Saturday, December 27, 2008

Human Sacrifice in the Pit of Hell

Israeli retaliation is under way on Iran's proxy in Gaza. It's another case of a dystopia of Paradise, for reasons we'll explain shortly.

Qassam Count tweets: "16 rockets have been fired at Israel since the attack on Gaza has begun. 1 woman dead, 4 injured" - and "More than 5,000 rockets have been fired at Israel in the past 3 years; 200 in the past 20 days."

The propaganda twitter from behind the border speaks of 'massacres' and 'holocausts' and hospitals filled with women and children. #Gaza and #Hamas are virtual Hamas propaganda echo chambers. Someone posed the question why there aren't any tweets from an Israeli perspective on the Gaza war? Guess Israel has only soldiers on the ground; they've got another ax of grind.

The IDF attacks are pinpointed at Hamas police stations and other military installations. These are built within populated areas, effectively using the people as a human shield. This tactic of course is hardly new. It is entirely consistent with the morals of collectivism: a translation might read, individuals doing their ultimate duty towards the whole: they are the Middle Eastern equivalent of canon fodder.

The IDF has code-named the Gaza War "Oferet Yetzuka" ("Cast Lead"), referring to Hanukkah Dreidels.

A curiosity keep-sake in my possession is a supermarket cherry basket dating back when Israel vacated and handed over the Gaza settlements to the PA: they inherited a profitable orchard (paid for by the EU), but for PR considerations, turned it into a hell hole!

The debilitating reversed morality for mentally five year olds that "violence breeds only more violence" and the demonstrably false bromide that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" should be directed at Hamas et al. These dilettant petty philosophers have become pawns in a propaganda war, that aids and abetts a terrible evil of which ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are the real victims.

Does anyone remember the common knowledge of twenty years ago? If the Palestinians left the miserable refugee camps and started picking up their lives, resettling elsewhere in the Dar-al-Islam, the 'Palestinian issue' would be effectively over - something Arab regimes would never condone! So for political reasons they leave the Palestinians whom they historically dislike, to rot in the pits of hell. That, is Middle East cynicism for you ...

Here's the latest tweet from Breaking News On: "The death toll from the Israeli attacks on Gaza has risen to at least 200, officials tell Press TV; 300 to 800 reported injured. Hamas officials say the Israeli attacks are continuing after dark, new airstrike reported in southern Gaza."

- Caption: map of the UNWRA operated refugee camps in Gaza. The "1948 Arab-Israeli conflict" of which the UN site speaks was when Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel and lost, the beginning of the myth surrounding the 'occupied territories'. -


The title of this post should be understood quite literally.
Israel Politik touches upon the barbarism of just one of the methods of human sacrifice in "Who invented the “Human Shields” method?": "Hamas has released an official statement declaring that Dr. Nizar al-Rayyan who was killed in a pinpointed attack earlier today is the father of the “Human Shields” method". He invented this practice to stop the Israelis from phoning the occupier of the home, warning him to evacuate it before a strike.

- Filed on Articles on "Middle East Peace" -

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker part 11/16

One of the better productions by the Royal Ballet - entire series here

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

"Agni Parthene", by Nana Peradze

The Non-Defining of Terrorism and the UN’s Ethical Relativism

This post is published on All American Blogger as part of an ongoing series they made, on dangerous United Nations schemes Barack Obama could buy into.

- Caption: photo by David Paul Ohmer- a visit comes highly recommended -

- Filed on Articles in "Transnational Bankruptcy" -

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Fixing the Economy, the Really, Really Hard Way

The shocking severity and magnitude of the credit crisis - or perhaps a better word would be the Politically Correct Crisis - has caused the traditional Left and the Pragmatists, including the Center-Right statist guard, to once again grab for the wrong, long-bankrupt tools to "fix the economy".

While the conclusion seems justified that political correctness is no longer an innocent toy for social make-ability in the hands of progressivism, they're calling - as by knee-jerk reaction - for more regulation, state control and objectively false remedies, blaming the perfidity of capitalism for its failure. Here's why Keynesian methods don't work:

Washington Post: "Obama Expands Stimulus Goals - As Economic Outlook Grows More Dire, Early Target for Job Growth Is Bolstered"

President-elect Barack Obama has expanded his goals for a massive federal stimulus package to keep pace with the increasingly grim economic outlook, aiming to create or preserve at least 3 million jobs over the next two years. (...) With liberal and conservative economists calling on the government to spend $800 billion to $1.3 trillion to stanch the bleeding, the greater danger to the nation, Obama was told, lies in doing too little rather than too much. (...) >>>

One cannot help pondering the definition of stupidity: repeating the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different outcome.

Perhaps the obvious answer to the obstinate economic policies leading to failure is, that Keynesianism is the only answer politicians have to economic crisis. That is, short of taking the brakes off, which would make market-mechanisms the heroes of this piece instead of them and that, would never do!

Dutch Socialist Finance Minister Bos went from rock-bottom approval ratings just two months ago to Political Figure of the Year 2008 for socializing the banking sector ... FDR is still credited for saving the US from The Great Depression! Long live the irreconomics of John Maynard Keynes!

- Filed on Articles in "Economics" -

Friday, December 12, 2008

The International Intifada of Greece (update)

The spin the mainstream media is putting on this major story is of a similar nature, as was (is) the case in France's burning barricades: disenfranchised youths, no work, bored to shreds, here the concrete suburbs angle removed and the added chutzpah of complaints about "the quality of education"! Since when has any student ever protested against the dumbing-down of education?

What no one mentions is that the Karamanlis Government wants to put an end to the anomaly of university campuses being legalized free houses from criminal prosecution - a leftover from a spade of hyper corrections that took place under previous Socialist Governments in a reaction to the military regime's political persecution of Leftist students.

