The Pledge of Allegiance

by Red Skelton

Armed Forces Day: Thank You!

Related dossier

- "Freedom Isn't Free"

The "American Manifesto" (Update)

As he is committing his memoirs of the Korean War to paper, we have been sorely missing the regular contributions of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center.

Important as history may be, there's hardly denying we live in momentous times at present. In that realization Dr Holliday has interrupted his train of thought on the hotter episodes of the Cold War to share with us his analysis of the transition the world is currently passing through.

In "American Manifesto" he's following the ideals of the Classical Liberal school in the tradition of John Locke, and describes how those ideals were finally condensed and made manifest in the American Declaration of Independence and in the US Constitution.

Although the roots of the paradigm shift in a radically opposite direction were laid much earlier, it first made its proper influence felt on the North American continent after World War II, when Postmodern thought caused a social upheavel unparalled in history to the extent in which it broke loose from the roots of Western civilization.

As the forces of the counter cultural revolution are now breaking through to the highest corridors of power, the question what can be done to limit the damage has become an urgent one. How can we restore and maintain the values which have kept modern Western civilization prosperous for over three centuries?

Enjoy Dr Holliday's proposal for an American Manifesto. Earlier articles and essays posted on Politeia are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center.


American Manifesto

Those who founded the United States of America wanted to establish a new form of governance. They did not want to repeat the errors they saw in Europe, and throughout history. They opposed laws based on the “Divine Right of Kings.” They were against a democracy of unrestrained conflict, factionalism, mob rule, demagoguery, and the tyranny of popular majorities.

America has changed much since 1776. The change was slow and evolutionary until the start of the 20th century; it has been very rapid since 1942. The principles and ideals of the founders have been diminished. Is this progress or decline? The current debate is over how, and how fast, we should move toward a new and different Utopia. Yet shouldn’t the debate be over how to retain the principles and ideals of our Founders Fathers as we adjust to new realities?

- Caption: "Patriotism" (2006) by Megan Brigham - white charcoal 18x18", NFS - 

The Vision of Our Founding Fathers
What was the vision of our founders? They wanted to establish in America the foundations of a new structure and way of governance. They accepted the fact that people have many different views of right and wrong, good and bad. They wanted citizens to be able to exploit their God given (inalienable rights) talents, energies and resources to whatever extent they desired. They wanted constraints (negative rights) on government and rejected the idea of positive rights given to the people by government. They wanted checks and balances on all governmental structures. They wanted a weak Presidency and an even weaker Supreme Court. They wanted free men to establish, without external influence, a nation of free citizens who could enjoy the benefits of their successes but who would pay from their failures. They rejected the idea of equality of outcomes.

The founders did not want power in the hands of those who would exploit the weakness of human nature that tends to want security more than opportunity, comfort more than success, handouts more than self satisfaction. They did not want career politicians in positions of authority. They wanted policy determined by those willing to sacrifice wealth, life and honor to advance national interests, rather than those who gave priority to personal and factional interests. They finally reached a compromise on suffrage; they limited it to free adult male citizens who were property owners.

Then they recorded their vision in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This vision has shaped who got what, when, how, and at what cost through much of our history. However, interpretations of these documents have greatly eroded the vision of the Founding Fathers—some consider this “progress”, but others consider it decline.

Why America is Different
America is a nation of immigrants. In common, those who became Americans, came to an unknown country in order to have a better future for themselves and their children. With freedom all could use their ability, ambition and energy to succeed or to fail. Unique American values and attitudes were thus built by the initiative of individuals, not by collective efforts determined by government. The building stages of America came from the character of individuals, not any tribal, ethnic or religious identification. Although America was not perfect during its building stages, freedom plus citizens with a sense of fairness and a willingness to accept responsibility, produced success. No elite corrected the imperfections.

The remarkable growth of America from 1776 until 1942 was the result of the efforts of individuals with diverse backgrounds facing dangers, challenges and demands of the new and the unknown; they built an American nation with a common identity and the bonds of kinship.

However, since 1942 there have been a noticeable change, which foreshadows the decline of America. This change is illustrated by a softening of both customs and laws, less reliance on the inner compass of individuals, the replacement of a sense of duty with self gratification, an unwillingness to accept responsibility, greater factionalism, and the seeking of governmental benefits and rewards.

The Renewal of America in Keeping with the Vision of Our Founders
Instead of using the old words of politics, which have much baggage, today a new American movement needs to be defined in terms of where our country is in the cycle of rising and falling. This would define the core convictions to insure a better future.

All groups--those who have a common identity and consider themselves "we"--are living organisms. Americans can be defined as an assembly of citizens that form an organism with a collective biography. Our country—like all groups—is subject to Darwinian like forces of survival. The distinguishing characteristic of all groups is a common identity--a sense of kinship. Survival, and the best possible future, depends on retaining that which caused the group to rise, and to avoid whatever might cause a decline.

