A Reality Check For the Right

Caption the above photo."Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable...and when it happens to someone often...he ends up...hating everyone." - Socrates, as depicted in Plato’s Phaedo“All addiction is bad, whether to alcohol, morphine or idealism.” - Carl JungRecently, while watching Bill Maher’s HBO talk show, He noted with glee that Governor Jan Brewer, governor of my home state of Arizona, recently vetoed a bill that would allow people to refuse service to homosexuals on the basis of the freedom of personal association. Naturally, conservatives angrily railed at her. They called her a sellout, a phony, a hypocrite. The thing Bill Maher and all the conservatives did not take into account was that next year’s Super Bowl is due to take place in Arizona, and the NFL said it would pull out if she signed the bill into law.Brewer is a true-blue conservative. Arizona is a state which is one of only four where a man can buy a gun with no waiting period, immediately put it under his coat with no concealed carry license, and walk outside onto the street legally. She also gave us the more important immigration status check bill which allows police officers to ask suspects their immigration status and prove it. She has pursued a rollback of abortion in the state. She cut taxes. As for the population, the Republican Party there is among one of the most conservative in the country. Arizona takes the lead when it comes to nationalist and conservative issues. Brewer is one of the “least worst” of the Republican cadre for taking the right stand when it comes to gun rights issues and immigration, and is not afraid to say so—even if she does it in “political speech” rather than make a cultural argument like national conservatives would. Regardless, she takes a stand for the right things.So, did Brewer sell out? In a sense, yes, and in a sense, no. She made the right decision. Many hard-line conservatives would think not, and in any other situation, signing the bill into law would make sense. But if Brewer lost the economic boom of the Super Bowl over the bill, it would make her respected by only a minority of ultra-right-wingers, people she doesn’t need to further convince to keep her governorship well respected. It’s the moderates and independents she must convince. If she made herself look like such a fanatic that she could sacrifice the Super Bowl for a bill that has a great chance of being fought by the Supreme Court only to prove she was a conservative, she would be incredibly stupid. The NFL put her in a corner and she had to gnaw off a finger to escape the trap. She made a good move, and it's better we keep her around than lose her due to an unrealistic adherence to principle at all costs. Had Murdock in Indiana and Akin in Missouri made the right calls instead of trying to impress conservatives, their Senate seats would right not be occupied by Democrats.This little maneuver on the part of Brewer, in concert with seeing people online—particularly nationalists—griping about the imperfections of Vladimir Putin, spurred me to write a reality check for paleoconservatives and nationalists on the nature of politics and why we need politicians who make compromises. We need leaders who are smart enough to stick to what is truly important, but know when to back down from a fight instead of falling on their sword.All too often, I see people throw away a politician because of a tactical move they made instead of understanding the big picture of what they are trying to accomplish. Over the past few years, my libertarian friends became very unenthused by Rand Paul’s behavior, such as endorsing Mitt Romney, supporting parts of the Patriot Act like being able to actually treat terrorists like terrorists, and not going all-out for legalizing hard drugs. White nationalists, who were somewhat excited about Rand Paul for a bit before they saw him not be a complete idiot about race relations, lost all faith in him after he basically disowned Jack Hunter (who was painted as a racist, albeit unfairly, and therefore politically toxic to Paul) and wrote in support of Martin Luther King, saying dumb things about the Republican Party being a beacon of “anti-racist conservatism” and that liberals were the real racists. Of course, that’s absolute crap he said just to ditch the fallout of his associations with known race-conscious conservatives. However, libertarians and white nationalists essentially vilified him for what amounts to good political moves without looking at the bigger picture: that even with all his flaws, Rand Paul would be our best president in decades—maybe even in a century—if he were to be elected. Rand Paul is not only popular and highly electable, but even if he explicitly does not care to advance white interests in the form of an ethno-state, his positions on war, taxes, NSA spying, drones, welfare, abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, and many other things are in our interest, and so far in office he has made good on his promises. He also was one of the few opponents of the immigration bill and highlighted the blatant electoral grab that the Democrats were trying for and called for strict voting