The Anchoress, Dr Sanity And Adolph Hitler

Both The Anchoress and Dr Sanity come out swinging this morning, with line drive posts.

Just So I'm Clear On This New Rule, is an around the bases triple play. The Anchoress bypasses the debate about the politicization of King funeral, entirely:

Anyway, we’re being told that this crassness is all appropriate and that we’d better get used to it - particularly if theworstpersonintheworld, George W. Bush, is around.

Get used to it, you say?

So…if, let’s say, tomorrow Jimmy Carter dies (or Ted Kennedy, or any liberal) and there is the funeral…if some conservatives get up and use the occasion to criticize liberal dignitaries in attendance, that will be okay? Because, after all, Carter, or Kennedy, or whoever “were political people?” Is this really what you want, folks?

So Teddy Kennedy, say, keeled over in an alcohol induced cardiac or liver failure, it might be appropriate at his funeral to recall his blustery stupidity- not to mention references to his 'forgetting' to call the police after a certain car accident, while 'remembering' to call lawyers, the Boston democratic machine bosses and a PR person. One might also mention Mary Jo lived for 2 hours, after the accident. Why not? Those allegations carry more weight and truth than the remarks made at the King funeral. So, if sometime in the near future,

a conservative gets up and moves away from tribute and into politically charged speech…makes sneering remarks about 17% mortgage rates, or Iranian hostages, or bombing aspirin factories, or talking for years and years about WMD’s, or ignoring Rwanda, or lying under oath, or accessing FBI files, or whatever - that will be okay, right?

You won’t have a problem with it, because the funeral of a “political” person is now simply one more “political event,” right? And sometimes crassness is called for? Can even be touted as a virtue?

Well. If those are the new rules, don’t forget who made ‘em up.

Where did the Kos Kids just go? Why, it's as if the lights were turned on in the middle of the night and the cockroaches are scurrying away to hide in their dark holes. The little Hitlers don't like the 'good for goose,good for the gander,' way of doing business. You see, they are special. Some even have trophies.

The Anchoress, hands on hips says, You wanna play, you gotta pay.

Read the entire post here. It's a keeper, folks.

In other knockout posts, Dr Sanity is displaying no ill effects from the Cincinnati chili. Her post, Coping With Fear, is another classic. She starts by quoting a previous post:

This blogger is essentially arguing that-- instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamofascists (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial; and maintain that the only thing we have to fear is...President Bush. The latter is a defense mechanism called displacement that I have already discussed...

She goes on to say,

I don't know about you, but I am afraid of terrorism and what the Islamic jihadists want to do to the world. In fact, I think it is extremely reasonable to be afraid. We are not dealing with people with whom you can sit down and negotiate a reasonable settlement of disagreements.

Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi et al want to either forcibly convert us, enslave us , or kill us. They have repeated these objectives clearly many times. I happen to find none of their options particularly attractive. Nor do I find the "moderate" course in dealing with such fundamental irrationality particularly helpful as an overall strategy (although supporting moderate voices within Islam may be a useful tactic in appropriate circumstances). The moderates of the left and right mean well when they argue for moderation and tolerance; but in reality, they are enabling the first two of the Islamists' objective's as a compromise and because they do not want open conflict. Eventually, however, the moderates will have to give into the third one, too--unless they are finally willing to make a stand.

Like it or not, Dr Sanity's intemperate remarks are absolutely true. While her possible tactless language might be inappropriate at a meeting of the Ann Arbor Garden Society and the DAR chapter, they are entirely what is called for when discussing the issues of terror and Islamism.

In discussing where the Dr Sanity post goes next, we wish to bring to light a little known historical oddity. Actually, more of a profound tragedy.

After Adolph Hitler was elected to the Reichstag in 1933, some Jewish leaders believed that by cooperating with Hitler, he might modify his anti Semitism. Go ahead, read that again.

...The committee's reluctance was based upon urgent communications from prominent Jewish families to kill any anti-German protest or boycott. German Jewish leaders were convinced that the German public would abandon the Nazis once the economy improved. And even if Hitler remained in power, German Jewish leaders felt some compromise would be struck to provide Jewish cooperation for economic convalescence. Hitler might then quietly modify, or set aside, his anti-Semitic campaign.

In the face of declared intentions, there were still those that saw Adolph Hitler and Nazism as forces that could be reasoned with.

Dr Sanity has no such illusions when it comes to evil.

Let me make this clear. ALL defenses --healthy or not--are involuntary and unconscious attempts to deal with dangerous , overwhelming or unbearable situations. I am not making a moral judgement about the use of denial, paranoia, projection, displacement or other psychotic or neurotic defenses to cope.

I AM MAKING A MORAL JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE PROCESSES.

Clear enough? She goes on to quote Charles Krauthammer who rips the phony moderates and 'voices of reason.' She rightly concludes that

In this case, "moderation" is just another word for appeasement and enabling--as I said earlier in this post.

Read the post, here. It's a winner.

Our post Speaking In Tongues And Other Truths, makes clear the difference between enemies and adversaries.

An enemy is someone with whom we, as individuals and as a community, have fundamental differences. An enemy has values and beliefs, that are very different than out own. An enemy wants to deprive us of our beliefs and values, because that enemy finds our beliefs repulsive or threatening to their own. Enemies will fight to the death, should they choose to engage us or we choose to engage them.

There are people who believe that enemies are opponents- that is, they can reasoned with and rationalized with and common ground can be had. Believing that an enemy can be an opponent is what led much of Europe to appease Hitler, in the beginning. Herr Hitler, it was believed, was after all a European. Surely he could be reasoned with. Surely he would respond to the rational idea that war was catastrophic.

Both The Anchoress and Dr Sanity make clear they understand the differences between opponents and enemies.

Do you?