The Brutal History of Rights

It cannot be reiterated and emphasized often enough what precisely is the nature and origin of the basic rights that many of us enjoy to this day! Few today appreciate their value and at what price they've come!

Sadly, over the last decades younger generations have been willfully indoctrinated with over abstracted and perverted versions of the basic concepts of liberty and individual rights. Some Americans hope themselves to be united in these values, but they should know these are emphatically not shared by those on the far Left side of the aisle.

- Caption: logo of the 912 Project based on "Don't Tread On Me" -

The purpose of postmodern 'interpretations' - usually a series of subtle shifts in definition until a word begins to mean its opposite - have always been entirely clear: to subordinate individuals once more to the collective and to the tyrants who take it upon themselves to realize their ideals - without fail in the name of a 'higher morality', the greater good, an illusionary common will, or whatever false ideal is brought to bear as a sad excuse on the road to hell.

Europeans have become so used to the reality of "third way" politics and mixed economies, that they firmly believe them to represent a fair balance between cut-throat Capitalism and benign collectivism. But sadly, what is experienced as a compromise is merely a brief stage in the transition process from less freedom to total tyranny.

Progress is not a timeline, but comes in loops, in cycles. Read all about it in a series of posts contributed to this blog some time ago by an author who is currently entrusting to paper his memoirs of the Korean War and must therefore be temporarily missed. Read "Understanding Change" by Dr Sam Holliday of the Armiger Cromwell Center.

Growth is the natural order of things. Survival depends on it. The same is true of corporations and governments. What starts out as an entity to protect the people's liberty - with no authority greater than the sum of rights held by the people they represent - if unchecked, the entity inevitably morphs into an autocratic Leviathan that dictates shopping hours at best and the content of our minds at worst.

One has to admire the wisdom and sense of realism held by America's founders; for instance Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that "the people cannot be all, and always, well informed", a prerequisite for democracy, which is not an end in itself by the way, but one possible aid in the protection of individual rights. He also asserted that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (full quote)

Most may not realise it yet, but the gaping chasm between the understanding of those basic principles and the current postmodern interpretation of what constitutes freedom and government, has brought Western civilization to the brink of collapse.

Here's another great essay by Dr Sam Holliday, this time about the ominous parallels between our present time and the German interbellum, better known as the Weimar Republic: "Red Flags".

As the devastating results of the "Community Reinvestment Act" are suppressed, thanks to the spin that the current financial and economic crisis was only to be expected since 'greed' is inherent in the Capitalist system, some are already tentatively suggesting that the same dilemma is true as was pondered between the two world wars: namely that Capitalism has sadly failed us and that the only recourse is a collectivist system.

Back then the false choice was between Communism and Fascism: Left or Right collectivism. Things are not all that outspoken this time around: no right-minded politician or spin doctor would call these ideologies by their proper names.

Instead, while the global Obama honeymoon drags on and the pillars of the economy remain frozen like mesmerized deer in the headlights, a public discourse on such subjects fails to materialize and the financial crisis - too good an opportunity to pass up - is used as a leverage to implement the measures necessary for the establishment of a crypto collective.

The only question is in fact what its degree of malignancy will be?

Here's a reminder of the brutal history of our rights as promised at the head of this post. And here's the entire series. Let's see how we'll get ourselves out of this crap pit. I'd say - for starters - let's shock the silent majority out of their catatonic stupor! As usual the Americans are at the vangard while the rest of us very slowly catches on (but no guarantees there).

Cannot imagine who's copyrights that footage infringed on, but here are a few alternatives:





Boston Tea Party site

The Evolution from Value to Non Value

For reasons we shall see shortly many people today have lost track of the meaning of the word 'value'.

It means simply - within an ethical system - something worthy of pursuit and effort to keep it.

In the relativist Marxist dialectic and its frame of ethics, morality became a social construct of the Oppressors - i.e. the bourgeoisie. Middle class values became synonymous with the concept itself.

Like the entire field of ethics came to be defined in accordance with the Kantian ethics system, and 'morals' are understood as limited to sexual behavior, for entire swathes of Westerners 'value' currently means 'suspect middle class decency', usually slightly false and hypocrite. Value became a non value.

