Nations Are Rebelling Against EU Dictats: Will the Euro Survive?

The #FisCom is the Euro elites' final hope against the collapse of the common currency. It formalizes what was part of the Maastricht Treaty, that laid the foundation of the euro zone. It stipulated deficits must be no more than three percent of GDP. France and Germany were the first to jettison the requirement in the early naughties. Now it has come back to haunt them.

But the Fiscom does more: it requires governments to have their budgets checked and signed off by the overlord in Brussels before the national parliaments can put their rubber stamp. In effect, the core business of parliaments - the budget right - has been handed over to Brussels without so much as by your leave.

But now the entire EU appears to be rebelling against Frau Merkel's fiscal policy. Italy and Greece had their governments's replaced by EU technocrat hacks, the governments of the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Romania fell over austerity measures, while key country France seems set to replace Nic Sarko with the socialist Hollande. This is the overall status in various countries:

Greece - The new paradigm in the run up to the general elections on May 6 is the anti versus the pro bailout narrative running across the political spectrum. It leaves the main stream socialist party (PASOK) isolated. Greece looks set to elect a majority of parties against the bailout. The leader of the leading right-wing New Democracy Party has always refused to sign the troika's loyalty declaration, which is why Samaras' actions are eyed suspiciously.

Italy - Mario Monti, the troika-dropped techno bankster had this to say to journalists last week: "While budget discipline was needed, it must be accompanied by policies that drive economic demand". Fully on board the austerity drive, is Super Mario.

Ireland - Ireland, like Greece a bailout country. The last budget complies with the Fiscom rules. Neverthess Ireland is having a referendum on 31st May. So Merkel's 'consensus' of 25 government leaders could become 24. The latest poll bears out this scenario. The exit of a member state was always to be avoided at all cost. It was unthinkable even a few months ago.



Spain - Spain's independent provinces are giving the newly elected conservative Rajoi government a very hard time. Centralization would trigger a national revolt against the government in Madrid. Rajoi has already told Merkel where to stick the austerity targets. So he is negotiating about the ability to negotiate with the Fiscom.

France - Merkel's partner, Nic Sarko looks set to lose the presidential elections on May 6. His rival, Monsieur Hollande says he won’t join the FisCom unless Merkel agrees to set growth targets as well as austerity targets. So he will be negotiating  the scope of the FisCom.

Netherlands - After the right-wing minority coalition lost support of Geert Wilders following an austerity drive to get the country to comply with the FisCom, the rump cabinet joined forces with left-leaning red/greens to agree on an a package that does. It combines higher taxation without reforming the extensive subsidy program. Apart from a VAT hike set for October 1, nothing may come of the agreement, whose sole purpose seemed satisfying the Fiscom regulations. Elections will be held om September 12.The new coalition may well set other priorities.

Czech Republic - Like Britain the country has opposed the Fiscom from the get go. Nevertheless, the center right party in power has struggled in the face of repeated confidence votes, delaying reforms aimed at cutting deficits and debt. The austerity drive has angered Czechs and sent the cabinet's approval rating to an all-time low of 16 percent. The government did not survive last Friday's confidence vote.

Romania - Romania's left-leaning opposition will try to form a new government after torpedoing the centre-right cabinet in a confidence vote on Friday, the latest collapse of an austerity-minded ruling coalition in Europe.

Germany - There are calls for a referendum on the Fiscom and ESM and failing that, a constitutional challenge. The official situation is like this: the final vote in parliament #ESM and the FisCom is expected mid-June, shortly before the ESM is taking effect.

More on pOmoLand:

- "#EUSSR: THe eURo iS SinKIng & sO Is tHE reST of EUroPE"
- "#EUSSR: Welcome in the Fiscal Compact #FU"

Europe Under Siege by 'Flying Sand Paper'

After five days of thousands of stranded passengers, numerous airports in chaos and an economic loss now dwarfing the damage sustained as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is now transpiring that the European national authorities have severely mismanaged the eruption of the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcano.

Eyeing initially European transnational entities like Eurocontrol and the Commission's Transport Department, word now has it that the responsibility for closing air space rests entirely with the national authorities.

While safety is an imperative in the industry, these measures of closing swathes of European airspace for days on end, appears to have been taken without the slightest consideration for economic consequences.