Still, all the positive spin and excusing the inexcusable makes one wonder if the old media aren't simply the third partner in the Unholy Alliance. Entire swatches of people have simply given up on them: their monopoly on the news is over! What to think of grown-up television journalists tenderly referring to 18 to 28 year old hooligans as 'angry boys'. Are they gullible, in the tank, or just plain idiots - or do they take the public for idiots? "Greek protests spread to European cities" - Hat Tip: Nora Sánchez

Anger over the fatal shooting of a Greek teenager by a policeman has spread across Europe with disturbances in a string of cities. (...) From Madrid to Moscow, Greeks living abroad, left-wing activists and other sympathisers took part in demonstrations in solidarity with the six days of rioting which has hit Greece.(...)

- In Copenhagen, police detained 63 people who threw bottles and paint bombs at riot police late on Wednesday.

- In Madrid, nine people were arrested when around 200 people chanting "police killers" targeted a police station, shops and banks.

- In Barcelona a Greek woman and another unidentified foreigner were arrested during a similar demonstration.

- In France, arsonists torched two cars outside the Greek consulate in Bordeaux, scrawling slogans in support of Greece's worst riots since the country was ruled by a military junta in the early 1970s. Graffiti sprayed opposite the consulate read "Support for the fires in Greece", "Insurrection Everywhere" and "The Coming Insurrection" – the latter the name of a book which the French government alleges has inspired a network of "ultra-left" anarchist groups.

- In Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul. Protesters threw petrol bombs at Greece's embassies in Moscow and Rome. (...) >>>

Understand that in the light of an interview yesterday in the Polish Times with the author of the previous article on Politeia ("Riots in Greece: What Is Not Reported") - Greek intelligence analyst Ioannis Michaletos, and you'll get another picture of reality. Here's just one excerpt from the English translation:

International Analyst Network: "Interview on the Greek riots"

Could you analyze important aspects of present street battles in Athens?

The street battles are the worst Athens has ever experienced, although it is a city with rather frequent clashes with the police. Important characteristics include the rapid mobilization of the rioters. For example they were out in the streets destroying property in just 20-25 minutes after the death of the young person was announced. It happened in 21.03, it was first announced in a website around 21:30 and the riots were already in full swing at 22:00. I have served in the Navy but I don't think armed forces are that quick in mobilizing their personnel!

Over the coming days, the rioters that numbered between 1,500-2,000 people (30% of those immigrants-mostly Muslim), were able to move from one part of the city to another in a quick way using a variety of methods, such as public transportation in small groups, motorcycles or even riding taxis alone and gathering in a specific "meeting place".

Lastly, they used extensively the internet, mobile phones and instant messaging services to alert against police and gather information of what the media were transmitting. In a few words, they were trained in a fashion that distincts them from the usual "Athenian rioters". They seemed to have international experience and plenty of hideouts within the city centre. (...)

The last two days the police took more action against them and they disappeared. This is a typical urban guerrilla way of fighting; avoid confrontation and strike when least expected, always in a very fast mode. There was looting involved but it was not done by the rioters but by other elements that exploited the situation. Therefore the rioters were not seeking immediate financial gains, nor did they want to make a political pronouncement. Their aim was to inspire fear. (...)

(...) a web of relations has been developed between Greek radicals and foreign ones. In that sense a provocation or the involvement of foreign intelligence apparatus it is not improbable judging by the recent European history. (...) >>>

Read it all!

Update: This article in the Wall Street Journal ("Greece is Burning") is repeating some of the worst of popular conspiracy theories around. It paints a picture of an almost a failed state! It's simply ludicrous. The press seems to be part of the troika that is bent on bringing down a democratically elected government. Updating throughout ...

The article is factually incorrect (we know to postmodernists reality is pliable, but hey - have facts become totally irrelevant in journalism?): the riots started only minutes after the death of the teenager, while this article speaks of "mostly peaceful mass demonstrations" which is exactly what didn't happen. Basically its an article with half truths and half lies without explaining one basic thing: why the riots started in the first place ... and who are the rioters?!


To put all these complaints in perspective, a poll on Greece-Salonika Blogspot on the question which are Greece's most urgent problems, reads as follows: inflation 47%, Macedonia 17%, unemployment 9%, drug abuse 2%, education 13%, Cyprus 3%, other 4%.

Nourishing Obscurity get kudos for indepth historical research in documents attached to: "[greece] gateway to powerful forces".

- Filed on Articles in "Terrorism in Greece" -

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Riots in Greece: What Is Not Reported

From the desk of Ioannis Michaletos


The International Analyst Network website has as a main aim to inform a specialized and enlightened audience of the undercover nature of events within the global security and intelligence sector.

In this case, an alternative point of view is going to be presented which derives from careful analysis and observation of the riots in Greece and reliable information streaming from domestic security circles. For obvious reasons, matters concerning operational or intelligence procedures will not be mentioned or quoted.

The riots have been orchestrated since late summer 2008. There were reports within the Greek police that the riots would commence by the Christmas period at the latest; the location and the justification was not known, but any event could have caused them. This is a copycat case of what happened in France in October 2005.

The culprits on the higher levels are Islamic networks in the Middle East, who go hand-in-hand with corrupt western officials, who are selling their services to the highest bidder.

The purpose is to destabilize Greece, the “weakest link” in the Euro zone countries. The ultimate goal is the creation of a European space, suitable for expansion of the Middle Eastern networks. For the moment the latter use a variety of techniques to bolster their aims: terrorism, disinformation, psyops, bribing officials.

They are trying to pit the US against Russia on the one hand, and to disrupt the Euro-American alliance on the other. They were also responsible for the Greek wildfires (pyro terrorism) in summer 2007 in an operation some call “the Ibrahim Project”, reminiscent of the type of havoc wreaked on the same region by Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt during the Greek revolution in the summer of 1827.

The existence of more than obvious links between renegade intelligence officers of western origin and anarchist-radical movements, in order to destabilize European countries is a major issue nowadays.

The anarchist-radical network of disenfranchised youths is very strong in Europe as the riots in 2005 showed, when radicals and Muslims joined forces and failed to damage French President Sarkozy’s image. In France it was announced recently by the Ministry of Interior that French anarchists are in contact with their Greek and Italian counterparts in trying to sabotage the High Speed Railway Network (TGV trains).

