Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Reclaiming the Power of Hate: Revisted

Gayle Williams

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?

And another:

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 the 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

Reclaiming the Power of Hate

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.

Originally published by Wake up America -- December 2, 2007


  1. Brilliantly written.

    Thus speaks someone who, though a child, remembers WWII.

    I've been around long enough, to see it all. And I fear for my Beloved Country, today.

    Miss Mari-Nanci

  2. There are two types of hate, in the main: (1) the untrammeled irrational hate of the jihadist who wants to kill all those who do not believe in his "god" and that one's self-styled prophet, and (2) an ice-cold hatred that you can keep in your heart for as long as you draw breath.

    It is the latter (#2) that is needed to sustain for as long as is necessary to remove the irrational ideas and their human slaves that are a danger to us.

    This is the only hate that should be evoked to follow this advice:

    “What we dream of is Jews strong enough and honest enough to hate their killers …”
    --Ben Hecht

    It that hatred that all of us, who are on the side of reason and justice, must reserve for those who would do us ill.

    I have a strong negative visceral reaction to Barack Obama. It is not his race that evokes that, but his mouth and the lies and deceit that spout from it in a carefully cultivated oratory.

    Hatred must be a part of one's survival instinct when endangered by enemies. Pacifism invites one's murder.

    Although in films during World War II, we were shaped to hate the Japanese. When I first saw Japanese prisoners of war, I felt no hatred for them--a Japanese officer was directing Japanese soldiers unloading small boats under the eyes of U.S. Marines--I was surprised at how small the Japanese were in real life, and not ugly, not the buck-toothed, bespectacled monsters of our cartoons.

    An icy hate is necessary to withstand an enemy--and not solely in a defensive mode.

    Thank you for posting your "Reclaiming the Power of Hate" once again.

  3. To Urbanadder22 - It is such a joy to read comments such as yours. To be understood by people willing to take the time to consider the arguments we make. As you can surely imagine, this article has garnered a lot of hatred, as I knew it would. But I has also received a lot of positive feedback. It's a tough subject to write about honestly, isn't it?

    "Hatred must be a part of one's survival instinct when endangered by enemies. Pacifism invites one's murder."
    Thank you.
    Roger G.

  4. To MN -- Damn. Two nice comments in a row for this 'hate-filled' piece. I'm amazed. Thank you.

  5. The Allied Forces didn't fight the Germans because they hated them; they fought the Germans because they loved their own people. You do not need to hate someone you are intent on killing, when they are intent on killing those you love, including yourself. Hate is something you feel as you are getting to know a people or an individual. People hate the righteous, and people hate the wicked.

    Islam teaches Muslims to hate infidels, regardless, of the similarities that could build lasting friendships and loyalties between them. How does anyone work with this other than to loathe those who follow such a hateful religion? It is difficult to love those who hate you, but we must. Just remember though that the fine line between love and hate can disappear in a nanosecond if those you love, including yourself, are threatened. The threat does not have to be bodily harm, although this is a great motivator, it can be a threat against one's religion, way of life, freedoms, and many others. The threat Islam poses in the world is indeed grave, and people will get to that point where they will say no more, even if it means the spilling of their blood and the blood of others.

  6. Roger, you have the most informative blog out there; I only wish I had more time to devote to reading all of your posts more thoroughly.

  7. Thank you Joanne. Your comments are always appreciated.

  8. http://www.obamacrimes.com/

  9. It is hard to hate when the media and politicians promote the ideas of multiculturalism. We are not allowed to hate. It is to be considered UnAmerican.

    I hate. I hate liberals who refuse to serve this nation. I hate those who would destroy this nation by imposing their religious laws upon us. And I hate those who would and do attack us.

    It is ok to hate.

  10. Psalms 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
    22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

    Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good


  11. The intellectual honesty and moral clarity of this piece and the subsequent comments stand out like a rose in a sea of thorns.

    We need more of this and less of the bs spewed by our politicians!

  12. This is as clear an intellectual description of pure tribalism from the inside as I believe I've read this century. Bookmarked!

    Fascinating stuff, it really is.

  13. To McDuff -- Guilty as charged. When the neighboring tribe is trying to kill my tribe I become a tribalist. No apologies. Sorry.

  14. Comment from AbnRanger, transposted from Wake Up America to this article - rg
    "I do understand completely what Roger is saying. Having been in direct combat myself, hate gives you focus, and makes the most difficult job in the world just a little easier. It's much more than survival instinct that will keep you alive in combat. The side that's willing to execute the most targeted violence in their actions is almost always the decisive victor. If you've ever had any formal training in small-unit Infantry tactics, this is one of the foremost points of emphasis. And hate just happens to be a very useful tool that helps to stoke the violence to the level it needs to be at to win a battle. That doesn't mean you need to be a mindless, emotionless robot 24/7/364. But it is indeed a job that brings out the worst in human beings, and attempting to stifle an emotion that is quite frankly a helpful one in mortal combat is a ridiculous notion.

    Angry Dem, Combat is not exclusively a "defensive" exercise you imply: 'if the enemy has a gun and it's pointed my way..'. If you're not killing for the love of your country, or for the eradication of all terrorists from the planet, then I must ask, why are you there? Americans enlist for different reasons, granted, but if you enlist for a direct combat profession, and don't have the willingness to aggressively kill the enemy with extreme malice and decision, then you're simply in the wrong gun club.

    We didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan to exclusively "defend ourselves". In the grand scheme of things, yes, but we're defending ourselves by aggressively seeking out fundamentalist radicals and simply removing them from the planet, forever. This requires a very offensive mindset, one which hate just happens to be a perfect tool for.

    That said, it's a controlled hate, aggression, and violence. If we met today on the street, you'd never know I was a steely-eyed professional killer years ago. I don't carry that hate with me day-to-day. People who don't know me are amazed by my past if the topic happens to come up. My family and friends have a hard time even believing I ever did what I did... they think I'm a softy, which is exactly how I want them to think of me. Many liberals believe in a "restrained aggression war", or a "nice-as-possible-war". That's so laughable, that only the off-the-charts-utopian-left thought processes that plague the Democratic party could come up with such a contradictory and ridiculous notion. My RANGER brothers in Somalia in 1993 had requested AC-130 Spectre Gunships to support their operations in Mogadishu, but were denied by the Clinton Administration. We ended up losing 18 of the absolute best soldiers we have, when perhaps we could have saved some of those lives by being more aggressively violent in the operation. The thousands of militants that came crawling out from under their rocks that day would have quickly dropped their weapons or dropped dead once the Spectre starting raining a storm of 20mm gatling gun rounds on them from the heavens.

    I can tell you with 100% certainty, if I were ever in the position of combat infantry again, I would unquestionably fill my heart with hate, my mind with focus, and kill any and every enemy in front of me with hateful and precise violence, because that's the job I VOLUNTEERED FOR, and I take pride in being one of the best at whatever I do, no matter what the job. Again, war is awful, grotesque, and brings out the absolute worst in human beings. Having said that, attempting to stifle some of that 'worst' (in this case, hate) is a very, very contradictory and weak argument!

    But I will say this to you, Angry Dem- thank you for your service, whether it be in direct combat or otherwise. Whatever your reason is, love of your country must be a part of it, even if it might not be your primary reason. For that, I give you my thanks and wish you the best."

    AbnRANGER | 10.21.08