The values and attitudes of the founders were the outcome of economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation that evolved after 1500. The four core convictions of the Founding Fathers were:

• Belief to provide individuals with an inner compass to control behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem and to be responsible for their actions. Belief prevents the individual from being only a subject of a state or nation.

• National identity to provide a sense of kinship (a nation) and a unique intellectual, creative, technological, and artistic culture.

• Patriotism to insure unity within a polity (a state) and success in achieving common goals.

• The scientific method to establish an objective way to uncover falsehoods and thus provides a means for reaching agreement.

How Things Changed
In 1776, and still in 1942, most Americans revered the four core convictions and understood that they must be kept vibrant and in equilibrium. Therefore, they can be considered the core convictions of America. However, whenever one of the four dominates the others, power shifts from citizens to an elite claiming expertise. Today American Traditionalists want to preserve balance among these four convictions, while Progressives want power to shift from citizens to a governmental elite.

Today we have a Presidency built on a cult of personality, which seeks to transform our country and change the world. No longer is the President seen as an administrator to defend the country, enforce the law, and uphold the Constitution as originally written.

Today the Supreme Court has unchallenged authority over everything, i.e. power that in the past was called “The Divine Right of Kings.” Today an elite controls our country.

We would not want to return to 1942 or 1776, even if we could. We must seek the best possible future and hold on to all true improvements. This is the aim of Traditionalists. They want to continue the evolution that began in 1500.

However, Progressives want a paradigm shift in Western Culture; they want to redefine the four convictions.

The Traditionalists do not want to "throw out the baby with the bath water". They want to prevent instability and chaos. Traditionalists seek stability through the four core convictions of Americans.

Conclusions
It is time for the American Manifesto, as presented here. Since human beings do not like to change their institutions, or re-think their philosophies, will this American Manifesto be of any practical use? It can be, but not alone. In order to reap any practical benefits more is required. The American Manifesto only states an ideal, and a path.

The next step is debate on and modification of this manifesto. Then most American citizens must share a common identity based on the principles and ideals in this manifesto. In achieving this it might be necessary to make citizenship a privilege to be earned or lost--rather than a right of birth. In that case, one aspect of earning citizenship should be acceptance of the four core convictions of America.

Finally, there must be political action—by a political party that advocates a consistent conservative philosophy.

The purpose of the American Manifesto is to present an ideal and a path to that ideal. Considerable effort by others will be required before there is a new reality in the United States of America which keeps each of the four core convictions vibrant and all of them in equilibrium.

Nations have passed away and left no traces,
And history gives the naked cause of it—
One single, simple reason in all cases;
They fell because their people were not fit.

--Kipling in ‘Land and Sea Tales’

What can be done in time of rapid change?
Some ignore the change with renunciation or flight.
Some seek only self and factional rewards in the change.
Some destroy, so something better can be built.
Some build so the future will be stable and bright.

--Sam Holliday (2009)

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

An online printable version of "American Manifesto", by Dr Sam Holliday

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

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" -

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" -

A bag of Postmodern Curses (I): Potentates, Narcissism & Hume's Law

Following Sam Holliday's expert analysis of the Postmodern corruption of the concept of patriotism, the convergence of events on a number of issues touching related subject matter, is no stranger to these pages.

Recently blogger-psychologist Dr Sanity had a take on the matter in "Psychic Income, Utopian Patriotism, and the Infantile Narcissism that Fuels Them", asserting that to Postmoderns patriotism ...

"... is always one hundred percent compatible with their Narcissistic sense of entitlement. They bash America because they love America - or, rather, they love their own personal and private image of what America should be."

Haven't we seen this phenomenon - in which the political Left excel - time and again? It's the fallacy of Hume's Law: confusing is with ought.

The curse of the sociopathology of Narcissism, which Christian Democrats so love to foist on Libertarianism, is in a few sentences better identified by Neo Neo-Con; the affliction is getting more prominent as the Leftist nanny state assumed the debilitating, substitute parental role over its increasingly state-dependent subjects:

"To the child, the parent is omnipotent, and perfection is demanded and easily achievable. Everything that goes wrong must be the parent's fault, that much is clear; otherwise, the world would become a much more frightening place. (...) The child knows the parent is strong enough to absorb the blow, so it's safe to direct the blame and the anger where it won't be dangerous to do so (...) It's a win-win situation for the child, who gets to "vent," and to feel that the world isn't such a dangerous place, knowing the parent will not strike back and harm the child."

Which also explains why it is so easy to blame everything on the big guy!