The inability of western governments to comprehend what is really at stake has already grave consequences for Europe. Moreover, the deals between European and Russian energy companies will increase natural gas imports by the former, will greatly diminish the influence of the Saudis in Europe, along with their long-term income.

The new American administration should really understand that it has been used for a number of years by Riyad (and others) who have managed to throw American forces into the Iraqi and Afghan battlefields, where the new 21st century Mujahedeen forces are being forged. They will be used against Europe in a few years, in a wargame that will surpass the abilities of Western capitals.

Back in Greece the riots are being executed with the use of the Internet and other new media techniques, such as instant messaging (IM) from mobile phones to web pages, Indymedia, along with the use of CB’s, Facebook pages, walkie-talkies, computer mass generated SMS, Twitter, and the construction of “flow-networks” and already established “dark networks” within the city.

The French government has already called for tough action by the Greek administration, whilst the intelligence apparatus of the former provides assistance to the latter. Over the coming days it seems that all the known security forces in the world will either try to take advantage of the situation, or take the side of the Greek government.

In a concluding remark, the author emphatically notes that the responsibility of the western capitals is of historical proportions. Rioting by “radical youths” will become an everyday reality on the continent in the coming years and the security forces should look further than their noses in assessing the situation.

A 4th World War erupted in 2001 and there are enemy collaborators within our ranks. Before any victory can be called, they should be removed and punished accordingly. The riots in Greece are just one small incident in the ongoing war, that may last longer than the previous ones; it is a struggle which all-encompasses national, social, and economic structures.

Interested readers should not forget that the first “Little War” of the Cold War started on Greek soil in 1946. Back then the enemy was clear and present. Now he is not, and the effort therefore will be much harder.

Post Scriptum: Quite a few Greek radical groups have adopted Arabic noms de guerres; they promote illegal immigration of Muslims into Europe, and call for the destruction of Western civilization. They are part of an almost global network that acts as a “soft power” element of the hard one, as envisaged by Al Qaeda. It has to be stressed once more that rogue elements of western security forces protect them. They have to be dealt with as soon as possible.

- Filed on Articles in "Terrorism in Greece" -

Waking Up To Islamization: Two Islam Films Hitting Screen

Is the liberation of Islam coming from America? Will the American ethos of self-government save the religion from itself.

Experts have said it for some time now, and we heartily support the premise: it is up to Muslims to liberalize Islam, to turn it into a force for the good, instead of using it as an ideology and a vehicle for religious conquest.

The hero of the day is the narrator of the film"The Third Jihad", Dr Zuhdi Jasser, an American and a devout Muslim. Watch his statements here in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News!

Here are more links:

- "The Third Jihad", Radical Islam's Vision for America - the official site

- The clips page, sign-up for the newsletter and watch a 30 minutes version

The Facebook fan group

In the Netherlands today a second movie, critical of Islam hits the screens.

It's made by a young Dutch-Iranian Labour politician and Muslim apostate, Ehsan Jami. Like the other outspoken Islam critic, Geert Wilders, Jami is under constant threat by radical elements.

The Dutch Government keeps dealing spasmodically with anti Islam films. As with Geert Wilders' film "Fitna", embassies are being fortified, politicians and appeasers are crying foul before they've even seen the film, and security services are working 24/7 to update their risk analyses.

Ehsan Jami doesn't consider the movie anti Islam though. In the documentary Jami 'interviews' an anonymous actor, who plays the role of the Prophet Mohammed.

The Dutch MSM, still very much focussed on the traditional 'old media', were giving Jami initially a hard time getting his film screened. He had planned it to go into premiere on Human Rights Day, but the television broadcasters backed down. Today it will hit the screen in The Hague at the International Press Center Nieuwspoort.

It's up to Muslims how they will deal with the artistic critique: the first from within, the second by an apostate. Will almost certainly be continued ...

- Filed on Articles in "In Defense of Liberty" -

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

R.I.P. Parliamentary Democracy

To those who haven't noticed, to the dim of wit, the socialights, the evaders and the hard of hearing: WE ARE THROAT-DEEP IN HORSE MANURE, primarily because we are encouraged to voluntarily forfeit the faculty that makes us humans human: to reason, the ability to properly identify, to integrate concepts into a mental body of ideas that conform to reality. And then there's the inability to weigh the portent of a particular case. The march of the debilitizers rolls on.

Because of an uptick in both frequency and severity we yesterday felt the necessity to open up a new dossier on Articles named "Ruled by the Mob" (not to be confused with the tyranny of the majority, or mob rule). It consists in a political innovation (at least in our time), that is now temporarily culminating in a case in Britain: the criminalization of the opposition.

Thanks to the Obama campaign in the US - which was as close to total war as one can get without actual bloodshed - the dossier is already quite lengthy.

It occurred last Thursday November 27 when the anti-terrorist squad of the Metropolitan police arrested Shadow Minister for Immigration, Damian Green MP, while his private papers and computer files in his home and office in the House of Commons were ransacked and confiscated.

This violation against the state of parliamentary democracy happened on thinly veiled, trumped up charges of possible "intent to disrupt the visit of the Queen to the Houses of Parliament". What's next, one might ask: Jesuits thrown in dungeons for disturbing the peace in St Peter's? But that's not the point!

The following question is intriguing, but it also misses the essence: who has been infiltrating swathes of British society and has propagated to act over and beyond his or her authority? If the surfacing of the black hand of Common Purpose (CP) cabal is too contrived for you, try this.

Roger Kimball on his blog on Pajamas Media deals with the case in "How Democracies Perish, British Edition": "The Honorable Member’s offense? Embarrassing Gordon Brown’s government. How did he do this? By revealing in debate on the floor of the House of Commons and in various lapses, failures, and dirty-little-secrets about the government’s immigration policy (...) Mr. Green was doing exactly what a member of the Opposition should do: shedding light on the government’s failures in order to make it more accountable to the public."

