Spineless liberalism

What conservatives do really good is to take a strong stance that they are willing to defend. They clearly have in mind what they think "is good", and they clearly recognize who is their enemy. Their ideas aren't a confused mess, nor their actions are restrained by "tolerance".

Liberals, on the other side, in their search of "diversity", "pacifism", and "tolerance", they dig their own graves.

"Smashing racism with a clenched fist sounds too extreme. Instead, let us just hug and tolerate."

People like Ghandi have captured the imagination of many western liberals. The "polite revolutionary" certainly sounds very appealing to a society that celebrates martyrdom and self-sacrifice. The christian concept of turning the other cheek in the face of repression sounds much better than good old fashioned self-defense.

Anyone who thinks that the Indian independence movement was pacifist is really naive. When you mobilize millions of people who have their guts stuffed with rage, contempt, love, and dreams, you are not going to have pacifism. While it is true that Gandhi preached pacificism above all, the independence movement transcended that pacifism, and in fact, Ghandi's bankrupt ideology sometimes played a negative role in the struggle. Let us also point out that Ghandi was really conservative, and he was unwilling to challenge reactionary sectors like the Indian landowners.

I am not advocating a fetishization of violence. I am however, trying to discourage people fór "turning the other cheek" in the face of death. A person advocating the exile or death of you, your friends, brothers or sisters should feel threatened in your community. Not tolerating him is just common sense.

Is it sensible to condemn the thousands of jews, catholics, socialists, and workers that erected barricades in October 5, 1936 to prevent Oswald Mosley and his Union of Fascists to march through Cable Street just because the antifascists were being intolerant to the fascists' right of "freedom of speech and organization"? Is it sensible to condemn people willing to destroy the enemies of life and freedom before they are consumed by them?

To quote John Zerzan:

"Can we justify our lives with nothing more than such a politics of rage and dreams?"