Pop culture consists almost entirely of non values, and even anti values. No one pursues health hazards, ugly things, refuse, dilapidated buildings, rags, music as a loose jumble of unrelated sound waves, ditto in literature (word salads), faecal art, urinals, and anything else skatological. In short, that which in real life we need to get away from as soon as possible because it's, well ... worthless -- valueless.

Postmodern art and culture tries to sell us refuse - non values - as if they were a value, something worth pursuing and keeping ... in effect, anti values.

The entire edifice of Left and Right collectivist ethics, is based on a fallacy (not reality as it is, but as it should be, according to their false ideologies) and the subterfuge, that aims to persuade us that what we see in front of us, is an illusion and thus unworthy of pursuit.

The consequence is the upside down, relativist world we live in today: in which our senses are said to be deceiving us and man is thus incapable of knowing anything (epistemological nihilism); black is white from a certain point of view and true (subjectivism); that reality will cease to exist at the moment of our death because it is 'thought that creates reality'.

Much has been said about the parallels of the Weimar Republic in the German interbellum, and the present times. In reference to values this is most certainly true: the same postmodern non and anti values in art and culture, and in society rampant relativism, sexual deviasion and permissiveness, and an obsession with death and the gruesome.

Yesterday Dutch TV aired an interview with a young Muslim woman who was in the Turkish Airlines plane crash at Amsterdam airport this week. The interviewers, who never hesitate to brutally deride and ridicule Christian believers, softly-softly pushed her on her beliefs and the Muslim approach to the afterlife.

She explained that in Islam our earthly life is not something worthy of great pursuit, and that real life, is the afterlife. It is in the unity with Allah that true life begins. While the same thought has certainly crossed the minds of many Jews and Christians, for a very good reason the basic credo has always been the absoluteness of the sanctity of life. This is but one basic aspect why the three faiths of the book are not "all the same".

Any other inference that may be drawn from that premise for the moment aside, it is obvious that to her and her co-religionists death is clearly a value, while life is not. Now, answer the question, why would anyone devise a thought system that makes death a worthy pursuit?

The conclusion is justified that two and half millennia worth of civilization is currently under attack by some form of nihilism, on some level or other: ethically, epistemologically, metaphysically, culturally, ideologically, politically, you name it!

Hampered by idealistic collectivists who are naive enough to have put their money on a happy, post Christian and post racial global cumbaya, and caught in a pincer between on the one hand, nihilistic postmoderns who lost their belief in anything, hell bent on tearing down the rest of humanity with the demise of their morally bankrupt ideals; and on the other hand the Islamic collective of the Ummah that is obsessed and in the throngs of a fanatical death cult.

Boy, are we knee-deep in skatological goo ...

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" -

Armistice and Veteran's Day 2008

For Armistice and Veteran's Day we have attempted to collect a few edifying morsels of interest.

This is a lot less easy than it sounds. Most of what is available are isolated video snippets; or there's a choice of the pacifist anti-war stuff, either of the hefty Gothic or of the sentimental tear-jerk variety.

However, given the current upsurge of interest - primarily in the US - we've unearthed some intriguing, if highly emotionally charged footage on the Weimar Republic, and the German Revolution that followed the chaos of World War I. It's got some rare historical material, as well as background information on whatever fateful constellation of events led to such a profound and total collapse of morality. (For more reading here's the Wiki on Christopher Isherwood.)

The music would certainly not have been our initial choice; we felt however as its message grew, that it serves the purpose of conveying some of the nihilism and the obsession with surreal horror that is so typical for the period, and that led to its inevitable outcome in World War II.

In this respect we can also refer you to earlier postings on the subject of the German interbellum: "Resist Commie Prop, Support Indy", "The Postmodern Anti-War Hero, the Red Baron", "The German Revolution".



From the cultural angle, we proudly present a collection of World War I propaganda posters from all countries involved in the Great War. The entire site is rather a gem and worthy of further exploration. For example, Prose and Poetry reads ...