Kimball goes on to quote Janet Daley in the London Telegraph:

"The object of the exercise seems to have been intimidation and the flaunting of power. Short of an outright, totalitarian suspension of democracy, this is about as serious as it gets. Freedom is under threat in ways that we would not have thought conceivable a generation ago. The threat seems to be coming in various forms from a government desperate to save its own credibility and to be so convinced of its moral righteousness that it can justify the most blatant abuses of what we had taken to be the fundamental principles of a free society."

Some of the comments to the post are worth quoting in full:

#7: “…it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect” --George Orwell

#8: "As Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it “This is something you might expect from a tin-pot dictatorship, not in a modern democracy.” Socrates would beg to differ. If you want to avoid going down the road that leads to this sort of thing, it helps to know how we got here in the first place. The Left’s substitution of “democracy” for freedom is a key first step to their overall goal of taking the shackles off government and placing them back on the wrists of individuals. What makes a society free is a limited government, not an elected one."

So much for Barack Obama and his contempt for negative rights, which he popularly described as "what government cannot do to you". Rather than suffering the horrors of neglect by the state, he prefers the positive rights that chain a free individual once again to the risk-free nursery of the tribal collective.

The case is also born out in an excellent article by essayist Fjordman on the site of The Brussels Journal: "The Importance of Cicero in Western Thought". It's lengthy, but worth reading in its full glory. Here's one excerpt from Hayek's work "Constitution of Liberty" that's relevant to the case in hand (p. 146):

- Caption: young Cicero, reading - mural by Vincenzo Foppa, ca. 1464 -

"Cicero indeed became the main authority for modern liberalism, and we owe to him many of the most effective formulations of freedom under the law (...) that we obey the law in order to be free (...) during the classical period of Roman law it was fully understood that there is no conflict between law and freedom and that freedom is dependent upon certain attributes of the law, its generality and certainty, and the restrictions it places on the discretion of authority."

Freedom, as well as free will are often confused with acting on whim - another case of wrongful identification - which is indeed associated with mob rule, or tyranny by the majority which is in fact democracy.

As Sam Holliday pointed out in a recent essay on this blog, "A US Weimar Republic? Red Flags: Our Republic": [America's Founding Fathers] "created a federal republic, and wrote the Constitution of the United States, based on the tenets of classical republicanism, which is dependent on sovereignty being held by citizens themselves. The Founders shared a fear of tyranny, either by dictators or Caesars, and sought ways to protect freedom; their solutions were decentralization and checks and balances. It was a remarkable compromise designed as a safe guard against mass emotionalism."

The Left and increasingly also some on the Right are blind to the perils of recent trends towards emocracy, collectivism, bailouts and nationalizations, corporatism, peace-offerings and libations to theofascists and now, demonization and criminalization of the opposition. The Government that perpetrated this abomination is - to this moment - in power.

We stand by what we concluded yesterday in a note on the precursors of censorship: "Tolerate it at your peril."


Times just reported that the police acted without a warrant and in the course of an investigation into a series of leaks traced back to the Home Office. We are not in a position to investigate, but will show no signs of surprise if Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson or the directly responsible underling, as was the case in the De Menezes shooting, turns out to have undergone training by the nefarious Common Purpose (CP), "to act beyond authority" (see above). N.B. There was one (1) Labour MP who protested the matter during the Commons Debate. Kudos to him; the rest are too demoralized to compute the longer-term course of their ideas.

- Filed on Articles in "Ruled by the Mob" -

Monday, December 1, 2008

A US Weimar Rep? Red Flags (III): the Lessons

Continued from Part II: "A US Weimar Republic? Red Flags: Our Republic"

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


The parallels
Of course there are many differences in the USA today and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had been severely damaged by World War I and the Versailles Treaty; Germany lacked the Anglo-Saxon tradition of constitutionality, limited government, separation of powers and free-market capitalism; America has a tradition of smooth transitions between administrations; German nationalism was based on ethnic identity rather than identity with the principles in our founding documents; and the economy of Germany in the 1930s was worse than that of the USA today--at least worse than it is now.

Yet there are some ominous parallels. In the USA since the 1960s many traditional American ideas, values and attitudes have been eroded, and capitalism is being replaced by mixed economies. Religion and morality has less influence on behavior; there is a trend from individualism toward collectivism, relativism and socialism; there is greater acceptance of subjective ideas; there is greater catering to the fears and emotions of factions; and factions are becoming more alienated. These changes have parallels in Germany of the 1930s.

A key parallel is the replacement of rational thought with feelings and emotions. Another is how the vast majority of people simply absorb the thoughts presented by the educational establishment, the media, and the entertainment pop culture. The Utopias sought from 1919 to 1933 in Germany and in the USA after the 1960s are different, yet the pursuit of Utopias is the same.

Peikoff blames Christianity, and self-sacrifice for the collective, for paving the way to totalitarian dictatorship. Today we would have to blame postmodern thought. Will we hear the argument that centralized power under "an enlightened leader" is not all bad if necessary to solve crises and to insure "fairness for all"?

Will some group be declared an "enemy within"? Will the American people of the next decade be manipulated like the German people of the 1930s? Will the emotionalism of the Populares destroy the organic American nation motivated by its exceptionalism? An understanding of history might allow the USA to avoid the errors made by the Germans.

Of course these parallels only suggest a possible future for America. The many differences in the USA today and Germany in the 1930s probably insure stability and prevent a dictatorship, although future Caesars are likely. Such a tragic move would only be possible if the American culture is fundamental changed so that the frugality, industry and simplicity of ‘traditional Americans’ are replaced by decadence, self-indulgence and insolvent debt.

However, the red flags do justify a reexamination of the past. History is never repeated exactly, yet those unaware of history are destined to repeat past mistakes. How can we anticipate the future? We should study the past. Only thus can we have a glimpse of the road ahead. Hopefully if people understand the lessons of history they will be able to chart a better course. It is hoped that this essay can reveal a better course.

