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" -

The Cross and the Crescent (I)

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


In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington predicts a clash between the West and the Islamic world as some Muslims continue their attempt to establish the Great Caliphate – in which everyone is governed by “the ways of the Prophet.” In 1921 Hendrick Van Loon, in The Story of Mankind, described the struggle between the cross and the crescent. He explains how peaceful Arab shepherds listened to Muhammad, mounted their horses, drew their swords, and in less than a century pushed to the heart of Europe and proclaimed the glories of Allah, “the only God,” and Muhammad, “the prophet of the only God.”

Today we face the third episode in the Great Jihad (Holy War). The current so-called War on Terror could be a precursor for a final Clash of Civilizations, or it might be only a skirmish, which if handled correctly can prevent death and destruction of a magnitude the world has never seen. This essay is an attempt to determine the nature of the current threat to Western culture and to suggest what should be done.

Possible Outcomes
If ever there is conflict to the point that either Western culture or Islamic culture is utterly vanquished the world will be fundamentally altered. There will be more death and destruction than in World War I, II, and the Cold War combined. Terror will be an everyday occurrence, and weapons of mass destruction will kill millions.

Our challenge is not to accept the inevitability of this final Clash of Civilizations, but to do whatever is possible to prevent it. True excellence is not killing all of your enemies, but defeating your enemies without killing. Reasonable people must have the conviction, knowledge, and courage to challenge the extremists on both sides – evildoers (Hirabahists) and postmodernists.

However, from what we see on TV reasonable people might be in short supply. Reasonable Muslims around the world need to step forward and challenge those advocating the Third Jihad, for they are subverting Islam to advance their own agenda. The extremists call themselves jihadists (holy warriors), but they are hateful unholy warriors (Hirabahists) defaming the Prophet Muhammad.

Reasonable Westerners, and their allies around the world, need to prevent postmodern thinking from weakening Western culture to the point it is unwilling to defend itself and becomes an easy target for conquest by the Third Jihad. Postmodern thought attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right in Western culture prior to the 1960s. Postmodernism visualizes "progress" toward an ideal “Postmodern Culture” that is nonjudgmental and nondiscriminatory, in which disagreements are resolved by universal law, debate, and compromise – but never by the use of force.

The Role of Islam
It is true that there are many violent apostates (Hirabahists) in mainstream Shi'a and Sunni Islam who claim they are faithful to the teachings of Muhammad. They often claim that the only basis in the Qur'an for Muslims to address non-Muslims is to struggle until the non-believers are converted, expelled, or destroyed. If most Muslims accept this view, the final Clash of Civilizations is inevitable.

But the teachings of Muhammad are not so simple – they combine opposites: struggle and tolerance. They present several kinds of jihad. It all depends on what Muslims are led to read into Muhammad’s words and actions. Hopefully there are Muslims who want to avoid the death and destruction of the final Clash of Civilizations. If so, they must find ways to be faithful to the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an while they stress inner jihad for themselves and practice compassion, mercy, and tolerance toward non-Muslims. However, this is certainly a long shot. Yet we must convince any such Muslims that they are our allies – that all Muslims are not our enemies.

Initially Muhammad spoke to the pagans who worshiped the meteorite now enclosed by the Kaba at Mecca. Islam was then expanded into a reform movement – in part to replace Judaism and Christianity that had, according to the Prophet Muhammad, gone astray and were no longer the proper legacy of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. The Qur’an clearly states that the Bible is false, and rejects Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

Islam from the very start was a religion of struggle, both inner and against non-believers. It sought to eliminate temptations that the devil might use to erode commitment to Allah. It sought to get all people to submit to Allah. Islam does not give a high priority to economic wealth, prosperity, freedom, self worth, or comfort. Islam seeks purity. Thus in many ways Muslim true believers are less concerned about non-Islamic religions or Western armed forces being in their lands than they are about non-Islamic ways, i.e. movies, pop culture, dress and behavior. The challenge we all face is to show that Islamic purity is compatible with Western Culture—a very difficult challenge.