My co-blogger Jack, in "There's Something Rotten in the State of Europe" yesterday plastered his bitter complaints here over the double standards of Europe's politicians and the fact that they're betraying the totalitarian contents of their hearts and minds, by automatically assuming others to have such designs! He said:

"Leftists believe people can't be trusted. In their minds, the totalitarian temptation will always prevail. Ergo, they believe they have to tell people who is votable or not, who has a reasonable political vision or not. To push this belief the whole way, they even created what they call a "cordon sanitaire" (line of quarantine) around this particular party (Vlaams Belang): the party won't be part of any coalition, there'll be no debate with its leaders, and the media must do their best to ignore them. That's what they call protective democracy, and that's what I call the beginning of a dictatorship."

As they say in Flanders "ons kent ons", or, as philosopher Stephen Hicks asserts: National Socialism is also Socialism (video material by Von Mises Institute) and both are collectivist Counter Enlightenment ideologies opposed to Libertarian values!

In "The Unholy Alliance: Collating the Three Great isms" we saw how both ideologies share more than the bare basics with Islam! We'll discuss in the second instalment of this post how the mutual appreciation association works out in practice as we follow a real, live, unfolding spectacle of solidarity.

Jack's post also made painfully visible that Europeans - unlike Americans - despite all the claims of prolonged civilization and sophistication, still have not taken ownership of their politeia: in their mind-set they are still subjects, waiting for the ruling political elite to throw them a democratic bone or two from time to time.

When will Europeans storm the hideous Berlaymont with pitchforks and illicit fire arms? It's theirs, even if they don't realize it! They've paid for it as the ruling elite rules in their name, on their behalf and at their pleasure!


~ Continued in Part II: "In The Netherlands - as we speak - what passes for a 'public discourse' is going on over MP Geert Wilders' plans to produce a film explaining the Fascist character of the Koran, which regretfully isn't clear yet to everyone. ~

The Corruption of Patriotism

Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center, following prior posts in these pages, "Effectively Communicating Jihad: a spade is a spade", "The Fable of the Knife" and its twin, "The Fable of the Water Buffalo and the Sparrow" in present essay is sharing with us his analysis on how Postmodernism has corrupted the American form of patriotism.

In Europe today - what is left of the concept - is actively being suppressed, together with all the other expressions of the nation state. Social pressure, also known as political correctness, is exerted to see it phased out: common folk raise the eye-brows, intellectual elites look down on it as vestiges from an unenlightened past.

Present article will be followed up next week with two more takes on the matter, one posting on the Postmodern version of patriotism by blogging psychologist Dr Sanity, and a commentary by our editors. But for now, enjoy Sam Holliday's views. (All emphasis is added.)


Since the 1960s many of those who opposed U.S. foreign policy have corrupted the word patriotism and have turned the concept upside down.

Barack Obama is correct when he claims that wearing an American flag on your lapel does not prove you are a patriot. Hillary Clinton has correctly noted that there are many ways to demonstrate your patriotism. However, both of them use a postmodern (PM) version of patriotism that is the opposite of the original meaning. Their version includes criticism of our operations against the Third Jihad, and this alters traditional patriotism.

The U.S. Constitution gives each citizen the right of free speech, and thus the right to criticize governmental policy. Yet, one of the purposes of patriotism is to place some limits, in the nation’s interests, on the exercise of that right. PM patriotism ignores any such limitation.

PATRIOTISM

Patriotism is love, support and defense of ones country. A patriot willingly argues and labors to advance national interests. This requires service and sacrifice for one's country as well as loyalty to those in authority. A patriot supports structures and processes that provide political unity, a democratic polity, and economic success.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know with certainty who is patriotic and who is unpatriotic because it is impossible to read minds or know motivations. Are words and actions motivated by national interests, or by self-interests? Are the politicians using patriotism to generate the unity, esteem and support necessary for success and survival or to serve their own interests? Do words and actions give aid and comfort to enemies? How do loyal opponents (who have policy disputes with those making decisions yet are also seeking to advance national interests) differ from partisan politicians seeking power?

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 the group, (2) respect for authority and the institutions of governance of the group, and (3) a sense of reverence for the group. All successful groups have valued their patriots, and shunned those deemed unpatriotic. Today groups who want to be successful should seek sovereign nationalism and patriotism, while avoiding integral nationalism, multiculturalism, chauvinism and PM patriotism.

Patriotism as a word gained its traditional meaning as nation-states became the major actors in world affairs and nationalism grew in importance. 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 individuals to a nation, i.e. a collectivity of those with a common identity. Patriotism became the way (1) to express loyalty to a nation, (2) to teach respect for authority, and (3) to foster national esteem.

Patriotism made the nation-state the focus of loyalty. With the unifying absolutes associated with patriotism, which self-confident nation-states affirmed, Western Civilization dominated the world. Today, anyone who rejects the nation-state will also reject the traditional definition of patriotism and will favor PM patriotism.