The Role of the German Military
The German military in the 1930s made errors of both commission and omission. For years they took too active a role in politics and then they lacked the will to prevent the destruction of a republican government, with checks and balances, and its replacement by a centralized authoritarian regime.

The paradox was that the military that was instrumental in the protection of the German people in 1919 (against the Communists and anarchists), in 1920 (against rejection of parliamentary government by the Prussian bureaucrat Kapp and Freikorps units) and in 1923 (against both Hitler and the Communists) was paralyzed after 1932 by their self-image of apolitical professionalism.

By August 1934 the German government had been centralized into a socialistic collective with Hitler as the Head of State—and the supreme authority. All officers and soldiers were required to swear an oath of loyalty to Hitler personally, rather than to the German nation and Constitution of a German Republic.

After World War I the German nation lacked a social contract, so the Weimar Constitution was subject to continual interpretations, resulting in conflict among factions, rather than being a basis for unity. This made it difficult for the German military with experience of loyalty to a sovereign Head of State rather than to a sovereign people.

The leadership of the German military saw themselves as professional soldiers responsible for the defense of their country against external enemies. The officers were intelligent, dedicated men who had proven themselves in war, they were considered the brightest and the best, yet they were military technicians. They were more comfortable being loyal to a single leader, as under Kaiser William II, than under the control of a bungling parliament. They were not political visionaries—in fact they were politically handicapped.

Their guide was “Reichwehr does not shoot at Reichwehr”. They considered themselves above the selfish games of politicians and political parties. Although this gave them strength, it was also to prove a fatal weakness. Their apolitical professionalism did not prevent military leaders from taking key positions in government as illustrated by Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, General Kurt von Schleicher, and General Hans von Seeckt.

In 1923 the German military was able to prevent Hitler from seizing power. From this defeat Hitler learned a lesson. He decided that in the future he would work to neutralize the military and come to power legally. He realized that military professionalism appropriate for War (conflict between the armed forces of states) and Peace (conflict/cooperation without the use of force) would be ineffective in political subversion in which all means possible are used to weaken and overthrow those in authority. He knew that if he could get power legally he could then use the military against external enemies, while he developed other organizations to insure internal control. Later these were to be realized in the SS and the Gestapo.

Field Marshal von Hindenburg was a renowned soldier with a long record of accomplishment in an era of conventional war, but he did not understand the dynamics of the 1930s or the complexity of political subversion. He had dealt with many politicians, but no true demagogue. He assumed that Hitler was just another clever, deceitful politician. So did von Schleicher, von Seeckt and most of the German military. The Reichswehr considered internal security and order primarily a police matter and something to be avoided by military professionals. This was the Achilles heel of the Reichswehr.

- Caption: Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933 appoints Adolf Hitler as Chancellor, although the National Socialists lost two million votes and 34 seats in Parliament -

The actions of the German military after 1932 once again demonstrates that anything taken to the extreme creates its opposite. A lesson to be learned is that the vision of the Founding Fathers of the USA of checks and balances in a Republic is superior to the certainty of legality or the resolution of conflict through political debate.

Another is that decentralized federalism protects the people better than centralized government. A third lesson to be learned from the history of the German military under the Weimar Republic is that a military that focuses on external threats and war is vulnerable to a demagogue.

Can the USA Avoid the Mistakes Made by Germany?
Yes, but only if we learn from the past. There is going to be no “American Hitler”. However, power could be centralized so that the USA becomes a socialistic collective. And the outcome of interpretations to a “living” Constitution could mean a republic in name only--with little in common with what our Founders visualized.

If we remember the lessons of history the USA should be able to avoid the destruction of constitutional government, which took place in Germany from 1923 to 1934. However, US military must avoid the mistakes made by the German military, which will require an understanding of the concept of civilian control of the military among politicians, the military, and the public. Now there is only superficial awareness of this important concept.

To encourage thought about the meaning of civilian control of the military the essay 'Civil-Military Relations' dated 11 May 06 explains the four interpretations of civilian control of the military, and outlines its three requisites. Then the essay discusses how the concept evolved and how it has been used and misused. Finally, a conceptual framework is offered for those interested in understanding this important concept.

Civil-military relations cannot be seen solely in terms of legality. It must also be rooted in customs and traditions. The US military needs to have the knowledge, skill and will to balance effectiveness, responsiveness, and representativeness as it carries out its oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

More importantly the American people must learn from history not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and they must realize that they are a unique people with a unique American culture. It is true that no one can foretell the future. Nevertheless we should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. Americans must remember that the checks and balances (Stability through Equilibrium) and decentralization gifts of our Founders differ from the governmental structures and processes of all others. It is our mission to see that American exceptionalism is always a beacon for others.

- Caption: Washington Memorial - Hat Tip Ethan K. Birchard -
Agar, H., The Price of Union, Boston, 1950.
Barrow, R. H., The Romans, Harmondswrorth, Middlesex, 1955.
Peikoff, L., The Ominous Parallels, New York, 1982.
Mann, G. The History of Germany since 1789, New York, 1968.
Riencourt, A. de, The Coming Caesars, London, 1958.
Rossiter, C., Seedtime of the Republic, New York, 1953.

Copyright © 2008  Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

A printable version of the integral text of the essay "Red Flags", a parallel between Weimar Germany and Postmodern USA

- Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" and "Americana" -

A US Weimar Rep? Red Flags (II): Our Republic

Continued from "A US Weimar Republic? Red Flags (I): Introduction"

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


Our Republic
Today there is the gulf between the self-reliant, practical, hard working, self-disciplined, freedom loving ‘traditional Americans’ and two other groups: (1) intellectuals and youth with extreme postmodern values and attitudes, and (2) entitlement factions which expect government to give them what they want.

This is the genesis of the cultural struggle in our country between modernism, which built our country, and a paradigm shift to postmodernism. The advocates of this change refer to themselves as progressives and to this shift as progress. Initially this struggle resulted in the deconstruction of traditional values and attitudes in our schools and universities. Then it spread to our media, our legal system, and finally to ordinary citizens. It is not about logic or reason; it is all about emotions.