"More than any other conflict, the Great War inspired writers of all generations and classes, most notably among combatants. (...) This section profiles the more renowned authors and contains samples of their work. Also available in this section are extended features, including a profile of Robert Graves - and, more unusually but nevertheless intriguing, a piece on literary ambulance drivers... There are also two articles written about the author of the war's most famous poem: In Flanders Fields. The 1917 collection of wartime poetry The Muse in Arms has also been republished here in its entirety. (...) >>>

An index of authors - including Sir Winston Churchill - is attached.

Next there's World War I American Legacy, a DVD documentary directed by Mark Bussler.

Wall Street Journal has a reality check for the US. "Soldiers of the Great War" lays an provocative link with the present: "(...) the victors failed to prevent the rise of the totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany, the fascists in Italy and the militarists in Japan (...) the U.S. withdrew from its global responsibilities. (...) Now we are at a similar pass in Iraq, where the U.S. has effectively defeated Sunni and Shiite insurgents on the battlefield. But whether this costly achievement will hold depends largely on our willingness to support the Iraqi government and steel it against its own fascistic challengers, particularly Iran. If there's one lesson to be learned on this Armistice Day, it's of the price that's paid when we allow victory to slip from our grasp. >>>

One of the blessings of living part of one's life in cyberspace is the human connection one gets with people you will never know on a personal level. Following document was made by someone who remains anonymous, in commemoration of his great grandfather Aaron Kennett who fought in the Great War. He flourished from 1887 to 19187. May God bless them both, and all who fought and continue to fight for freedom, against barbarism and oppression.

The music accompanying the touching family document is the hymn "I Vow to Thee my Country", created in 1921 when a poem by Cecil Spring-Rice was set to music by Gustav Holst. It expresses the unconditional love, loyalty and self-sacrifice that was once unquestioningly devoted to one's country. It is a victory of the Postmodern One Worlders that these words - while warm and patriotic only a few years back when played at my father's funeral - now sound strangely surreal.

But make no mistake: whereas giving one's life for a state in Europe today seems unthinkable and alien, a renewed fight for individual freedom against neotot pocket potentates is certainly not. The same forces taunting national colours and hymns also whisper of collectives and the redundancy of democracy, suggesting that the value of 'enlightened dictators' is somewhat underrated. Ignore them at your peril ...





- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled" -

The Comprehensive Guide to Youth for Obama

“(...) That is your weapon! “Precious” needs to get on the phone and say, “Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It’s about my future. It’s about the world I will be living in. It’s about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!”
Barack Obama in "Kids for Obama" ___________________________________________________________

It's about time we did an inventory of one of the more worrisome features of the Obama campaign so far (besides shutting down the opposition by criminalizing them, and blackballing an endangered species, a critical member of the press - watch the Biden interview with Barbara West): the Obama Youth draft. Deny it at our peril.

To begin with, children of any age as a rule are innocent, vulnerable and impressionable. This is why we strive to shield them from predators and exploitation. Doses of reality are administered piecemeal in a controlled fashion, carefully dispensed when we believe they are able to handle a given situation.

Children lack the mental tool to discriminate, and are therefore open to suggestion. Precisely because their minds are like sponges, soaking up all information that's available to them, the totalitarians of our world prefer their pawns young, at the earliest age possible.

We would not dare to suggest - or indeed hope - that an Obama administration would ever go that far, but in an ideal totalitarian world children are a common property.

Rousseau followers have this romanticist image of the tribal village where children merrily rummage around, babies and toddlers crawling from hut to hut, soaking up wisdom dispensed by the tribal elders and wise old hags, who smoke their pipes in the soft afternoon sunlight as the women prepare the communal meal for the night's entertainment when the men come home from the hunt.

We must not forget that the tribe is the origin and the miniature of a totalitarian society. The above pastoral image is usually far removed from the actual horrors of communities in which the individual is but one element of the organic whole, that is the tribe. Individual actions might endanger the entire group, which is why they must remain subordinated to the collective.