Islam is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since true believers consider Qur’an law and its sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. It is true that Christianity, Shinto, and other religions also do not have stellar records in this regard. However, dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status can evildoers (Hirabahists) accept diversity.

Neither Islamic fundamentalism nor Western postmodernism can tolerate the coexistence of religion and reason. Neither will accept the suggestions in the lecture of Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg on 12 September 2006. The Pope called for the rejection of dogmatic faith, cultural relativism, and forced conversion. But these seeds of hope fell on the unwelcoming ground of Islamic fundamentalism and Western postmodernism. Even some fundamentalist Christians did not welcome the Pope’s comments.

Islamic extremists see nonbelievers as too weak, too easily tempted, too confused to govern themselves; therefore, they must be shown the way, and protected, by scholar-jurists that know the way of Allah. With the same reasoning, postmodernists think people must be shown the way, and protected, by secular authority.

The evildoers (Hirabahists) see the Third Jihad as a way to seek their Utopian vision of restoring Islamic rule to all lands ever ruled by Muslims but now governed by Christians, Jews, and apostate Muslims. The secular transnational postmodernists of the West are equality rigid in their convictions as they seek their Utopian vision of a worldwide postmodern culture that is nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory, and in which disagreements are resolved by law, debate and compromise – but never by the use of force.

It is true that Islamic extremists want to expel Western influences from all territory formerly under Muslim control. They want their politico-economic and philosophical views to be dominant. While most insurgents in the past were motivated by a Utopian view of a better world with economic equality and social fraternity, Islamic extremists seek spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah. They seek to protect people from worldly temptations; therefore they attempt to remove anything that will prevent people from submitting to Allah. Postmodernists solve the same problem by giving in to all temptations, thereby making the very idea of “temptations” moot.

Continued in Part II, "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 ..."

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" -

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

A US Weimar Rep? Red Flags (I): Introduction

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


The recent election has again raised a question about the American Constitution. Is it a living document that must keep up with changes of the moment, or should we attempt to follow the original intent of our Founders? But the worldwide fixation on our election shows that our Constitution is much more than just an expression of the social contract of our indivisible nation. Around the world it is the gold standard for what government should be. It is remarkable that we conducted our election in accordance with our Constitution as we simultaneously faced an economic crisis and a threat to our security from the Third Jihad, that sees us as the Great Satan.

All American patriots hope that the Obama presidency unites all of us in the pursuit of the general good, and advances our national interests. However, this primarily depends on American citizens possessing civic virtue and how they cope with the future. Therefore, it is only prudent to consider what might be in the stars. We cannot remain in the present or go back to the past. We must anticipate the future; we should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. In this regard it is worthwhile to reflect on history. Then we can consider how we can improve on what those before us have done.

Does History Provide Parallels?
In 1957 Amaury de Riencourt published ‘The Coming Caesars’ and in 1982 Leonard Peikoff published ‘The Ominous Parallels’. Both forecast the future based on parallels describing America in terms of the past. Both argue that long-term trends are pushing the USA toward authoritarian government. This essay is an analysis of the validity of the parallels noted and how the arguments presented might relate to current constitutional debates.

Europe is not ancient Greece, nor is America ancient Rome, but Amaury de Riencourt does present some significant parallels. He claims that the concentration of political power in the central government is no accident. It is “the lethal product of centuries of historical evolution, each succeeding generation having unconsciously added its stone to the towering pedestal on which they are going to stand.” (Riencourt, p. 8)

- Caption: Farrarino, View of the Capitol in Rome, c. 1860 -

He states that the primary association “is neither political nor strategic—it is essentially psychological.” (Riencourt, p. 7) It is the growing “father complex.” The larger the masses the more the people surrender to emotionalism rather than depending on knowledge and the rational judgment of free men. “Aristotle had already observed … that Caesarism is a slow, organic growth within a society tending toward” social equality and the centralization of political power. (Riencourt, p. 328)

De Riencourt illustrates how America is an extension of Europe just as Rome is an extension of Greece. Then he identifies America today as the parallel of Rome’s era of Caesars. He likens Roosevelt to Julius Caesar and Eisenhower to Caesar Augustus. Although some of what de Riencourt states is dated and some is questionable, he makes a convincing argument that authoritarian regimes are in our future. The only practical way for Americans to reduce the likelihood of authoritarian regimes is a return to the values and attitudes that existed prior to postmodern thought.