The presidential election of 2008 revealed some psychological and philosophical trends, which indicate how far our country has changed from being a united, organic meritocracy. The election was an expression of black pride and white guilt. It was a victory for the Populares: electoral masses and the disadvantaged proletariat. The challenge we now face is how to cope with whatever might confront us in the future.

Our Founders were very concerned about universal suffrage. They were afraid of what today is called ‘one person, one vote.’ In 1815 John Adams was to call it “the most ignoble, unjust and detestable form of government” which “ wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” (Agar, p. 40)

They created a federal republic, and wrote the Constitution of the United States, based on the tenets of classical republicanism, which is dependent on sovereignty being held by citizens themselves. The Founders shared a fear of tyranny, either by dictators or Caesars, and sought ways to protect freedom; their solutions were decentralization and checks and balances. It was a remarkable compromise designed as a safe guard against mass emotionalism.

Our Founders knew from history that republics couldn’t survive without civic virtue, i.e. citizens placing the good of the republic ahead of their self-interests. Therefore, they limited the right to vote to property owners. They wanted to avoid the possibility that the ‘have nots’ would vote to themselves the wealth of the ‘haves.’ As Washington said “mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.” (Agar, p.22)

However, since 1789 rulings of the Supreme Court, universal suffrage and mass emotionalism have eroded the views of our Founders. Although our Constitution is a most remarkable document it relies on abstract principles—the rule of law. The Founders should have known that this would encourage, not prevent, the centralization of power, for it had been attempted two thousand years before.

As Cicero said: “Cato used to say that our state excelled all others in its constitution; in them, for the most part, an individual had established his own form of state by his laws and institutions… our state, on the contrary, was the result, not of one man’s genius but of many men, not of one man’s life but of several centuries and periods … actual experience stretching over the ages is needed” (Barrow, p. 43)

However, abstract principles are unable to match the emotional appeals of charismatic personalities who skillfully exploit the rootlessness, hardship, distress, skepticism, cynicism and desires of the time. Convincing rhetoric that offers the hope of some Utopia always wins. Abraham Lincoln noted this in a speech at the Springfield Men’s Lyceum when he warned of the danger of demagogues destroying any republic.

Over a hundred years ago Alex de Tocqueville described how different American culture was from that of Europe. What he had observed was American exceptionalism based on a tradition of constitutionality, limited government, separation of powers and free-market capitalism. He saw Americans as optimistic, self-reliant, freedom loving people who had low expectations for government.

In the 1930s Jose Orozco recorded, in frescoes at Dartmouth College, the differences he saw in Latin American and Anglo American cultures. He saw the people in the USA as cohesive, dedicated and disciplined without the oppression, self-indulgence, and corruption of centralized government in many other countries.

Since the 1930s there have been many changes, both good and bad, but the critical questions are: Do the red flags we can now see indicate that American culture has fundamentally changed? Have civic virtues been lost? Have the republican institutions placed in our Constitution been replaced by postmodern thought and socialistic collective ideas? Has the gradual evolution toward social equality eliminated the meritocracy our Founders visualized? Should we seek a society of excellence with individuals judged on merit and accomplishment, or a society of equals? Has equality of outcomes replaced equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and equality before God? Should citizenship be a privilege to be earned, rather than a right?

To be continued in Part III, "The lessons" ... "Of course there are many differences in the USA today and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had been severely damaged by World War I and the Versailles Treaty ..."

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

A printable version of the integral text of the essay "Red Flags", a parallel between Weimar Germany and Postmodern USA

- More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" -

- Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" and "Americana" -

Saturday, November 29, 2008

We, the Peoples of Europe, Got Roots!

Two and a half years ago I set out on a mission to find out what's wrong with the West today. One of the first ports of call on this mission was a wonderful little tome - "Without Roots" - a dialogue between Marcello Pera, President of the Italian Senate and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pisa - and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI was known before his accession.

It acquainted me with the terms we have come to know so well by now: relativism, Postmodernism, false equivalence, subjectivism and reverse morality.

The book became an instant sensation in Italy. Pomo and self-declared boomer, EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, whose highest ethic consists in the truthiness "Make Love, Not War", lost no time dropping a sneer. The director of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Beate Winkler went as far as going on the record with the declaration that "people have boots, not roots!" - all, of course, in an effort to bend reality to the new Utopia of a borderless, multicultural empire as plugged by the Union.

Very revealing all, precisely what the Postmodernists wish us all to believe: that we are a people without a past (watch this Day by Day cartoon: Chris Muir gets it too), that we have no cultural or historical roots prior to the onset of the 1968 counter culture that abandoned all essentially modern values for anti-modern ones. George Orwell would have been proud.

It is for the same reason that history education has been reformed out of existence and children have no insight into culture-historical events, other than the revisionism that Nazism and Fascism are a form of Capitalism and that Leftism is the only proper form of Socialism.

We do not propose advancing either form of Socialism - Leftist or Rightist - but on the contrary, advocate fighting both its precursors. Because that is precisely where political and social thought leads once the primacies of individualism and equality are abandoned.

For the purpose of preserving the values of modernism and the Enlightenment, and for promoting the call that Americans have already answered when their Founding Fathers claimed the American politeia and put "We, the people ..." to paper in their Constitution, we are today launching a European grassroots movement, Roots! We, the Peoples of Europe ...

Our temporary home is a Ning social netroots platform that supports personal pages, blogs, videos, groups, a forum, photo albums and a slideshow for your personal favourites, an events calender, and soon also chat. So sign up, get your own badge, transfer your most cherished stuff to Roots! and let's use all those great features to debate the battle plan.

I am looking forward to see you on Roots! Let's get this continent on the road for the people, the European citizens, let's take this to street level ... Can't wait to meet you all!

View my page on Roots!