The English edition of NRC newspaper has this tonight ... (Climategate, anyone?)

"EU can't be blamed for closing European airspace"

Airlines have complained that the decision to close Europe's airspace was based on computer models, rather than on factual information regarding the level of volcanic ash. Matthias Ruete, the top-official of the European Commission's transport department (...)  said the US uses a different system in similar situations. 

"Don't fly over the volcano," is how Ruete described that system. "If you look at the statistics there is no reason to assume that is any less safe," he added. (...)  It is unlikely Europe will adopt the American system any time soon, even if it is just as safe. In the US, the authorities only issue advisories to airlines, which they are free to ignore at their own peril. "We are Europeans," Redeborn of Eurocontrol said. "We like to regulate."

Many are now looking to Europe regarding the ban's financial consequences. Some are even asking whether Europe should bail out airlines the way it did troubled banks. This question too is based on a misconception, however. National governments, not the European Union, kept banks afloat with capital injections. Still, the commission could choose to relax regulations governing state aid. Competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia has already said he would consider such a move.

It is unlikely Europe will ever adopt the American system any time soon, even if it is just as safe, for the reason alone that it is the American system.

What is it these people don't understand in the words 'tax payer'? What's up with the disdain for economic considerations?

The answer is simple: the general European has grown up to believe there's a tree somewhere in the center of his country, which when shaken is dropping gold coins. The relation between paying taxes and the redistribution of it by the state, has purposely been severed.

The governing oligarchies are made up of collectivist statists who look with disdain upon the tax paying middle classes and their shop-keepers' mentality.

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of this matter yet. The angry man in the volcano is far from done.

Updated

Telegraph: "Volcanic ash cloud: Virgin boss Branson criticises flight ban as 'wrong decision' "

The Virgin Atlantic boss said the airline lost about £50 million in six days and called for compensation for the industry. Speaking in central London ahead of the Virgin London Marathon, Sir Richard said: ''We've never asked for Government help in 25 years. We didn't even ask for Government help after 9/11. We took it on the chin. ''But I think on this occasion this was very much a Government decision to ground the planes and we would suggest that the Government should compensate the industry. ''Behind the scenes our engineers and all the experts were telling us that there was no danger at all to flying and that the danger would have been if we had flown close to Iceland through the volcano. (...) ''The experts in the industry were saying it was safe to fly. 'A blanket ban of the whole of Europe was not the right decision. (...) >>>

Apr 24, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

• EU transport ministers agree to gradually open airspace (calgaryherald.com)
• Volcanic ash cloud: European flights set to resume (telegraph.co.uk)
• Ash chaos 'a lesson for Europe' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Anger rises from ashes as air chaos subsides (financialpost.com)
• Iceland volcano air restrictions are excessive, says European Commission (telegraph.co.uk)
• Airlines Seek Bailout From EU For Ash Crisis, British Airways Losing $30 Million Per Day (huffingtonpost.com)

Wanted: Irish Coffee and Viennese Buns!

We've blogged about this time and again ... and here we are once more! The breathtaking spectacle of Americans exercising the ownership of their politeia. They stand as a permanent beacon of inspiration to the rest of the world!

We can only wish, wish Europeans had a fraction of that ethos! Europeans, united in diversity, primarily bound in the mindset of dolts ... first as tribal drones, then owned by the feudal system, followed by subjugation to various ideological collectives and finally, as subjects of a transnational oligarchy.

It needs to change - fast, if we want to survive. Strange as it may seem, the new media might be a great help in accomplishing just that, to making a start ... take control of our politeia!

Not the message of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his bloody, collectivist revolution, but of the prime principle - the very key to prosperity or utter doom that was lost on the genius of the European Radical Enlightenment, but not on America's Founding Fathers: inalienable, individual Liberty.

For those who haven't yet understood, Americans are not ethnic Nationalists, proud of their Blut or their soil, their race or language, but of those things that are the direct result of the universal principles on which their nation was found.

Here's what you can do. Watch an American Tea Party in action in the video below (particularly pay attention to what the speaker at the 1:09 mark has to say), sign up with "Roots! We the Peoples of Europe", sign up on Twitter (enlist also with the Roots! Twitter Group), and inform us of your Twitter ID. You'll be getting further instructions what to do next.

