to do their own research, but still expect us to honor their opinions -- which, in my humble opinion, are not even personal opinions, but merely borrowed liberal talking points.

Might I suggest, that instead of admitting to your lack of knowledge and then proceeding to debate the issues anyway, that you go back and study these difficult issues, put in at least as much effort as some of us on this side of the argument have done, and then come back and enter into this -- extremely crucial -- discussion. Then, my friend, I will be happy to debate you.

Finally, there are an awful lot of things I don't know anything about at all. The difference is that I know it and I admit it and I don't subject people to my opinions of those subjects. I think it's called humility.

I'm sorry, but the world we live in is not the world you're addressing. You are addressing some other world, some much nicer world that I truly which were here. And if you did a little research of your own, perhaps you'd undestand the difference.

Thu Dec 13, 04:49:00 PM 2007
spree said...
Well said.
Thu Dec 13, 06:24:00 PM 2007
Ben said...
I share Roger's contempt for Islam. I share Ian's respect for freedom of religion.

That is not cognitive dissonance. Islam is a continuing criminal enterprise, not a religion. Islam's faith/ritual component serves two purposes:
1. it motivates the men who do the wet jobs
2. it conceals Islam's true mission from the casual observer.

It is only when we follow Roger's sage advice and read Surahs 2,3,5,8,9,33,47,48 & 61 and Bukhari's Books 52, 53 & 59 that we become fully conscious of Islam's mercenary mission and militant method.

Reliance of the Traveler, Al-Misri's legal handbook, says: "The Caliph makes war on Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians." It then tells us why by quoting 9:29. That is Islamic law; Sharia, to be obeyed at all times in all places. Al-Shafi'i & Al-Ghazali said the Caliph or Imam must mount at least one or two expeditions against the Kufar in every year. That is Islam's law.

Because you have not read the Qur'an & Hadith, you are unaware of the fatal facts:
1. Islam sanctifies & mandateswars of imperialistic conquest
2. Islam sanctifies terrorism
3. Islam sanctifies genocide
4. Muhammad practiced what he preached, exemplifying Jihad, terror & genocide for future generations to emulate.

Before you dance around the campfire chanting "Bigot!!!, "Racist!!!, Islamophobe!!!", go to, read the articles and follow the links attached to each quote cited.

Before you claim "mis-translation", "mis-interpretation","perversion"& "distortion", go to; search for and read these Tafsir titles, wherein Ibn Kathir, who devoted his life to the study of the Qur'an, explains its meaning.
* The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
* The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
* The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
* Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
* Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad
* The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
* The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
* The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
* The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
* The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
* The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
* The Good News that Islam shall prevail
Thu Dec 13, 07:53:00 PM 2007
Cross posted to Faultline USA - December 10, 2007

Cross posted by There's My Two Cents - December 10, 2007

Reclaiming the Power of Hate

Published by Wake up America -- December 2, 2007
"The war with Japan is still being fought.
Not on the battle field, but in the business arena".
-- Col. Nate Edwards (Ret.)


Asked if they'd really like to kill a German, the GI in WWII Europe answered Yes 7% of the time. When asked the same question about the Japs in the Pacific the answer was Yes 44% of the time.

What accounted for this tremendous difference in our attitudes towards the Germans and the Japanese? We were in the midst of the bloodiest war the world had ever known, and both the Germans and the Japanese were our bitter enemies. Yet while the American people had no difficulty conjuring up a healthy hatred for the Nazis, and the average GI in the European Theater soon learned to despise his Nazi adversaries, and, holding them in special contempt, eventually had no qualms about shooting the notorious SS troops on sight, none the less, throughout that monumental conflict, as the above statistics suggest, the American people, and the average GI, both held conflicted views about the German people themselves.

Throughout our relatively short national history, we had enjoyed long generational ties with Germany and with Germans. We had learned to admire that advanced Germanic culture and those admirable Teutonic traits of hard work and efficiency, diligence and discipline. We listened appreciatively to their magnificent classical music (which they had all but invented) and avidly studied their writers and philosophers. We shared a common bond, unique to those members of the Western World. And perhaps most importantly, we shared a common religion -- and although it had perhaps become somewhat theologically awkward -- at times we both prayed for victory to the same Christian God.

For these reasons and many more we were, at least partially, able to buy into the argument that the German people were a basically decent people who had either been seduced or terrorized into accepting the lunatic racist visions of the Third Reich. (The degree to which this comforting paradigm still has validity is, of course, highly debatable). But those were our views at the time. And these unspoken cultural ambiguities were often reflected in the actions and attitudes of both adversaries on and off the battlefield. As an example of this subliminal cultural affinity, consider the following statistic: During the entire course of WWII only 2% of Allied POWs died while in European captivity.