Thursday, November 27, 2008

The Cross and the Crescent (II)

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


Strategy of the Third Jihad
It is a mistake to focus only on terror. The strategy of the Third Jihad is far more complex. It is to be expected that the media, politicians, and those trained for conventional War will focus on the violence of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. After all, this is why the current conflict is called a War on Terror – although terror is only a tactic.

However, the most significant threat to Western culture comes from non-violent means: infiltration into Western countries; the conversion of people to Islam; subversion of Western institutions – particularly academic; manipulation of the media; demonstrations and other forms of confrontation; penetration of Western political parties through funding; and manipulation of Western legal systems. The objective is to undermine confidence in traditional values as well as legal and political systems.

This is not to suggest that terror, and the direct action units of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, are not important tools used by the Third Jihad, but to suggest that they are not necessarily the most important. Neutralizing those using terror tactics is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition.

The Third Jihad is a continuation of a religiously inspired movement based on an ideology teaching that it is every Muslim's duty to use any means necessary to compel everyone’s submission to "the way of the Prophet." After Muhammad’s death, in the seventh century, the First Jihad spread under the caliphs (vice regents) west from Medina across North Africa and then into Spain, France, and Italy, and east across the Middle East deep into Southwest Asia. Then Islam consolidated its control of the lands conquered.

The First Jihad ended in 1492 when Islam was driven out of Spain. The Second Jihad started with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Ottoman Turks then implanted Islam in the Balkans and established hegemony over lands from North Africa to India. The Second Jihad was stopped in 1682 with an unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna; it was held in check during the modern era (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) by European power, and ended in 1924.

In 1979 the Third Jihad started with the Shah of Iran being overthrown by Shiite followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. It was given focus in February 1998 with a Sunni fatwa, which declared war on America and its allies. The Third Jihad is just another effort to spread Islam – and to take down the Great Satan. The goal of the Third Jihad is to replace all secular governments from Morocco to Indonesia with a single Great Caliphate that would then be able to convert the rest of the world to Islam. This is why it is an illusion to think that the threat will end just as soon as Western armed forces are withdrawn from the Middle East.

Among the tactics and techniques used by the Third Jihad are:

  • Infiltrating and taking over existing political, social, campus, and cultural organizations to realign them towards the goals of the Third Jihad;
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals;
  • Cultivating the intellectual community into "understanding Islam," including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize positions of the Third Jihad and to chronicle the peaceful history of Islam;
  • Using destructive criticism to weaken those in authority by suggesting they are an elite mistreating the “disadvantaged” for their own personal interests;
  • Maintaining the appearance of “moderation” by avoiding public alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals;
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratic institutions on all levels in Europe and America, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into the service of the Third Jihad;
  • Monitoring Western media in order to quickly respond to "smears against Muslims;" Forming alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that can provide aid and support to Islamic action groups;
  • Keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind;”
  • Establishing a right to Sharia law within their communities;
  • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for all Muslims;
  • Collecting funds to indefinitely support the Third Jihad globally; and
  • Establishing financial networks to fund actions in target countries.
These tactics and techniques are used differently within each target country to weaken or overthrow those in authority. However, the Third Jihad does have a general strategy of five stages in which conflict moves from peace, through irregular warfare, to war. This is the same strategy used by insurgents for centuries. The tactics and techniques listed above are the activities by the insurgents – who can be either home grown or from other countries – during the first, second, and third stages.

Terror is not used in the first stage (Creation), and it has an insignificant role in the second stage (Organization). Terror plays an important role in the third stage (Control of the People) and is expanded in the fourth stage (Territorial Control), as the conflict becomes hybrid war. In the final stage (Overthrow) violence goes beyond terror to become conflict between the insurgents/embryonic state and the authorities of a state/failed state. In fact often the final stage can accurately be called a civil war.

- Creation
A few individuals organize clandestinely. They increase the size of the underground and attempt to cause or accentuate insecurity among the people and weaken the government’s influence.

- Organization
The leaders continue to build their organization, camouflaging it behind legitimate political, social, humanitarian, campus, religious, and labor organizations. Action to cause insecurity and dissatisfaction grows bolder with strikes, riots, selective terrorism, and intimidation. The insurgents’ aim at this stage is to cause the officials to react awkwardly and to take politically unwise steps.

- Control of the People
Direct action units are organized, but terrorism is restricted. The aim is to weaken loyalty to the government. Warfare is everywhere and nowhere. The insurgents control certain areas, which the police avoid. The goal is to transfer the loyalty of the people from the government to the insurgent organization.

- Territorial Control
The insurgents create a base of operations and establish a “liberation government” to rival the legal authorities. Direct action units start to operate from the base areas, and the use of terror increases. Psychological operations, to gain approval for the insurgents and contempt for the government, are intensified both internally and externally.

- Overthrow
Operations are conducted to cause the fall of the government and to establish the insurgents as the legal government. During this stage the conflict might remain irregular warfare or it might be transformed into civil war.

Strategy to Defeat the Third Jihad
More effective ways to neutralize the tactics, techniques and strategies of the Third Jihad must be used in the future if it is to be defeated. We must defeat, deter, or neutralize our enemy. In irregular warfare there is never the final victory of conventional war – success is defined by stability.

First, we must recognize that destroying a few leaders will not end the Third Jihad. The leaders represent an important segment of our enemy, but not its totality. Second, we do not want to make Islam or an entire culture our enemy. Third, we must recognize that the demise of Israel will not mean an end of the Third Jihad, even though Israel will always be used to rally support for the Third Jihad. Fourth, we must recognize that withdrawal from the Middle East will only embolden the evildoers (Hirabahists) and make the final clash of civilizations more likely.

The best strategy for those that want to defend Western culture would be to:

1. Assure that Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, is stabilized and that worldwide no state is willing to support insurgents attempting to overthrow those in authority.

2. Work toward energy independence through: (a) developing alternative sources of oil so that our economy is not dependent on energy sources that our enemies can disrupt; (b) using less oil, and less energy overall, while maintaining our standard of living; (c) developing new sources of energy – primarily nuclear.