We are coming from a situation in which the White House has been occupied by the most demonized President in the history of the United States. We are coming from eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, psychological denial, displacement and projection on a mass scale.

That is after thirty plus years in which Bill Ayers and his postmodernist following have been perverting education, debilitating and demoralising the mentality of entire generations of students, who therefore lack any historical perspective, minds poisoned with dialectically induced self-loathing.

Americans are at present in the process of being seduced by a personality cult figure ('celebrity' is way too mild an epithet - idol is more like it) and the electoral process has been reduced to a popularity contest. Facts and reality are irrelevant, voting on the basis of policies is out.

Watching the scene from a distance, all signs flare up in red alert, alarm bells toll at full throttle, but none of the caveats reach the general public who, as willing nymphets at the political lily pond are heartily enjoying their play of seduction with the Postmodern rendition of Peter Pan. Consider the conditions:

If children are becoming a lever in the campaign - or should we say 'movement' (see cashed screen shot of the top down "Grassroots 'Kids for Obama Parade' (Organizing)" - click to enlarge) - should we be surprised of creepy initiatives on the ground, signs that the malignant memes have long reached ground level?

The child choir "We're Gonna Change the World" is reminiscent of The Dear Leader's children and the Hitler Youth. It is disturbing on so many levels. The "yes we can" mantra is the translation of Will: remember Will? National Socialism thrived on it, reason was out - seen as middle class, and an inferior tool to knowledge. Pupils were encouraged to "think with their will." Another rather apt parody by The People's Cube is circulating, driving home the point of the mobilization of all the drones towards the cause.

At student level, we find the equally disturbing spectacle of the Obama Youth Regiment, almost reminiscent of child soldiers. Best perhaps not to say too much of this picture.

As said, one aspect of Hitlerism were the youth groups. These were case particular to the circumstances in the German interbellum, younger generations blaming the older ones for losing the Great War and holding them responsible for the devastating stipulations of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

The Wandervogel (ramblers) and Die Bunde were non-political, but they promoted Pragmatism and instilled from a young age the preference of emotions over rationality, and action over thought. Reason was referred to as 'the whore of the Enlightenment.' After the first great anti-modernist thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau, admired by all subsequent subjectivist movements, the Nazis sought to create an environment in which raw emotions and passions "as found in primitive societies and in the Orient, to give up one's individuality and merge with the organic youth group under a forceful leader," would thrive. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

One of the worst and emotionally devastating aspects of the total state is the social pressure exerted to ensure enduring loyalty to the ideology: children spying on their parents and vice versa, and neighbors no longer able to trust each other. One of many slick instruction manuals in full Obambi blue complete with hobbit dwellings shows you how to mobilize the neighbors. The complementory vid shows you're just a few clicks away from MyBO. (shudder)

It's not just the isolated cases in this campaign that are disturbing: it is the pattern and the effect the dissemination of these memes have in the real world. Two's a coincidence, three is a pattern, four is good reason for a critical look up close (and there's hasn't been much of that!).

Check out this 'inspirational' slightly off Obambi blue nugget towards the cause, currently hitting the childrens book shelves: "Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope" by Nikki Grimes and Bryan Collier. "Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn't quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together."

You still there ...? Specifically trained organizers - the Obama Organizing Fellows - are strategically placed in communities "to carry out grassroots activities" for the serious minimum of 30 hours a week. As O himself began his agitating career as a community organizer this specific module of the movement must be particularly close to his own heart. The Acorn instruction manual can possibly be integrated in its entirety in the Fellows cyllabus. This has been put in place long ago: "the campaign is no longer accepting Obama Fellow Applications. The deadline for submission has now passed." Applicants have been contacted by June 2nd.

To top that up we have Obama Truth Squads enforcing The Current Truth, the laddies of Action Wire engaging in swarming and other acts of intimidation. The Obama proposals for a national service sends shivers down the individualist's spine! It's all about group mobilization!

When are the American people waking up from their enamoration with the seducer?

Here's the latest from the official Obiden Action Center on the targetting of kids, reported by Dr Slogan's Prescriptions in "The Future Has Arrived: Barack Obama Targets Kids": "If you go to Sen. Obama’s official site and click on People you’d see — among others — a recently added category called Kids. (...)

