Lefties can be such a headache. . .

Cut-rate and Chris (two of our Lefty friends) take exception to the idea that when countries fight for their lives, they may do exceptional things. In that sense of the word, 'exceptional' can mean either 'good' or 'bad'. But mention (for example) the internment of people during World War II, and these two simply fall over each other in a furious attempt to break down any parallels (we won't mention the ad-hominem stuff) that may exist with our current situation.

Why?

'People were only interned on racial grounds,' countered Liam. Not quite right, Liam. Here's some super-quick info':

". . .during World War Two, 25,720 people were placed in camps in Australia: some were POWs from abroad, some were internees from Allied territories. Others were Australian citizens. The Australian citizens, around 7,000 in all, were interned for no other reason than that they were seen as a threat to national security. . .mainly people with some connection to one of more than thirty foreign countries, namely Germany, Japan and Italy, though they also included a small group of Anglo-Australian dissidents."

Note for Liam: these are nationalities (and associated ideologies, namely Nazism and Fascism), by the way, but I understand it was just a quick comment.

Let's look at the Fascists, shall we?

With the entry of Italy into the War in 1941, Italians were also considered "enemy aliens" as was the case for people of German descent. . ."

". . . Italians were promptly and arbitrarily interned. Many thousands of Italian males were arrested . . .

The methods of identification, arrest and internment had been formulated in August 1939 and the internment of Italians was carried out on a large scale. Even naturalised British subjects were arrested. In 1942, the number of Italians interned in Australia reached an all time high. But after that time the numbers decreased as the threat of Japanese invasion subsided. By late in the war only 135 hard-core Fascists remained in Australian internment camps."

A good thing? No, it wasn't a good thing. It was a necessary thing. Like defending ourselves was and is a necessary thing. Once again, in a fight for your life, you don't muck around.

That is, of course, unless you want to lose. . .

At this point, it becomes pretty important to understand why people (lefties) get quite so hysterical about this concept, and there are a couple of potential reasons that spring to mind. Firstly (and the most likely in most cases) they believe that in order to be able to retain the moral high ground, one must live it at all costs (with 'all costs' stretching as far as losing, we must assume, though I doubt many of them really think that far ahead). Personally, I actually have some strong sympathies for this position (relating to retaining the high ground), but not to the extent of jeopardising my and my community's ability to sympathise with anything, ever again.

Though far from ascribing the next motive to either of the two gents mentioned above (who I do not believe think in this fashion – who I do not know at all, truth be known, though I have a whimsical affection for old Chris, even if he did call me 'defective'), another potential reason is far more sinister.

This motive comes from a nastier, more malevolant brand of lefty (personalities I have certainly encountered, and who have crowed quite openly on the topic, much to my fury) who see these same, lofty ideals as being a weakness, ripe for exploitation. These characters agree every bit as vehemently with the rest that the ideal is one that must be preserved at all costs. In their case, however, it is so that a sizeable chink in our armour might be left well and truly open. In their case, it is defended so that enemies abroad might be allowed to enter unhindered, so that enemies in our midst may be allowed to operate unfettered. These are the same lefties who demand that security organisations like ASIO be dismantled; often the same who argue against broader surveillance laws in the name of civil liberties, but with a far more sinister, underlying motivation very firmly in mind. The strength and appeal of their argument comes directly from the fact that it very firmly hooks into our own beliefs: no one in their right mind wants Big Brother peering over their shoulder, and we would all defend freedom with our lives - it is crucial to our beliefs (and now, maybe, some of our lefty friends can start to see the conservative conundrum: Who's who, guys? Which of you, when it really comes down to it, can we trust? How do we pick the starry-eyed altruists from the out-and-out traitors, for whom all the West's enemies are considered friend?).

But back to the example of internment in the name of national security in times of war. The important point here is that when the war ended, when the threat passed, these people were released. The exceptional circumstances over, rights and freedoms were returned. And this is the crucial difference between the Western Democracies (our own in particular) and the rest. Exceptional circumstances make for exceptional actions.

But far from fighting for our cultural (and real) lives, far from acknowledging these exceptional circumstances, many people, particularly from the left, don't (or simply refuse to) believe there is any fight at all (apart from the shady ones, of course, who know there is and actually want us to lose).

And that, unfortunately, is our most important difference of all.