It's just a modest start. If we take action now we may still be able to get a few parties going before the next farcical elections coming June for the European Supreme Soviet.



This is what took place in London on March 7. Why isn't it happening each and every week, all over Europe? See the comment section of details ... rather not.

- Filed on Articles in "Building the State of Europe" -

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" -

Who is a Patriot?

Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center, following an earlier posting on the subject ("The Perversion of Patriotism"), in present essay is sharing his analysis on how Postmodernism has corrupted American patriotism, and applies it to the present Presidential contest.

Today's post-democratic, federalizing Europe is actively suppressing any form of love of country as primitive Nationalism: the perverted redefinition process of pomo lingo is too blunt to differentiate between jingoistic chauvinism, the ethnic Darwinism of National Socialism, hot-blooded Nationalism, and patriotism or the love of one's country or nation. All expressions and symbols of the 'outdated nation state' are frowned upon and suppressed through social pressure, also known as political correctness, or The Nudge.

It is badly understood that American patriotism is an altogether different animal than the politicized European versions, which are often closely interlinked with ethnicity, religion or shared history. The American variety expresses pride of the idea that is America, the philosophy behind the founding of this specific country based on Enlightenment values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. These two of the most inspiring documents that have ever been conceived by the human race, are today the subject of vicious Postmodern conspiracy theories, possibly for that reason alone.

In the Treaty of Lisbon Europeans missed an opportunity to bridge the philosophical gap: the treaty is a massive, uninspired exercise in bureaucracy and pragmatism, held together by paper, glue and legal speak. No trick or underhanded manipulation is spared by the collectivist neo-totalitarians behind the E.U. to get it ratified. It is therefore hoped the Irish will save history and will firmly continue to reject a 'corrective referendum'.

Enjoy Sam's perspective on American patriotism!


Looking directly into the camera during his acceptance of the Democrat nomination Sen. Barack Obama said: "I've got news for you John McCain. We all put our country first." To this McCain replied: "I do not question his patriotism. I question his judgment." But the American people need to understand the two very different meanings of the word "patriot" and to recognize the consequences of replacing the traditional meaning with the postmodern meaning.

To make his point Sen. Obama also said: “We are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. Since “patriotism has no party” we will challenge the old Republican “partisan playbook” to make Democrats unpatriotic. He also expressed support for the military and veterans several times. His aim was clear: to immunize himself from the vulnerability he created by claiming to be a “citizen of the world” and from something which had worked against Democrats in the past, i.e. that he is not a patriot. Most Americans value patriotism and expect their leaders to be patriots.

Two Meaning of Patriotism
Patriotism as presented by McCain and Obama can be read at this article on Parade. McCain’s traditional patriotism is defined as demonstrated love, support, defense and sacrifice for one’s country and loyalty to that country. Obama’s postmodern patriotism is defined as the feelings, emotions and dreams someone has about others and his/her country. Traditional patriotism is an expression of moral certainty, while postmodern patriotism is an expression of relativism. Both versions claim they express love for past, present and future countrymen.

Traditional American patriotism claims there is right and wrong behavior, as defined by society, to demonstrate patriotism without regard to personal opinion. This means putting the country first, before ideology, factions, personal ambition, or anything else. Move. Most Europeans consider this view of patriotism a relic of the past.

On the other hand, postmodernists present patriotism as being subjective and dependent on the life narrative of each individual. This means the memories, hopes, dreams and feelings of each person are stressed.

Most Americans and Europeans hold preconceptions that cause them to be emotionally committed to one of these two versions of patriotism. Humans usually base their views on feelings but represent their decisions as being rational. Sometimes this encompasses unconscious competence, so this method of reasoning is not always wrong, but it is the source of confirmation bias, denial, etc. Therefore, it is wise to consider the history of patriotism and the modern/postmodern paradigm before we consider the terminology needed to resolve this issue. Now is the time for all Americans to understand why patriotism is important.

History of Patriotism
Patriotism as a word gained its meaning as nation-states became the major actors in world affairs. Prior to the 18th century, loyalty was to the sovereign. With the rise of nation-states and the decline of the divine right of kings it became necessary to shift loyalty from an individual to a nation, i.e. a collectivity of those with a common identity.