POSTMODERN (PM) PATRIOTISM

PM patriotism corrupts the linkage between a state and loyalty of the people (nation) to that state. PM patriotism is a result of postmodern thought that seeks to deconstruct the concepts, institutions, roles, rules, and standards associated with nationalism. In addition to the elimination of nationalism postmodern thought seeks an ideal future that is universal, nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory, gives advantages to the disadvantaged, and in which disagreements are resolved by discussion and compromise - but never by the use of force.

In the 1960s many blamed the suffering, destruction, horror, and death of war on nationalism. They were reacting to contradictory or deceitful interpretations of abstract ‘rights’ or imagined threats, while concealing selfish motives, by politicians seeking integral nationalism. And it is true that clever, self-centered, manipulative, and chauvinistic politicians have often abused their responsible to the people of many nations. Disapproval of integral nationalism was the heart of the anti-war movement in which PM patriotism was used to rationalize dissident and disrespect of authority, and then to justify civil disobedience and violence. However, the anti-war activists of the 1960s failed to distinguish between integral nationalism and sovereign nationalism - which is an expression of the human desire for freedom and self-government.

Many of those who avoided serving their country in Vietnam justified their opposition to the war as patriotic and condemned their country. Today those who developed their political attitudes in the anti-war movement dominate academe, the media, and the creative arts. They continue to undermine what they consider a militaristic, imperialist, racist, exploitative country. Those who accept PM patriotism share, to some extent, the same preconceptions.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Individuals have always had to balance interests and loyalties: self, family, ethnic group, institutions, economic and commercial interests, state, nation, ideology or belief system, world order, humanity, nature, and God. Achieving clarity on the best balance within a whole group is even more difficult. Nevertheless without agreement on policy decisions those required to implement those decisions hear only an ‘Uncertain Trumpet’. For over 300 years the solution to this dilemma, and the ability of governments to conduct foreign polices that advance national interests, has been accurately reflected by the extent the concept of patriotism has been accepted. PM patriotism negates that acceptance. It allows partisan politicians, and those who blame the ills of the world on the U.S., to hinder action in the name of a distortion of patriotism, i.e. PM patriotism.

What should we agree on in order to advance our national interests? We need to be judgmental in order to distinguish right from wrong. We must discriminate against those who give aid and comfort to our enemies and reward those who perform their duty. We must learn that prejudice can be either moral or immoral. We must realize that the use of force is often better than discussion and compromise. We must have the will to do the harder right rather than the easier wrong.

Also, without agreement on terminology reasoned discussion of important issues is difficult. The result is misunderstanding regarding decisions made, which in turn causes continuing debate during implementation. The resulting uncertainty always produces inefficiencies. The accurate use of words is a way to bring clarity to the discussion of alternatives prior to decisions. We need to agree on the meaning of patriot and traitor, patriotic and unpatriotic, performing ones duty and shunning ones obligations. Political convictions, preconceptions, and outrage - real or contrived - should not be allowed to prevent the accurate use of words.

Unfortunately the current lack of agreement on what we need to do and terminology hinders the development of foreign policy and its implementation.

When and how alternatives to policy are presented distinguishes the loyal political opponents from partisan politicians. The loyal opposition will argue for the alternative they favor before a decision is made and before implementation, and in a manner that will not give aid and comfort to those who want to weaken and destroy our country. However, if those in authority do not follow the recommendations that the loyal opposition favors they will still support the action - or remain invisible. On the other hand, partisan politicians will place no such restrictions on their words and actions; they will do whatever they believe will increase their power and weaken their domestic political rivals.

Just because integral nationalism and chauvinism have caused tragic outcomes does not mean that sovereign nationalism and patriotism should be avoided, slighted, ignored or belittled. All good things taken to the extreme can cause bad results. It is only necessary to understand how sovereign nationalism differs from both integral nationalism and multiculturalism and how patriotism differs from both chauvinism and PM patriotism. Unity, loyalty, respect for authority, group esteem, and moderation should be the goals.

IS IT UNPATRIOTIC TO USE THE PM DEFINITION OF PATRIOTISM?

It is fair to say that those who reject the traditional concept of patriotism in favor of PM patriotism are at least partisan politicians rather than members of the loyal opposition. They might even be useful idiots, traitors, or members of a ‘fifth column’ seeking to weaken and destroy. Are they patriots?

Sam C. Holliday is a graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point, a former director of Stability Studies at the Army War College, and a retired Army Colonel. He earned a Master's in Public Affairs from the University of Pittsburgh and a doctorate in International Relations from the University of South Carolina. Currently he is Director of The Armiger Cromwell Center, a small nonprofit Internet clearinghouse for thinking "outside of the box of conventional wisdom." By means of its online essays, the ACC seeks more effective foreign policies to achieve stability through equilibrium.

Copyright © 2007 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322 armigercc@comcast.net Permission is granted to forward this essay to friends or colleagues, on a fair use basis. For reprint permission contact Armiger Cromwell Center.