Hail Victory!!! Two words that are rejected and even hated by not only liberals but a lot of conservatives, too.
When Barack Obama took his I'm-the-Messiah tour through Europe he gave a speech before the Victory Column in Berlin. Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck derided Obama's choice of venue because, he felt, it was too closely associated with the Nazis and their battle cry of "Sieg heil!", or "Hail victory!". While I share Beck's disdain for Obama's rock star jaunt through the Old Continent, I totally disagree with his discomfort with the Victory Column location and with the cry "Hail victory!"
Yes, I get the Nazi thing. And no, I'm not a Nazi. But neither am I someone who blindly rejects things simply because of their untoward association. The hard truth is that the Nazis were right to yell, "Seig heil!". And we'd be just as right to yell it, too.
What is the alternative to "Hail victory!"? What should we cry instead? Hail defeat? Hail slavery--or humiliation, occupation, or genocide--which usually follows defeat? The truth is that victory is good. It is good for nations to win. When conflict befalls a nation victory should be sought with all the urgency, resolution and singlemindness of a wolf pursuing a wounded deer. Defeat should never be an option.
Unfortunately, defeat is not only an option, it is an eagerly sought objective for a dangerously large segment of the Western world, including America. Gripped by an incomprehensible self-hatred and a corrupt "anti-racism" that insists non-Whites can do no wrong, Western progressives have sided with their civilization's worst enemy. From pop stars openly hoping for a Muslim victory to an Israeli PM declaring his country was "tired of winning", progressives purvey the poison of defeatism from every available venue.
To these woefully misguided people pursuing victory, or simply naming the enemy, is "warmongering". Peace, they think, can be had only by ensuring the West's defeat, thereby showing the enemy our good intentions. If we show the foe that we mean him no harm, the theory goes, he'll abandon his aggression and become a reasonable, well-behaved member of the international community. Progressives--and irrational pacifists--followed this theory during Hitler's rise to power, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and now during the War on Terror. That this theory has been a monumentally tragic failure in practice doesn't deter each new generation of progressives from having an almost religious devotion to it.
Working for the West's defeat is not a noble show of peacemaking. It is, rather, a crass display of cowardice, useful idiocy, and betrayal of the West's highest principles. Peace and the survival of Western civilization can be secured only by resolutely and totally crushing the enemy. The West needs another leader who will bluntly tell us, "Victory at all cost...for without victory there is no survival". Without victory there is no survival.