Why Islam is an Ideology

Several Western countries are struggling with the notion that Islam is a totalitarian  ideology masquerading as a religion. Most are in a firm state of denial.

The last few weeks we saw the Christian-Democratic Party (CDA) in the Netherlands tearing itself literally to pieces over Geert Wilders' claim that answers the question in the affirmative. A great number of Islam scholars agree with him.

The party was engaged in government coalition talks with Geert Wilders' Freedom Party. Wilders broke off negotitions last Friday, fearing endless dissent in the Christian-Democrat camp, that views Islam as a slightly more militant version of Christianity.

The claim touches fundamental, Constitutional rights on the freedoms of expression, religion, and education, causing some even to express fears if the rule of law would remain in responsible hands. On the one hand such fears are caused by a corruption and a misunderstanding of these rights; but it is also not well grasped what precisely constitutes a religion.

The following essay answers the question from an American perspective.

While there is an argument to be made, as Dr Holliday does, that religion is something separate from political ideology, on the broad philosophical scale of things all religions belong to the family tree of ideas, viz. ideologies.

Earlier articles and essays from the pen of Sam Halliday posted on Politeia, are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center, a non-profit organization aiming to contribute to more effective and efficient policies in international relations.

First published on 5 September 2010 under the title "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology"

by Dr. Sam Holliday

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants freedom of religion. But what did the Founders mean by religion? Surely they did not mean for any behavior to be justified by the claim of religious freedom. Freedom of belief, yes; freedom of worship, yes; but not freedom of behavior.

Religion to the Founders meant a belief system compatible with morality. In the United States any belief system that contradicts morality—as understood by the Founders--should be considered a legal/political ideology, rather than a religion. Shari’a contradicts such morality and thus Americans should not consider Islam a religion protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- Caption: "Battle of Lepanto or Naupaktos" which ultimately inspired the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman oppression - 

Religion and American Morality
The American nation is unique. Most nations are based on shared history, ethnicity, language, culture, or religion. Not so the United States with a diversity of people with nothing in common but principles and ideals upon which to have a better life for themselves and their descendents. Even those who did not come of their own free will now have the same opportunity if they are willing to seize it. It is an error to refer to all of those living in this country as Americans. Americans are those individuals willing to accept the risks and rewards offered by freedom, and willing to seek their dreams through hard work.

America is indeed “out of many one” symbolized as a melting pot. If “We the people” is to mean anything it is the American nation of self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of centralized Secular Authority. With such diversity, what provides a common identity to form an American nation? It can only be the principles and ideals upon with the United States was founded. Without this shared identity there is no American nation—and no Americans. There could be many people living in the territory governed by the United States of America, but no American nation. This fact should not be obscured by demands for rights, equality and governmental largess.

There are many definitions of morality, religion, ethics, belief, and faith; what they define is fundamental to a way of life. Together they define Sacred Authority, and they shape the inner compass of individuals; they determine what individuals consider right, good and virtuous. The American nation depends on all Americans sharing a Sacred Authority, i.e. specific principles and ideals. It is suggested that these be those of the Founders of this country.

In order to gain acceptance of a Sacred Authority for America these definitions are suggested:

Morality contains: (1) beliefs about the nature of man, (2) beliefs about ideals, and about what is right, good and virtuous, (3) rules of what ought to be done, and what ought not be done, and (4) motives which are right, good and virtuous.

Religion, according to the U.S. Constitution, is any belief system that supports the morality expressed by the principles and ideals of the Founders.

Religion, according to philosophy, includes (1) belief in supernatural powers, (2) appropriate sacred attitudes and emotions which create a sense of reverence, and (3) ceremonies, rituals, and duties.

The Threat of the Third Jihad and Shari’a
The goal of the Third Jihad is the destruction of Western Culture. We must not let the Islamists use our most cherished convictions to achieve their goal. Conspiracy is just as much a threat to America as the planting of an atomic bomb in a city. Much of Shari’a condones what our Founders would consider criminal activities. In accordance with taqiyya Islamists willingly lie to deceive non-believers. To teach or practice such behavior, in the name of any belief system, is not compatible with American morality.

The problem is that Islam contains aspects that are religious, by any definition, and some aspects that do not reflect American morality. In fact, the Founders did not want the state to specify a belief system that required submission. For them belief, worship and behavior were determined by the free will of individuals—not by submission to a doctrine prescribed by an elite. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Shari’a is just what they wanted to prevent.