Under “the divine right of Kings” people were expected to be loyal to a lord, count, king, and emperor who held secular authority and who was also often the custodian of sacred authority. In most of Europe this concept was abolished during the age of political revolution. However, the new nation-states needed some way to express loyalty to the new sovereign, i.e. the people as a whole (the nation). This task fell to patriotism.

The concept of patriotism thus performs an essential function. Today, anyone who rejects the nation-state will also reject the traditional definition of patriotism and will favor the postmodern version.

Patriot is a very old word; originally it meant “defender of the lands of our fathers”. Throughout history all successful groups have found ways to create group identity and shared civic virtues to bind its members together during competition with others. The concept of patriotism has been instrumental in creating and maintaining (1) loyalty within a nation, (2) respect for authority and the institutions of governance, and (3) a sense of reverence for a nation. All successful nations have valued their patriots, and shunned those deemed unpatriotic. Nevertheless, a backdrop of American Flags, red, white and blue bunting, stirring words, flag pins, thousands of cheering countrymen, and patriotic songs do not prove patriotism.

Patriotism is a question of loyalty. It replaced the loyalty to an individual sovereign (lord, king, emperor), derived from feudal law, with loyalty to the people (a nation)—the new sovereign. In our case "the good People of these Colonies" absolved “all Allegiance to the British Crown".

In Europe the 68-generation has attempted to suppress any form of patriotism as integral nationalism: jingoistic chauvinism or the ethnic Darwinism of National Socialism. All expressions and symbols of the “outdated nation state” are frowned upon and suppressed through social pressure, i.e. political correctness. In Europe, and among postmodernists, sovereign nationalism is never considered.

Sovereign nationalism seeks the ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Sovereign nationalism is an expression of the human desire for freedom and self-government. It places an emphasis on popular sovereignty, a constitution, decentralization, and civil rights—it is legitimized by a social contract between a people and their state. Sovereign nationalism is based on E Pluribus Unum—thus it is uniquely American and the reason traditional American patriotism differs from the politicized European versions, which are often closely interlinked with ethnicity or religion. The American version expresses pride in the founding documents of this country.

The Modern/Postmodern Paradigm
The distinction between traditional patriotism and postmodern patriotism depends on motive. But it is impossible to know motives with certainty. Therefore, to avoid antagonism and separation debates over this distinction should be avoided. However, it is necessay to recognize that voting for either McCain or Obama will have consequences other than on issues. A vote for Obama will at least erode traditional patriotism and might even destroy ways to create and maintain (1) loyalty to our country, (2) respect for authority, and (3) reverence for our country.

Traditional American patriotism states what a person must do for his/her country to be considered a patriot. But postmodern thought rejects such objectivity. It is based on communication theory and focused on language, it stresses subjectivity and claims that objectivity is an illusion used by the powerful to manipulate people and oppress the disadvantaged. Postmodern patriotism is an expression of moral relativism. It is the love and feelings each person has for people and his/her country as a result of that individual’s life narrative. It considers opposition to your country’s policies and actions that you consider unjust to be the highest form of patriotism.

The social contract of a nation of free individuals with free will depends on patriots being loyal to, dedicated to, and willing to sacrifice for their nation. Of course, members of the loyal opposition love their country just as much as patriots. Members of the loyal opposition believe they are working for the common good just as much as patriots. They argue and work to change policies prior to decisions by those in authority, and then they either support the implementation of that policy or remain silent. Each citizen of the U.S.A. has the right to challenge constituted authority and to "alter or abolish" those exercising that authority, but the consequences of such action must also be considered. In order words, individuals have the right to dissent and to express their grievances. They might be right, brave, noble, wise, etc., but that does not make them patriots.

On the other hand, postmodernists make dissent an aspect of patriotism so they will not be constrained in their efforts to advance personal, ideological, or factional interests. Partisan politicians who do not want their words and actions constrained by patriotism, and unintentionally give aid and comfort to enemies of their country, should be considered “useful idiots” regardless of their intentions or how much they claim to love their country.