Now, what about the Japanese?

In the first place, after December 7, 1941, they were no longer referred to as the Japanese. They were simply, and disdainfully labeled Japs, and later, Nips. Although there was a small but thriving Japanese-American population on the West Coast and on the American island of Hawaii, few if any cultural bonds existed between the Japanese and American peoples. And, of course, after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese-American community was looked upon, somewhat understandably, with growing suspicion. (Our moral justification for the subsequent internment of our Japanese-Americans is a complicated and contentious subject which deserves to be treated in a separate article). Suffice it to say, that the Japanese, unlike the Germans, were a completely different race from a strange and utterly alien culture. Their religion appeared to us to be a weird conflation of Shintoism and Emperor worship, their political ideology was grounded in the unyielding brutal code of the Samurai warrior.

Since the end of the First World War, the Japanese national character had become more and more militaristic, aggressive, imperialistic and -- in a reactionary nationalistic backlash against those cultural inroads made by the Caucasian West into their traditional inbred, closed society -- they had become defensively and virulently racist -- anti-white, anti-Western, anti-colonialist.

Beginning with their brutal and unwarranted invasion of Manchuria in 1931, through the subsequent horrors of their infamous Rape of Nanking, and the innumerable and unimaginable acts of inhumanity committed against captured enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike, throughout their conquered territories in the Southeast Pacific, the fearsome Japanese soldier accumulated a long, despicable record of sadistic barbarism unmatched in modern times. (An appalling record of rape and government-sanctioned sadism for which they -- unlike the Germans -- have to this day never adequately apologized).

After the Battle of Midway, as the war in the Pacific gradually turned against those at first seemingly-invincible Japanese forces, and as the inevitable and dire fate of the Empire of the Rising Sun became increasingly apparent, the scale of Japanese atrocities grew exponentially.

In stark contrast to that 2% of POWs who perished in European POW camps, an incredible 37% of Allied POWs would die under horrendous conditions in the Japanese prison camps. To be captured by the Japanese during WWII was for many, quite literally, a fate worse than death.

Considering that the American public had first become aware of the Japanese war machine through that treacherous and unprovoked sneak attack on an American Naval Base, during a time of peace, while the Japanese ambassadors were at that very moment meeting their American counterparts at the State Department, the Japanese people quickly became something else; they became Japs. A brutal and inferior race of savages to be distrusted and despised. A race, in short, to be hated.

And hate them we did. We hated them openly, willingly and without reservation. And we didn't just hate their leaders or their armies and their navies, we hated THEM, the Japs themselves, the bloodthirsty, sadistic little squinty-eyed monkeys. We matched their racial hatred of us with our racial hatred of them. No caricature, no obscenity, no epithet could be too vile to describe a Jap. If you were a patriotic American, be you man, woman or child, you automatically hated the Japs. It quickly became a necessary adjunct to our national persona, second nature, like loving your mother and apple pie. It was not only that it was O.K. to hate the Japs, it was considered your sacred duty. And the more fervently you expressed this hate, the more patriotic you became, and the more patriotic you became, the stronger America became.

It was as clear as crystal.

And our hate was essential to the cause, we could not have won the war without it. This natural unquestioned hatred of the enemy -- especially of the Japs -- became our strength and our power, a weapon as necessary to possess in abundance in our arsenals as guns and bombs. It gave purpose to our lives, and was re sanctioned daily by our unified patriotic media and our beloved patriotic movies. This sacred and unmitigated hate fueled our patriotic fervor, and enabled us to put up with those ever-increasing burdens of rationing and deprivations, and to endure those awful but inevitable losses of our loved ones.

In short, hate was good.

In itself, hate was neither moral nor immoral. It was, rather, a natural rational reaction. Hate became the very substance that sustained us, the societal glue that bound us all together. Our imaginations thrived on lurid visions of Jap bestialities -- most of which were unfortunately all too true.

It seemed, somehow we knew, that in a time of war hate was a quality as essential as bravery and courage and sacrifice. This was a truth so obvious to us all that no one ever thought to even question it. No one had ever won a war by learning to dislike their enemy. If they won the war, they won the war by learning how to hate their enemy at least as fervently as their enemy hated them. The whole purpose of all nationalistic propaganda, no matter whose side it was on, was to inspire that all-powerful passion of hate, that genuine, pervasive and relentless hatred of the enemy which is absolutely essential to success in warfare.