3. Adopt a policy of containment until the faults within the Third Jihad cause its ideological certitude to collapse, and pursue policies, both overt and covert, to hasten this collapse.

4. Face the fact that communication superiority is a prerequisite for success in irregular warfare, just as air superiority is a prerequisite for victory in conventional war. To date we have been ineffective in the strategic communication campaign to strengthen the will of our own people, to weaken the will of our enemies, and gain the support of people around the world. In the current battle of wills, strategic communication is the center of gravity. This conflict is not to be won through economic, diplomatic, and military means.

5. Develop a message as effective as Muhammad's in winning hearts and minds and a sociopolitical structure based on that message which is more powerful than that of the global revivalist movement known as the Third Jihad. Recognize that the true believers of the Third Jihad are willing to suffer, sacrifice, deceive, kill, conquer, and die for their cause. Recognize that we need true believers in our cause.

6. Encourage the respected leaders and scholars of the Islamic world to condemn those using violence in the name of Islam in religious terms, rather than in Western secular terms, and condemn those in the West who give aid, comfort, and support to the evildoers (Hirabahists).

7. Make a distinction between war, irregular warfare, and peace and develop stability forces, distinctive from war fighting forces, specifically for operations in irregular warfare. Integrate members of all government agencies (specifically Defense, State, CIA, USIA, USAID, and Commerce) into the stability forces. Deploy war fighting forces as a deterrent in peace and irregular warfare but only engage them in combat for extended periods of time with a declaration of war by Congress. Use stability forces in overt and covert operations during peace and irregular warfare. Revise the JCS Unified Command Plan into a National Security Operations Plan so that the stability forces have adequate supervision and support during peace and irregular warfare.

8. Take actions to counter the effects of postmodern thought on Western culture. The weakening of the will in Europe and America, and ability to protect Western culture as it developed in the modern era (until the 1960s), has many causes. Partly it is the result of actions by those disillusioned by World War I and World War II, and partly it is the result of the cycle of rise and fall common to all groups. The ability to counter the Third Jihad depends on strengthening the will of all of those who value Western culture.

We need to become more skillful in getting others to build their own nations at little or no cost to us. Those identifying with the nation being built must accomplish nation-building. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within – from those who are part of the nation being built. At the heart of nation-building is the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior is self regulated without coercion. Neocolonialists (those of the Wilsonian School) often assumed that the United States can build nations – this is foolhardy.

- Caption: Afghan heroin, police woman Malalai Kakar -

Nation-building requires continual attention to four interrelated tasks:

1. Achieve stability within a specific territory.
2. Provide effective local authority.
3. Organize and motivate the people.
4. Satisfy aspirations of the people.

Achieving stability is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, stability cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of nation-building. However, when the focus is on the creation of a state, actions to control the territory of that state can be carried to the extreme – such actions actually hinder nation-building since they do not produce a self-regulating equilibrium. This has been a major reason the neo-colonialists have failed to achieve long-term benefits.

Stability is achieved when the government of a state has a monopoly on force within the territory of that state, and no other group within that territory is willing, or thinks it is able, to use force to achieve political ends. Police forces of the provinces must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government. In addition the central government would have armed forces stronger than any of the provinces. Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government, i.e. insurgents, must be neutralized. It makes no difference where the insurgents come from.

  • First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by the insurgent group, or payment to it.
  • When terrorism becomes a tool, policing appropriate for ordinary crime must be supplemented with counterinsurgency units, tactics and techniques. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. This will require agreement on a social contract, which establishes limits on police activity, and the appropriate checks and balances. Finally, if the insurgent group gains control of any territory, control must be regained, with armed force if necessary, and the leaders must be neutralized.
A second task of nation-building is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape his spiritual and material life, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells, and feels.

This nation-building task provides local leadership – leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities, and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; loyal to the established institutions; creates a climate to encourage civilian investment; and is capable of educating each individual with values that blend freedom, ambition, duty, and responsibility in accordance with the customs and traditions of his nation. These judgments must be as seen through the eyes of the people and culture involved; they should not be as perceived through postmodern views in a wealthy, western, secular state.

The third nation-building task is to organize and motivate the people. A nation is no more than people welded together by a common destiny, which binds together tomorrow, today, and yesterday into an active whole. This nation-building task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits, and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: the patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationships; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join, and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship.

The fourth nation-building task is to satisfy aspirations of the people. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Aspirations can unite people in a common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two-faced task of nation-building. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration, and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented. This task means that each nation has its own, unique, ideology.

For all Arab-Muslim countries this means a replacement of the pseudo-religious radicalism taught in the mosques with the progressive, compassionate teaching of Islam. This task, just like achieving stability, will actually hinder nation-building when it is carried to an extreme. If this conceptual framework is to be useful, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of a nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Muslim extremists (Hirabahists) are indeed a serious threat to modern Western culture, but so is postmodernism. We should attempt to weaken the evildoers (Hirabahists) through separating them from those Muslims who accept pluralism, and through encouraging secular Muslim states to neutralize them. While our strategy must attempt to eliminate the evildoers (Hirabahists), it must also seek alliance with those Muslims who want spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah together with better lives – freedom, equality, self-determination, representative government, and the pursuit of happiness.

Western culture must be freed from the decline and decay caused by postmodern thought. The balance between secular authority (the control of behavior through the rule of law) and sacred authority (the control of behavior through shared moral, ethical, and religious convictions that provide an inner compass for individuals) must be reestablished [ed. see "Secular and Sacred Authority: why we need it!"].

Traditional patriotism needs to be respected, and national identity must be valued more than multiculturalism and diversity. The U.S. government needs to reorganize so as to reflect the reality of irregular warfare, rather than the War and Peace dichotomy of the past 300 years.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"


- "Reforming Islam: Beware of the Fifth Column"
- "Effectively Communicating Jihad: a spade is a spade"

- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

RatePoint Business Reviews