Terminology
If we want to preserve the United States of America as a successful nation, there needs to be consensus on the words used to discuss this important subject. However, in this essay there is no attempt to place anyone in any specific category. That is a matter of opinion on which there will never be agreement. Nevertheless, discussion will be more meaningful if there is consensus on terminology. Hopefully this terminology will cause people to consider more carefully how what they say and do might give aid and comfort to our enemies. This is the purpose of this essay.

Patriotism: actions to demonstrate love and loyalty to one's country, support and defense of one’s country, and sacrifice for one’s country. Patriotism is a way to give a nation of free people with free will the ability to unify and sacrifice for the common good in a common cause.

Patriots: loyal and dedicated persons who not only love their country but also willingly work and sacrifice to advance the policies and interests of their country.

Loyal Opponents: those persons who love their country but oppose, and work to change, the policies of their country yet are careful not to give aid and comfort to the enemies of their country.

Traitors or Useful Idiots: those persons who give aid and comfort to the enemies of their country as a result of carelessness, naivety or idealism. The politically correct will certainly object to the use of the term “traitor” and “idiot” in this context. For some traitor should be used only after someone is convicted of the crime of treason. Although traitor is a negative word it is an appropriate word since it refers to any person who betrays a person, cause, or trust.

Since the year 1300, idiot has meant an ignorant person. However, for the past 100 years it has been used by some to refer to a person with severe mental retardation; thus in an effort to avoid being insensitive to mental illness the word idiot is considered off limits by the politically correct. Yet idiot is correctly used to refer to a foolish person. In this context Communists used it, from the 1930s until the end of the Cold War, to refer to those in a country whom they could use to advance Communism. Therefore, both traitors and useful idiots are accurate and appropriate when used to refer to those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of their country as a result of carelessness, naivety or idealism.

Subversives or a Fifth Column: individuals or groups which hide their loyalty, convictions, and motives while they willingly work to advance the interests of a movement or faction seeking to weaken or destroy the country in which they live. “Fifth Column” was a term used during World War II for those living in a country that actively supported an enemy of that country. It was first used by Napoleon as he marched toward Vienna to refer to those in that city which he expected to rise up against their government. It was also used at the end of the Spanish Civil War as Nationalist forces moved on Madrid in the same context. It is a useful term, with negative connotations, which accurately describes those who are loyal to something other than their own country.

If there is ever conscious on this terminology it is hoped this will cause people to be careful about what they say and do. They should not be able to say and do things that will give aid and comfort to our enemies and still be considered patriots. Of course, some will use it to denigrate those who have different ideological or political views. Unfortunately, agreement on terminology will cause as many to use it for the latter as the former.

Conclusions
Without such agreement on terminology reasoned discussion of national interests is impossible. It will result in patrician bickering based on different political and philosophical points of view. With the acceptance of common terminology we can avoid some antagonism and separation as we seek unity in the pursuit of the common good in a common cause. Moral relativism must not prevent us from making judgments or from calling a spade a spade. It is hoped this clarity of terminology will cause people’s behavior to be more patriotic.

There will be those who object to the use of Traitors, Useful Idiots, Subversives, and Fifth Column. It is suggested they propose better terms.

We must have the courage, and be politically incorrect enough, to agree on civic virtues. We must distinguish right from wrong, good from bad. We must be judgmental. We can no long say everyone is a patriot just because they claim they love their country. Patriots are willing to work and sacrifice to advance the policies and interests of their country.

In addition to designating a new President, the November 2008 election will be a referendum on the meanings of patriotism which since the 1960s has been one aspect of the struggle between modernism and postmodernism.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, 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

Related:

Founding Bloggers: "Thousands Of Trashed US Flags From Obama’s Invesco Event Will Be Used At Palin Event Today"

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

Today's Collection by the LooneyGlobs: Breaking News

"The program was about the answers, not about the candidates."

"Russia is Saudi Arabia with trees."

- Overheard on CNN

From Russia, With Tough Love - photos and a report from the front on Atlas Shrugs ...