Some want to reject all of Islam because it contains Shari’a. This would be wrong. Some want to accept all of Islam, including Shari’a, because Islam is a “religion”. This would be wrong. What needs to be done is to welcome those parts of Islam that are compatible with American morality, but to reject other parts of Islam. This is very difficult because all parts of Islam are intermingled.

We must be able to identify those Muslims who want to protect their children from a drug-laden, sexually permissive, and tradition rejecting society, who want a better life for themselves and their children, who reject violence, embrace pluralism, and work to stop terrorism, and who want to exist peacefully with nonbelievers. Also we must be able to identify those Muslims who accept the teachings that promote hatred, discriminatory edicts, Shari’a and conflict between the Islamic nation (umma) and all nonbelievers. Therefore, we need to use our judgment to accept what is moral in accordance with the principles and ideals of our Founders, and to reject any alien legal/political ideology.

In the case of the Ground Zero mosque this will require some way to determine if the outer jihad (a moral struggle which is evil and unconstitutional since it requires the submission or killing of all nonbelievers) will be advocated by that mosque, or if teaching in the mosque will be limited to the inner jihad (the struggle against the baser instincts of an individual, which is constitutional). Limiting teaching to the inner jihad would require the rejection of much of the Qur’an.

The necessary action will be very difficult to do, since it cannot be done solely through politics and peacetime law enforcement activities, i.e. the rule of law (Secular Authority). It requires intelligence gathering and actions beyond those specified in our Constitution. It will require actions appropriate for Irregular Warfare during an ideological struggle. It will require recognition that Feisal Abdul Rauf is typical of the intellectual Islamists of the lead element of the Third Jihad’s penetration into Western Culture. Such Islamists pose as moderates, oppose terrorism, claim that the United States supports terror against Muslims around the world, and use only non-violent means. Such Islamists manipulate our tolerance to advance Shari’a toward the goal of a world wide Caliphate.

Shari’a is about power—neither faith nor making an individual a better person. It is not compatible with American morality. It is totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional and the direct opposite of the American ideal of "religious freedom."

We need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, and other Islamists groups support the Third Jihad. For them Shari’a is a  "tradition of Islam" which dictates what everyone must do regarding their whole life, including marriage, divorce, commercial relations, and personal behavior.

They want to bring Shari’a to the United States. Any Muslims in the United States living according to all of the tradition of Islam violates our Constitution regarding freedom, civil rights, government and way of life.

An appeal for understanding of Islam is a Trojan Horse. The noble idea of mutual respect between the Cross and the Crescent based on overlapping, and shared beliefs are fool’s goal. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” only works among those with shared values and principles. To practice it with those who are evil and seek your end will insure that you are a victim. We are currently engaged in an ideological struggle not unlike those in our past against Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

What Must be Done?
We need to establish policies, strategies, techniques, and processes that are appropriate for the ideological struggle of Irregular Warfare, i.e. asymmetric conflict between those in authority and those who want to weaken and destroy them. We need to reestablish the means used in the past to obtain compliance with shared morality, i.e. Sacred Authority. We must again be judgmental and discriminate against that which is considered wrong, bad, or sinful. In our current legalistic and politically correct society this will be difficult to achieve.

We must recognize the extent the Third Jihad has advanced in this ideological struggle--and what it is doing to subvert the West. The Saudis alone have invested at least $2 billion a year over the past 30 years to spread the most radical form of Islam. The response of Europe and America in this ideological struggle has been negligible. In fact much of what has been communicated by our movies and media has worked against us.

We must actively defend Western Culture

• The first step is to recognize that Islam with Shari’a is not a religion of peace, as our Founders understood religion; it is an alien legal/political ideology designed to control the behavior of everyone and to eliminate anyone who does not submit to the way of Muhammad, as described in the Qur’an.

• The second step is to recognize that those Muslims who believe in the outer jihad, as taught and practiced by Muhammad, can never be assimilated into America or Europe—the outcome of any such attempt would be the destruction of Western Culture. Such Muslims must be expelled.

• The third step is to revitalize belief in the principles and ideals upon which America was created.

Copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

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 armigercc@comcast.net

An online printable version of "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology" is available here.

Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

Politeia: "The Power of Ideas" 

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 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY
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 armigercc@comcast.net

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 armigercc@comcast.net

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" -

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 armigercc@comcast.net

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" -