America today is not Germany in the 1930s. Yet there are enough parallels to raise red flags. I initially thought ‘The Ominous Parallels’ by Leonard Peikoff was an alarmist fantasy. I considered it absurd to compare the Weimar Republic, before Hitler gained power, with the USA. National socialism was a unique phenomenon based on a unique time and a unique individual seeking power in order to first change Germany and then to set the world right. I could not imagine our great republic moving, by default, towards the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. Perhaps I was wrong.

- Caption: Philip Scheidemann proclaims the Weimar Republic at the Reichstag Building -

Perhaps we should not be so certain that we are superior to others. Our pride might hide dangers. We should notice the red flags. The past might reveal parallels, which will help us anticipate the future.

Continued in Part II, "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 ..."

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" -

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Urgent Call to Reclaim Europe for the Citizens

Americans have historically taken ownership of their politeia. The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are inspiring documents that remind us every day of the core values that produce liberty and prosperity.

Within 24 hours after losing the Presidential election to Barack Obama, Republican grassroots groups ' to win back the White House in 2012' sprang up like mushrooms. Modern Conservatism, The Freedomist Movement, Let's Get This Right and America Coast2Coast are just a few.

Europeans on the other hand still allow petty bureaucrats and postmodern Emperors to rule over them; this, despite the Rousseau inspired French Revolution, at least during its latter stages (typically another animal than its Lockean counterpart across the pond); and democratic principles now being established in almost all corners of the continent.

The European Union is out of control. The Lisbon Treaty (the 'Constitution' redux) was an opportunity squandered to right a wrong that is inherent in the blueprint of the European Union. Instead, the uninspired bureaucrats and power politicians took over and produced an unprincipled pile of legal yada yada.

Our American friends have provided a playbook how to build a grassroots movement. Would you join such a popular movement - based on individual rights, free market economy and limited government - and help claim the European politeia back for its citizens? We'd love to hear from you!

Here's the link to our Facebook page. You can also email us directly at "": write us with your views, leaving your name, location, and country and specify what your field of interest or expertise would be.

A grassroots initiative is far overdue! Sign up now and take control of your living space!


This is the platform where Europe intends to communicate with its citizens (regret due to overwhelming interest the porn doesn't work for the moment) ... and this is how you can contribute (fill up the form) .... and here's how they propose to 'interact' ...

... in an update by Yahoo!Tech the EU's dishonest reflexes are once again exposed; moreover, they cost the taxpayer another EUR 100,000 (US$126,905) on top of the EUR 1 million budget for Europeana, just to get it ready for a relaunch in mid December ... that's right, by mid December! At this point we're starting to experience some real curiosity, what wonderful information Europeana will have in store for those who are financing it ...


- "Americana"
- "Leviathan's Birth Certificate"
- "Irish Reject "Treaty of Lisbon," Ratification Continues"

- Filed on "Roots! We, the Peoples of Europe" -

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Revising "the Logic of Hegemony"

John Rosenthal has got a worthy piece of prose up on Pajamas Media that makes the skin crawl. "German Publishing’s Man in the White House" tells of Obama's ties to Germany's Bertelsmann Publishing and a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed.

There's the fact that the emporium happens to be the President Elect’s principal source of income, but even worse, perhaps hard to imagine in this day and age - or sadly, not any more - the Bertelsmann conglomerate does not belong to the vein of Teutons, who in a less politically correct time, were referred to as 'good Germans'.