NATO's "no business as usual" was dismissed by Russia as ... bias! Unbelievable ... seldom was a more morally relativized, even-handed message delivered by a NATO official. NATO's musketeer motto is its reason of being. But thanks to the postmodern (Pragmatist) Europeans NATO has now become a conflict mediator, a UN II or an EU II, that's how machismo Russia takes it, at least. For heaven's sake, NATO is supposed to be biased, it is a party, not a mediator. This needs careful watching ... George W. isn't buying.

In the meantime (10:13 CET) at Gori, Georgia ...

... there's blowback in Warsaw - there's no beating the strategy of fake paranoia and willful irrationality (a Soviet era remnant, now a retro communication weapon wielded by Western pomos) ...

And now for the good BREAKING NEWS!

EUX.TV: "Landsbergis: Russia is Blowing Up Europe"

"Vytautys Landsbergis was President of Lithuania in 1991, when he helped fight off a bloody attempt by the Soviet Union's army to overthrow his country's government. He now is a member of the European Parliament for the conservative EPP-ED group."

... much as the EU is a fundamentally undemocratic organization modeled on the Soviet Union, and as as such should be rejected, evidently it's not good news at all. Landsbergis is registering the moral agnosticism prevailing in Europe. Today he's tolling the knell in the European Parliament. He's distributed the following text:

The gloomiest premonitions are short to become true. Europe divided, and unfortunately toadying is at last giving into Russian aggression ... read it all >>> (full post follows shortly) ...

... symbolic is an accident reported by the same EUX.TV: ... ceiling of the parliament collapsed ...

Caught Sleeping in Tbilisi

Among the fall-out of the ongoing conflagration in the Caucasus might well be the materialization of Robert Kagan's thesis posited in his last book, "The Return of History and the End of Dreams," or the return of autocracy and old-fashioned power politics, which marks an end to the Utopian approach to transnational diplomacy (book reviewed in "The Newest World Order").

The tome is a sequence to "Of Paradise and Power," an essay that dealt with the world order that emerged from the early post Cold War period. It was characterized by the tension between the European model of bottomless diplomacy and global peace through interdependence versus the American geopolitical approach, calculated to deal with a more Hobbesian view of a world in chaos. (Something along the theme of 'Europeans are from Venus and Americans are from Mars.')

The Russian performance in the recent days in Georgia generally proves the correctness of American realism. Natural law is constant and human genes (or any other for that matter) do not evolve in ways that enable the species to propel to a higher level of moral order (the Materialist imagination in that respect is an endless source of inspiration for Hollywood SF productions). Pacifism and appeasement may do something beautiful towards the Left's feel-good factor, but on the other hand it tolerates, aids and abets evil.

Although Hume's law - confusing is with ought - is a central Postmodern mechanism for dodging reality, the recent cataclysm in the Caucasus shows how dangerous a place planet Earth can be if we don't stop whimsical interventions given in by emotion, that is more often than not just tacky sentimentalism on the part of public opinion, played on by a biased media.

Rewarding claims for independence on the basis of demographic dominance does not help towards ethic engineering, genocide, ethnic cleansing or other means of creating 'facts on the ground'. Thus invited, irredentism might well pop up soon in an area near you.

Neither intervention nor cessation are alternatives to a healthy respect for borders, an nation's untouchable sovereignty, and sacred territorial integrity. The tranzies aren't solving problems (that to a large extent are inherited from the past), their relentless assaults on autonomous states are instead creating new problems for the future.

The picture which emerges from the fog of war in Georgia is as banal as it is hazardous: emotional subjectivism firing old-world lust for power and vengeance (unexploded ordinance was found in Georgia, addressed to NATO). This is possible because in diplomacy, as is the case in other areas, objective standards are purposely being dropped in favor of a relativist world view in which everyone is right from his or her perspective.

This Russia Today video dating back five months is indicative in more ways than one. Not only does it prove the enormity of the Kosovo blunder flung back in our faces, it is also illustrative of today's subjectivism - indeed, the random whim - when the footage turns to EU representative Peter Semneby who rejects similarities between the two cases because ... "each conflict has its unique, specific character;" therefore no attention should be paid to the parallels, that moreover should not be over-emphasized ... to which the Russia Today narrator sarcastically adds that "indeed the case is certainly different from Kosovo, because unlike Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia have no support from the EU and the US.