Then, finally, the war was over and we had won.

But we had changed.

In 1946, William Wyler released his critically-acclaimed motion picture The Best Years of Our Lives, and immediately it touched the hearts of a war-weary American public. It also showed an unwelcome light on the first cracks in our otherwise confident new peacetime facade.

Basically, the film relates the stories of three GIs returning from the war, and the various problems they encounter as they attempt to readjust themselves to civilian life in a world they hardly recognize. The story opens with the return of a tough, battle-hardened, newly-discharged Army Sergeant, just back from fighting in the Pacific (masterfully played by Frederick March). After one of the most heart-warming homecoming scenes in all of moviedom, he begins that awkward but inevitable process of reacquainting himself with his barely-recognizable grownup children.

Following his college student son's rather underwhelmed reaction to his gifts of hard won Jap war trophies, he listens patiently as the young man proudly announces that he is currently attending lectures at school on World Peace, and learning that in this new Atomic Age we must all learn to get along together and that 'war is never the answer' (thereby inferentially condemning his warrior father who by fighting for his country may have inadvertently transgressed some higher moral code).

Thus it began.

All of those hard lessons we had learned during the war years must now be unlearned and forgotten. As peace settled in those traditional masculine virtues -- strength, courage, duty, loyalty, bravery, honor -- which served society so well in time of war, and had probably saved the very life of that society, were to be gradually shunted aside and devalued, eventually to be replaced by those gentler, more civil feminine virtues of patience, understanding, nurturing, tolerance and love. We were encouraged to become an increasingly passive, self-absorbed, self-indulgent feminine society, a nation obsessed with its health, wealth, weight and security. Soon, our most important national issues would become our civil rights and personal liberties, free speech and gay marriage.

For two successive generations since the end of that great war, we had been undergoing this continuing process of deprogramming and moral readjustment. A whole new vocabulary had emerged to define this new world. Certain words had taken on a subjective moral weight all their own. We still had enemies, but now our most important enemies had become our own words -- words like Prejudice and Racism and Intolerance were now the new enemy. This was the new war we were fighting, a war of words against words. And of all of the words that we were fighting against, none more perfectly embodied the evil nature of our mortal enemy than that most deadly and unconscionable of words -- Hate.

Hate is the very heart and soul of our new enemy; the word Hate itself must be eradicated and expunged forever from our new vocabulary and from our new lives. We must banish Hate from our cities and our towns as the Nazis banished the Jews. We must put up posters at all the entrances to our communities which proclaim: NO PLACE HERE FOR HATE. We must diligently search out Hate wherever it attempts to hide itself and expose it to the bright light of reason.

Our new weapons in this new war would be Openness, Tolerance, and above all, Acceptance of The Other. We had learned our lessons well. Never again would we mistrust The Other merely because they were different from us. Rather, we would enthusiastically embrace these differences. We would especially honor those unique cultural and religious differences, and the more they differed from ours, the more we would respect and honor them.

And if by chance these particular cultures happened to embrace slavery, child abuse, honor killings and the violent suppression and persecution of all other religions and of all of their hapless women, then we shall smile at them and say, This is your culture and your religion and we honor it and respect it and we welcome you into the fold. We open our borders and we open our hearts to you. Because, at all costs, we can no longer tolerate those deadly enemies of Peace -- Prejudice, Intolerance and Racism. Because, as our eager young college student so presciently observed back in 1946, 'in this new Atomic Age we must all learn to get along together, and War Is Never The Answer'.

War is, in fact, the physical manifestation of Hate; therefore, War itself must be our primary enemy. Anyone who proposes War must be the enemy. War will be successfully defeated by the utter eradication of the word Hate. Thus we will maintain our moral equilibrium, the status quo of Peace.

Now, however, we have been attacked once again. This time, a sneak attack even more deadly than the one on Pearl Harbor, with even more loss of life, 2,987 compared to 2,403. This time, it would not even be a military attack against a military target but, rather, a treacherous unprovoked attack against innocent civilians, people going to work in the morning.

We had been attacked by people who hate us so badly that they would gladly die to kill us. They hate us and our Western culture with such passion that they spill out onto their streets in droves daily to stomp on our flag and to burn our president in effigy. We are, they scream and shout at us, the Great Satan, and they have promised to wipe us off the face of the earth. Driven by an unyielding religious fervor, they will not be dissuaded nor deterred in their righteous jihad until they have fulfilled their sacred promise to destroy us.