Consider: the Bertelsmann Foundation and Corporation are two perfectly intertwined entities, both in effect, emanations of the Mohn family. Rosenthal:

"It might be considered irrelevant today that Bertelsmann massively collaborated with the Nazi regime during World War II. (For more on this, see “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters.”) But it is surely not irrelevant that when German researcher Hersch Fischler first brought this fact to light, the family proposed to have the matter further investigated by one Dirk Bavendamm. Bavendamm is the family’s “in-house” historian, having written no fewer than three commissioned histories of the Mohn family and the Bertelsmann Corporation.

As so happens, he is also an open revisionist, who calls World War II “Roosevelt’s War” and suggests — à la contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theorists writing on George W. Bush — that Franklin Delano Roosevelt intentionally permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to occur. Bavendamm has even written a book on the subject with the curious title Roosevelt’s War 1937-45 and the Puzzle of Pearl Harbor [Roosevelts Krieg 1937-45 und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor].

“With the events of December 7-8, 1941 [i.e., the attack on Pearl Harbor], Roosevelt … had achieved his most important aims,” Bavendamm has written in an essay on the subject [German link], “America’s entry into the War occurred with the enthusiastic consent of the overwhelming majority of the American people — … Roosevelt had finally convinced them that it was their sacred duty, guns in hand to defend freedom, democracy, and prosperity around the world.” (For more on Bavendamm, see Hersch Fischler and John Friedman’s “Bertelsmann’s Revisionist” here.)

The theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set-up is, incidentally, standard neo-Nazi fare. Interestingly enough, in his infamous “God Damn America!” sermon, Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright invokes precisely this theory as apparently well-established fact: “The government lied about Pearl Harbor too,” he says. “They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie.”

The Obama team and the Mohns would undoubtedly say that it is scandalous to suggest that the Mohns were using their millions to influence the American presidency or that Obama could possibly be corrupted. (...) >>>

Be that is may, the Ayn Rand/Stephen Hicks school of philosophy never misses target. Mutual attraction apart, follow the irrationals, follow the collectivists, follow America hatred, and sooner or later one ends up in places where bodies have been piling up, eventual good intentions notwithstanding.

- Filed on Articles in "Revisionism" -

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The Turkish Genocides, the Endless Story

From Facebook group "Turkish troops out of Cyprus" we received word that MSNBC is holding a live poll, if the US should formally recognize the World War I-era killing of Armenians as genocide?

The group: "As of a few minutes ago the numbers showed Yes 20%, No 80%! The Turks have mobilized a global campaign to shift results towards "No" but we can't let them.

The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, along with many other crimes against humanity (...) and it should be recognized.

Please vote ' YES '
at the below link and send it to everyone you know. >>>
- Caption: from the Genocide Education Project -

As long as Turkey is able to get away with their denial, all concerned - Turks, Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians - will never be able to close the book on this painful episode in the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Even last week The Brussels Journal published an article by "For the EU, Sarkozy and the UN, Turkey Is Already in Europe", quoting Turkish Defense Minister, Vecdi Gönül during a ceremony at the Turkish Embassy in Brussels honoring the 70th anniversary of the death of Ataturk (d. Nov. 10, 1938), in atrocious denial, praising the policy of what he termed the “deportation” of the Armenians, because it allowed the construction of the Turkish nation.

“Would it be possible today to maintain the same national State if the existence of Greeks in the Aegean region and of Armenians in several regions of Turkey had continued as before?” Vecdi Gönül asked. “Remember, before the republic, Ankara was composed of four sectors: Jewish, Muslim, Armenian, and Greek... When I was governor at Izmir I realized that the Izmir Chamber of Commerce had been founded only by non-Muslims. There was not a Turk among them.”
The article goes on to quote a comment by French blogger Yves Daoudal:

"Before the republic", Izmir was called Smyrna and it was a Greek city, and stayed that way until 1922, when it was conquered by Ataturk. But he had to deny that Izmir was a Greek city before the Greeks were chased out of it, as he had to deny that the most fortunate deportation of the Armenians was a genocide
(...) "

This has now gone on long enough. Turkey wants to join the European Union. If they want to be a mature state, they should grow up and own up. An organized denial to vote No to a poll is hardly the answer towards resolving this serious question.