The opening statement sets the stage: “In the words of Senator Barack Obama, the “Obama for America Campaign is a different type of campaign”. For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote—through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics and to express your support for Senator Obama.” On this one, I have to agree with Sen. Obama–this is certainly a very different kind of campaign.

The site features content for kids themselves, for adults who want to leverage others’ kids to get more votes for Sen. Obama and for parents who want to leverage their kids to promote their support of Sen. Obama. Every set of instructions is worth reading. Kids have “10 Ways Kids for Obama can get involved” at their disposal. (...)

The site offers many handy instructions for young Sen. Obama supporters, helping them to form the pragmatic attitude they would absolutely need in the Obama led nation (...) "Read it for yourself (bring a mountain of tissues and a sizable pot to puke in).
N.B. the top quote is exerpted from this page >>>

If you are one of the few who doesn't believe there's any immediate danger to the nation, read today's Morning Bell, "First They Came for Joe" ...

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
--Ronald Reagan

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo White House" -

Pulling the Plug on the Press from Hell

Another day in the Postmodern dystopia, and another enigma wrapped in a conundrum solved: media bias. No, correction ... that would mean there's some bandwidth of reasonable neutrality to deviate from in the first place. They are simply 'in the tank.' Or, to put it politically correct: they're wholeheartedly practicing 'New', subjective Journalism.

I can hear the astroturfers from where I'm sitting: "The “liberal” media is a myth." "The Ayers connection is a non starter." "If there was anything to it [it being, whatever] the press would already have exposed, chewed, regurgitated, redigested and shat it out repeatedly."

Yeah, sure - we are all imagining it, it's all our own subjective consciousness ...

Forget it, the law of identity is unshakable ... the lid is off and I'm still reeling ... I'm shocked, shocked ... let's go again over 'the single, most important piece of blogging, since New Zeal published proof of Obama's socialist beginnings - perhaps I misread (yes, breaking news on a daily basis, is the joy of blogging ...):

Pajamas Media: "Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions," by Michael S. Malone - Hat Tip: Elizabeth H. on Team Sarah

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. (...) You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth generation newspaperman. (...) when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you ten different ways to color variations of the word “said” (...) we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against their unconscious.

- Cartoon: from "Yellow Journalism", Cox and Forkum -

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible [ed.: Plato is the father of subjectivism, but we get the picture]. That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views, and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty - especially in ourselves.

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine (...) but I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy. Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased. (...)

I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith - and I know the day and place where it happened - was the War in Lebanon three summers ago. (...) The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story . . . but it never happened.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. (...)

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues (...) No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so. (...)

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a manner that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide - especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50:50. (...)

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . . and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water. So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits. Why?

I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power ... only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe - and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway - all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself: an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country . . . >>>

... hm, so I did misread that ... I thought for a moment the media figure themselves playing Pravda to Obama's Supreme Soviet ... what a relief!

No, joking apart, something is seriously wrong. You can take this involvement one step further. Take the basic principle of any old totalitarian: you elevate your pet ideology to the status of moral arbiter! With pragmatism kicking in, acting on this misplaced moral indignation and you're in, knee-deep. This is how maverick Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn got killed: by a Green, self-righteous defender of Islamist 'victimhood'.

Fox Election HQ : "Former Newsweek Reporter Admits Dreaming About Taking Out Giuliani"

A former Newsweek reporter admitted in an article this week that he has no objectivity and imagined disabling Rudy Giuliani so he wouldn't run in the presidential primary race last year. Michael Hastings wrote in GQ magazine that he had a "recurring fantasy" that he could somehow stop the former New York City mayor in his tracks. (...) >>>

I hear any book with the words "Weimar Republic" on the dust cover, is flying off the shelves in the States. Watch out for this suicide potion: pragmatism, dogma, anti-reason and collectivism. Oh, and a backdrop of moral breakdown and economic depression help a lot ...


- Filed on Articles in "The Demise of Press from Hell" -