What, then, is our national response to this violent onslaught?

We are unsure, we remain confused and conflicted, we can barely conjure up a reasonable facsimile of anger without it generating some immediate liberal moral backlash. We have gutted our military and outlawed our masculinity and rendered ourselves all but defenseless. Half of our nation believes we are at war and half of our nation doesn't. We live nervously in our Cowardly New World of clever obfuscations and elaborate denials, we cower behind a wall of euphemisms and confront our enemy's virulent hatred with the only weapons we have left, those pitiful weapons of Tolerance and Understanding. We attempt to defend ourselves against the Murderous Beast by pretending that he's really not there. We would rather be dead than be impolite. We refuse to identify our enemies for fear of offending them.

We have forgotten how to fight back, we only know how to talk. We have forgotten that omnipotent power of hate; foolishly, we have systematically eliminated the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. We have thoroughly expunged that dreaded word from our vocabulary, and we have declared that the word War is now our real enemy.

In summation, we're in serious trouble.

If we are to survive as a nation, as a free and honorable people, if we are to survive as a viable Democracy, we must once and for all abandon all the lies and obfuscations. We must make all euphemisms illegal. We must go all the way back to 1945 and relearn that cold hard masculine vocabulary of War.

To live, we must learn how to hate again. For without the strength of that unmitigated and unquestioned passion, weakened by our own civility, we will most assuredly perish, subsumed in the onrushing tsunami of our enemy's unanswered rage.

Comments cross posted from Wake Up America:
Another great article, timely and right on! Roger, the difference in Germany and Japan is simple. Japan attacked us on American soil, Germany did not.

This should be a warning to the half of Americans who cannot muster up the appropriate form and amount of hate for our present enemy -- Islamic terrorists. This enemy must be defeated, no other option. Get with the program or we both halves of Americans will suffer.
Debbie | Homepage | 12.03.07 - 1:12 am | #
Excellent, Roger, very well stated.

As I see it, these anti-hatists would do us all a world of good if they took their practice to the Middle East and taught that to them first.

Get Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and such to desire to live without hate and we can follow suit.

As former Israeli Premier, Golda Meir once said, We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate.
LewWaters | Homepage | 12.03.07 - 1:21 am | #
Thank you, Roger for an excellent clarification of the hate issue.

There are some critical differences in this war.
1. We can not identify a single state or alliance of states as the enemy. Those seeking to torment and destroy us come from many nations.

2. We can not identify a single "race" as the enemy. Our enemy is multi-racial, comprised of Arabs, Asians, Negroes, Latinos & Caucasians; some recruited, most descended of conquered tribes and nations.

3. Our enemy wears no uniform, no badge when it strikes; instead it wears a false religion as a camouflage.

Because Islam is falsely labeled as a religion; associated with prayer, charity, spirituality, poetry & philosophy it is immunized from well deserved hatred & retaliation.

Our elected leaders declare Islam to be "a great religion of peace" when, in fact, it is a war machine; an amalgamation of plagiarized and contrived scripture, ancient pagan ritual and rabble rousing rants that would do Hitler proud. They won't name Islam as the enemy, instead they talk about radicals or extremists who have hijacked it.

They ignore the fact that Islam's canon of scripture describes Muslims as Allah's slaves, purchased for the purpose of war in return for admission to Paradise when they are killed in battle [9:111],

They ignore the fact that the Qur'an mandates fighting [2:216], commands perpetual war against pagans [8:39]; Jews & Christians [9:29] until only Allah is worshiped and we are subdued and pay extortion.

They ignore the fact that Islamic tradition, biography & history are full of glorification & incentivization of Jihad.

They ignore the fact that Moe started 86 wars in the final decade of his career.

They ignore the fact that Islamic law requires the Caliph or Imam to mount at least one military expedition against us in every year.

The process of recognizing the enemy and formulating a proper attitude of hatred & contempt begins with learning his doctrine. For this purpose I exhort everyone to read the Qur'an and Bukhari's Hadith. You can find links to them in my latest blog post: Tolerance Must Be Reciprocal.
Ben | Homepage | 12.03.07 - 3:16 am | #
Great job Roger, and welcome back!
Cyber Pastor | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 6:12 am | #
The war with Japan is still being fought.

Not on the battle field, but in the business arena.

Japan owns most of Rockerfeller Center and has interests in many US companies.

Recently, their giant advertising agency DENTSU harrassed an American Employee to the point of a federal lawsuit.