- Caption: Headline of a 1922 Times article -


- Politeia: "The Medina Precedent for Holocaust and Genocide"
- Jewcy: "Understanding the Islam in Islamic Antisemitism", by Andrew G. Bostom (in 3 parts)
- The Lighthouse: "Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: day 1"
- The Lighthouse: "Transnational Progressivism: an Inexplicable Presumption"

- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled" -

Monday, November 17, 2008

Just What the World Needs: Another NGO, the G20

What's with this G20 summit last weekend in Washington? Who are the G20? The MSM as usual abdicated their duty - did what they do best: what they cannot spin or obfuscate, they bury.

Initial research learns that the G20 have emerged from the the Doha Trade Round, set up on the basis of a Brazilian initiative in the run-up to the Cancun Conference. Apart of the states making up the G8, G20 member states include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the EU and European Central Bank, and the NGOs IMF, the World Bank and their Development Committee.

With the notable exception of South Korea neither of these countries has a principled tradition of free market capitalism. All, until recently suffered, or are still bowing under the rule of theocrats, autocrats, dictators, a collective, or all of the above.

The Third World is slowly crawling on to the world stage, out of its largely self-imposed, poverty ridden, Marxism or theocracy driven lethargy. But swathes of Latin America are already in danger of regressing back into darkness, even before having fully emerged from it; Socialist as well as Islamic beginnings are simply antithetical to individual rights, the moral requirement for a fully functioning free-market democracy.

And then there's good, old chauvinist commie prop. The Heritage Foundation here reports on the PR stunt China pulled just ahead of the summit!

What can be expected of such a global, economic governing body? They cannot even be trusted to handle a trade round, let alone lead, run and reform the world's economic and financial system. How would they do that ... by committee, by revelation, or by decree?!

The situation is hardly better in the state of Europe, which is steadily desolving into a post-democratic, Hegelian Absolute. European states are challenging American leadership of the global economy, calling on President-Elect Obama to embrace Europe as America’s equal partner.

on The Brussels Journal had this to say last week: "The idea behind this new man-to-man relationship with Washington was hatched by (surprise, surprise) France, which currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the reason for establishing an equal transatlantic partnership is that “the world has changed.”

Europe has suddenly realized that the United States “is not the only one concerned by the world’s problems. The European Union has become more resolute…. We don’t want to play a secondary role any more,” says Kouchner," who is an experienced NGO builder (founder Doctors Without Borders).

On the economy the French - as most Europeans - can be fully trusted to commit a coup of state against the private sector. Self-regulation to solve all problems, it’s finished,” Sarkozy says. “Laissez-faire, it’s finished. The all-powerful market that is always right, it’s finished…. It is necessary then for the state to intervene.”

John Gizzi on Human Events goes as far as saying the G20 meeting was in effect Sarkozy's summit, clarifying "that the goal of the French President, was future international economic summits that include many more nations beside the traditional G8 industrial titans. His secondary goal was to assimilate discretionary bondholders (countries that hold U.S. debt) into the summits (...)

John Gizzi gives us the gist of what emerged from the summit: "(...) Sarkozy did get this long-stated desire of a "college of supervisors" for oversight of the books of major financial institutions operating across international borders. Moreover, the world leaders agreed that their systems would submit to periodic review by the International Monetary Fund (whose Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former French finance minister who was tapped for the IMF position by—you guessed it!—Nicolas Sarkozy).

A tougher line by ratings agencies on exhorbitant compensation for executives–either voluntary or regulatory—was called for in the final communiqué of the G20. Again, this was an issue doggedly pursued by Sarkozy.

With much of the actual work of the summit done behind closed doors, the media has had to rely on reports from anonymous sources on who said what to whom. Relying on such sources, the Washington Post pointed to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as one who was particularly opposed to Sarkozy’s calls for greater global regulation over markets in sovereign nations.