The Russian action sends jitters bordering panic through the countries of the new Europe. Black Five's "The Devil Went To Georgia" links to this article in which the presidents of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia issue a joint statement condemning Russia and its hegemonic games.

Another post relays an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski who draws a few parallels of his own:

- Caption: Tskhinvali, South Ossetia (1886) -

"Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system. Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin's "justification" for dismembering Georgia -- because of the Russians in South Ossetia -- to Hitler's tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to "free" the Sudeten Deutsch.

Even more ominous is the analogy of what Putin is doing vis-a-vis Georgia to what Stalin did vis-a-vis Finland: subverting by use of force the sovereignty of a small democratic neighbor. In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin's control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia. In brief, the stakes are very significant. (...) Read it all >>>

Clearly the West's interventions in the former Yugoslavia are the Russians' frame of reference. Interviews with Russian representatives are laced with allusions to the Kosovo war and the Western push for its independence. On Monday on CNN we see the Russian Dept. Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov openly comparing the Russian assault on Poti with the NATO's bombardment of Belgrade, repeated not three hours later by the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kosachev MP. (EUX.TV even calls it the Russian "hymn sheet").

Evidently, things do not compute. The Black Five post anticipates the slowly galvanizing opinion in circles of the European Left in observing that ... "For those that are still fixated on the idea that Georgia started this and Russia simply responded, answer me how what appears to be multiple combined-arms groups just happened to be able to respond so quickly, including the sortie of parts of the Black Sea fleet? It takes a lot of time, planning, and even movement and stockpiling of logistics to make that happen. The troubling question raised is how was it missed by -- apparently -- so many?"

Russia's newly acquired sensitivities concerning the humanitarian situation in the breakaway territories along with accusations of genocide and ethic cleansing throw back into the West's face their own novel pretexts for violent intervention in the former Yugoslavia. In geopolitical terms this is the logical blow-back from the West's bombing of Belgrade and Kosovo's independence (for as long as it isn't integrated in Greater Albania).

- Caption: Fresco in Ishkhani or Manglisi Church (11th century) -

Front Page: "Cold War II?" writes: "Now in retaliation, Russia sees the opportunity to inflict the same fate on America’s Caucasian ally. It reasons that if Serbia is divisible, then so is Georgia. Like the Albanians in Kosovo, the Abkhazians and South Ossetians should have the right to secede if they do not want to remain part of Georgia. And they don’t. As proof, many people in these two rebellious areas, as many as 90 per cent according to one report, have taken Russian citizenship" ... a clear case of demographic engineering.

During a press meeting in Moscow this afternoon French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when asked if replacing the Russian peace-keepers in the two separatist territories in Georgia with neutral, international troops might help the situation, Russia's President Medvedev rejected the notion categorically. Indeed how else can the traditional machinations be applied? "Russian Imperialism - It's Back":

"In Transnistria, a secessionist area of Moldova, Russian “peacekeepers” have kept the local gang of unreconstructed Stalinist smugglers since the early 1990s, and in Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgian territory, it is the same “peacekeepers” and mercenaries who have ethnically cleansed the Georgian majority and annexed the area. The pattern has been the same in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – Russia has unilaterally granted citizenship to the secessionists and then, when Georgia has tried to recover its territorial integrity, claimed that it has the right, and duty, to defend its “citizens” - a claim repeated on August 8 by President Dmitry Medvedev, and reminiscent of the old Soviet “struggle for peace” in places like Afghanistan."

More information on the following links:

- Wall Street Journal: "The War in Georgia Is a War for the West," by Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili

- Financial Times: "Saakashvili says Moscow wants to oust him" - includes an interesting video commentary by the International Affairs Editor

- Here's Black Five's Georgia blogroll:

Baltic Times
Civil.Ge
The Messenger
Scraps of Moscow
All About Latvia
Lex Libertas
foreign notes
Registan.net
Novayagazeta
Yezhednevny zhurnal
Global Voices
The 8th Circl
A Fistful of Euros
Nosemonkey's EUtopia
Wu Wei

- Times Online archive Sept. 26, 1924: "The Revolt in Georgia - A General Rising"

- The file on Kosovo and Bosnia: "The Balkan Caliphate"

- History and culture of Georgia

- Filed on Articles in "Caucasian Heat" -