We must recognize the war has shifted, but it still continues. We must keep America strong militarily and fiscally.

The Japanese CEO Toyo Shigeta, of DENTSU, should be treated almost as an enemy combatant. How dare a foreign company treat American employees as they treated the man in the lawsuit?
Col. Nate Edwards (Ret.) | 12.04.07 - 11:24 am | #
Col. Edwards, if only Congress would understand that, we would be in better shape.
spree | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 11:28 am | #
Thank you for that interesting contribution Col. Edwards. I agree with you completely and I salute you.
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 4:13 pm | #
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 | #
Brilliant blast, Roger!!! You put Golyadkin right in its place: the septic tank.
Ben | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 3:01 am | #
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 3:20 am | #
I certainly wish hate were not as effortless as it is...hmmmm, too wishful?

Unfortunately some people are in too much of a hurry for a "Star Trek: Next Generation" one gets there alive if we chose to continue down the mamby pamby route that has been taken up.

CK out the NYT OpEd page today; Friedman conjures up an Iranian NIE (assume this is easy for him...all you gotta do is hate, right?). Dowd is all over the "intel that suits the prez," as though she and the Left doesn't do that very same thing, except MUCH louder. And of course, The Board points to the "hate of America" with the most obvious symptom being President Bush.

It will be nice when Bush is out of office so we can get back to the Love Fest we would prefer to pretend surrounds us.

Nicely writ
Blandly Urbane | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 3:07 pm | #
He does write well.
spree | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 3:29 pm | #
Thanks Spree. I'll bet Mr. G. doesn't think so.
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 7:53 pm | #

Comments cross posted from Faultline USA:

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

folks forget that peaceful Muslims are peaceful despite Islam, not because of it. . . but, there are peaceful Muslims out there though few, and silent.
Thu Dec 06, 11:12:00 PM 2007
Roger W. Gardner said...

Good point Douglas.
However, we seem to be the only ones conflicted about this issue. The Islamists have no difficulties at all defining their enemies -- they are at war with the Infidel, which of course is you and me. For them it is quite simply Islam against the unbelievers. They're not wasting a lot of their time trying to figure out who are the "moderate infidels" amongst us, they are not bothered by these discreet distinctions. All infidels are equally guilty. Whether they are men, women or children, soldiers or civilians, all infidels are equally guilty in the eyes of Islamists. And -- as we saw on 9/11, they all will be subjected to the same fate.
Our current moral confusion is, I fear, no match for their clear and focused hatred. Somehow, we have to wake up, before it's too late.
Thu Dec 06, 11:50:00 PM 2007
Faultline USA said...

What a courageous piece! It will no doubt be twisted by those who HATE traditional conservative values. You have described quite beautifully the deadly contagion of xenophilia – the inordinate affection for unknown objects or human beings. It is the opposite of xenophobia.
Fri Dec 07, 06:54:00 AM 2007
Wuttisak said...

Nice blog. I will keep reading. Please take the time to visit my blog about Orchid Care
Fri Dec 07, 10:50:00 AM 2007
TexasFred said...

That is a great piece of writing, and so true... Thank you for the visit, I DO appreciate it...
Fri Dec 07, 05:43:00 PM 2007
GUYK said...

Fri Dec 07, 06:21:00 PM 2007
Richard Disney said...

You have enunciated very well part of what I mean when I tell people we need to fight this war "World War Two Style". It is amazing how many foggy stares I encounter when I talk about breaking the enemy's will to fight and pummeling the enemy into submission as though people think that is no longer possible. We defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in less than five years. To do that we had to hate our enemies. The time to just get along is after the war is over. Yes we are at war and yes, our enemies hate us. We had better have the stones to hate them back.
Sat Dec 08, 05:19:00 PM 2007
Roger W. Gardner said...

Well, I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised to find so much apparent agreement out there over my obviously controversial article, which seems to be promoting Hate, and therefore could be so easily misconstrued and attacked.
Thank you all for taking the time to read it.

If I felt that what this world -- and especially this country -- needed right now was more tolerance and understanding, that's what I'd be calling for.

But, it appears that many of you agree, that this is just what we don't need. That what we do need is to somehow strengthen our resolve, to reach back into our honorable history and bring back some of the old time Yankee courage.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Sat Dec 08, 05:37:00 PM 2007
Anonymous said...

Well done Roger..
Tue Dec 11, 10:00:00 AM 2007
Cross posted to Faultline USA -- December 6, 2007
Cross posted to Chron Watch Forum - December 3, 2007