We are looking at an entire round of talks stretching well into the next year. Apart from the above, nothing much emerged from present summit while outgoing President Bush acted as a forceful buffer against the anti capitalist onslaught. But as postmodern President-Elect Obama joins the company of Argentina, China and the other card-carrying members of the Grizzly 20 collective, we will soon all be reminded of which cloth that philosophy is a cut.


- "Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!"

- Images - Hat Tip: Barbay Live

- Filed in "Transnational Bankruptcy" and "The Economics and Monetary Dossier" -

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!

Say what you will, call him names! A lame duck, yes mistakes have been made, the rules of laissez-faire capitalism were violated, but right now it is he who stands between prosperity through free market principles, and the forces of Statism, who wish to reduce the financial sector to a tragic shadow of its former self, a mere government utility!

While experts in the US are still trying to figure out what happened, some Europeans already knew before the event: it's capitalism, stupid! Isn't the cause of crime, the law? Now is the time for the coup of state, let the ax fall on the evil system!
- Caption: "Sunriser II", by Bobbie Carlyle -

Here are two opinions: one by the most underestimated US President in history, George W. Bush - and an article by Objectivists Yaron Brook and Don Watkins on the Op-Ed page of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: a urgent plea for the separation of Economy and State. Europeans are urged to take note of a field virtually unknown to them. But first, the news:

CNN: "Bush ready to defend free-market principles during summit"

(...) President Bush signaled that he's ready to defend Western-style capitalism and free-market principles during what will be one of his last appearances on the world stage. (...) As leaders of the world's 20 largest economies, dubbed the G-20, gather in Washington, some European leaders are pushing for global financial regulation. (...) >>>

Wall Street Journal: "The Surest Path Back to Prosperity - 'If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go'," by George W. Bush

As we have seen in recent months, financial turmoil anywhere in the world affects economies everywhere in the world. And so this weekend I'm going to host a Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy with leaders from developed and developing nations that account for nearly 90% of the world economy. The leaders attending this weekend's meeting agree on a clear purpose -- to address the current crisis, and to lay the foundation for reforms that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future. (...) the actions taken by the U.S. and other nations are having an impact. Credit markets are beginning to thaw. Businesses are gaining access to essential short-term financing. A measure of stability is returning to financial systems.

- Caption: "Refuge" by Perrin Sparks -

(...) we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market. But many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own. History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market.

We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the U.S. Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. When the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system.

- Caption: "We the Living", by Nick Gaetano -

There is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government. All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.

In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right equate the free-enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It's true this crisis included failures -- by lenders and borrowers and financial firms, and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free-market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems, make reforms, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe. (...)

Nations that pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. While Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in their cars.

The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go. It would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success. (...) >>>

Give Bush a buzz z

- Caption: "The Anchorage" by Bryan Larsen -

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: "Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures", by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.” Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets--by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. (...)

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism. (...) Take a step back.

- Caption: "Lunch Break" by Quent Cordair -

In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.” (...) Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. (...) The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud. America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries--those which retain the most capitalist elements--have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today--when capitalism doesn’t even exist? (...) Consider the current crisis (...) the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”? (...)
- Caption: "Cityscape Texture Study II", by Bryan Larsen -

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention--and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? (...)It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could believe in. >>>

Wall Street Journal have a touching short documentary on the Great Depression up on their video archive ...

Art in this post by the Quent Cordair Fine Art Gallery for Romantic Realism

Update: has the semi pan-European position ... they propose to rule the world by committee ... take note of this: "today’s European leaders are about as interested in solving global problems as was Otto von Bismarck, who devoted his life to empire-building and the practice of Realpolitik. Today’s European leaders are trying not only to revive the Roman Empire in the form of a unified Europe, but they are also seeking to rebalance global power in such a way that places Europe at the top of the international pecking order" ... read it all:

The Brussels Journal: "Europe Is Obama’s First ‘Global Test’"

- Filed in "The Ethics of Capitalism" -

RatePoint Business Reviews