« The Flexibility of Conventional Warfare | Main | More on Love and Hate »

May 02, 2011


YN2(SW) H. Lucien Gauthier III

That is some of the most inspired writing I've read in a long time. Well said.


Uh, actually, King only didn't utter the first sentence, and DID say, in Strength to Love, "no one should rejoice at the death or defeat of a human being." Perhaps you should reconsider your bullshit appropriation.


Freddie, my point re: King was about the sentiment of love being enough and the stereotypical (and sanitized) image of him that we're taught in elementary school that drains his radicalism and proto-militancy from the text.


I updated the post, however, with a link to yours.


Why is anyone foolish enough to fall for anything from McArdle (I did too). Of course she is wrong. Except for the introductory sentence the quote is from MLK: http://goo.gl/IUD3R


lol at mlk's "protomilitancy"


See above, which Freddie already corrected.


Actually, MLK did say this:

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

limo services in mesa az

Check front and rear bumper bars for scratches dense and any signs of rust.


This is VERY well written and backed up by historical and relevant examples! Not sure I agree that F.W. De Klerk found anything acceptable...more like he and his cronies were forced into an "agreement." Otherwise, I loved it, and I have shared your post with many people...especially those posting the modified King Jr. quote.
On a second note...not sure if you read Politico.com...but this one was barely tolerable... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54124.html#ixzz1LEzrwloC
I am so sick of people saying that because we got Osama, we should pull out of the other arenas we are fighting in...le dumb!


Sure, wars aren't caused by pure hatred. People use violence because they see some advantage in it, and they will have logical reasons. But behind the logic and the advantage there's emotion.


I really enjoyed your thoughtful post. Forgive the following; I haven't slept for two days and I worry that I am unable to adequately or eloquently express my thoughts. Nevertheless, there's power in the moment, and like all things on the internet, the time and relevance of this post will soon be past.. So I should reply now, and sleep later.

I agree with many of your observations, but in order to understand the power of Dr. King's words we can't limit the concept of hate to an illogical, driving force. Likewise, the love he spoke of is not a cowardly, simpering, sentimental thing but a stubborn refusal to move when you are in the way of injustice, among many other things. The love he speaks of goes hand in hand with the idea of political action. Silence and inaction are just as bad as "hate," so love must mean standing up for what we think is right. It means standing up, getting in the way, being loud, refusing to comply with or tacitly allow the status quo to continue.

People like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are given power because many people go along with it. If enough people had spoken up against Hitler from the beginning, he would have had no opportunity to advance his conflict. So regardless of political agenda, wars are allowed to be fought because we allow them to be fought, if you'll forgive the redundancy. I do not believe that any population on earth is predisposed to agree with ideas like Hitler's or bin Laden's.

Whether or not the political motivations are rational is irrelevant. Unjust objectives are unsustainable, and rational, just objectives require a positive force in order to create meaningful change. The advantages of violence are temporal and do not solve underlying problems: killing Osama bin Ladin is a self-satisfying act of revenge. We may have stopped one force of incredible, awful pain and violence, but in doing so with the means we used, we have fanned the fires of hate in many, many others. If killing one violent man results in the creation of ten other violent men, was it worth it? What is our political motivation as a nation? To advance the concept of freedom? To end terrorism? We have to attack the ideas of the man, not the man himself. A man can be stopped without being killed. We have to examine the structure and underlying forces which create "hate," and seek to destroy those instead. Part of this means seeking to understand the enemies as human beings (and, by the way, as something other than enemies). If there is something in our culture which is so offensive as to incite acts of terrorism, could it hurt to reflect upon ourselves? I think it might be more meaningful if every person believed that the change has to begin within themselves.
Another Dr. King quote, this time from Beyond Vietnam, 1967,

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

Please, continue to debate this issue, and don't stop there. If you disagree, say so, and explain.

custom essays

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

chemistry online

i thinks that's the best description of war mechanics i've ever read


Its very good written i agree with that.

The comments to this entry are closed.