regulations for new immigrants. Paul is also one of the few politicians in the Senate with a chance of winning the presidency who could make life better for conservative whites. He doesn’t need to impress the extreme right because he doesn’t need our votes. He needs middle-American moderate votes.One of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming that a politician is a liar-manipulator-Machiavellian-evil-not-to-be-trusted-scumbag for making explicitly tactical moves. Most of the time politicians do this. When they do not, we fawn over them, believing that he is “one of the few” who is morally superior—“the chosen one”. Sometimes, these “chosen ones” take the guise of a man like Ron Paul, or in a less popular twist: Hitler. A politician like either of the Pauls is good for our society, but when we pedestalize anyone we set ourselves up for failure because human beings are not and cannot be perfect. Even if they are, we wouldn’t know because it would probably contrast with our starry-eyed idealism about the way things “ought to be”. People want their leaders to be pure. But what is best? A pure leader who gets nothing accomplished, or an imperfect, but accomplishing figure? If you adhere to your beliefs 100%, you may find yourself in a garage somewhere, angrily yelling at a television because the man who beat you is on it and is now enacting his agenda instead of yours. To win, you need to know the rules of the game.Those that think there are absolutely no good politicians are just as delusional as those who think that politicians can be sliced up into neatly defined ideological sections. Most of the politicians we see on TV are untrustworthy and acting out of self interest—but that’s not why you vote for or against them. You vote based on one thing—what they accomplish. Whatever they say is meaningless. What they stand for is reflected in their votes and policies. The average person dismisses all politicians so they can absolve themselves of supporting the mess of democracy or popular government. Like many of us frustrated conservatives, they want to just give up at times and will only support a candidate who fits their rigid ideological view. But by doing that, you are allowing the enemy more tactical space to work against you. There have always been a large amount of opportunists in the political sphere, but the key is to pick the opportunist that benefits you.This relates to the “lesser of two evils” argument that we are bombarded with, but there is truth to it. You should at least take the 30 minutes or less out of your day to vote for the lesser of two evils, because the minor amount of effort exerted can have a maximal amount of benefit. If you care about any issue at all, politics is something you should pay attention to. Taxes, guns, civil rights, diversity, NSA spying, and the candidates who support or are against any of these things stand to effect you. All too often, I see political idealists just throw up their hands and quit, or not even bother to get educated about political issues because politicians don’t fit some idealized version of a platform they want. I felt this way until I made myself listen to Ron Paul speak in 2011, and started educating myself because for once, a man on Fox News was saying things I largely agreed with. Government will never be perfect and politics will never be perfect, so waiting for the revolution (unless of course you are a Ukrainian) is simply an excuse for apathy.Government is something that happens naturally, and without your participation, it will be formed without your input. It is unavoidable. Until nationalists and paleo-conservatives start voting for less-than-perfect candidates, they will get nowhere.The world is not going to back to a dictatorship or monarchy any time soon—it’s going to be capitalist and democratic for the foreseeable future. That’s the reality, and fighting these things only on the internet is not going to help the cultural right. You cannot use politics or force either to reinstate traditionalism. It has to come organically. What politics is used for is to create conditions where that can happen. And as countries like Israel and Japan have shown, as well as various eastern European countries, it is possible to have a democratic and capitalist state while retaining a cultural and ethnic nationalist foundation for society. This should be our primary goal, and within that move to a better system later.If this is taken into account, then nationalists and the right need to stop viewing politicians as vehicles for only their specific ideology. Because to survive politically, no matter how pure of heart a politician is, he will not survive unless he is tactically prepared and can make tough calls and appeal to various facets of society that are opposed to our cultural heritage. What this means is understanding when a politician makes an ideological move versus a political concession. Here in America, land of obnoxious optimism and everlasting smiles, when things don’t go our way, we drop off and turn out. We stop voting. We stop engaging. This is not the right course of action.A good politician in my opinion is a smart, shrewd man who stands up for his beliefs, but knows when not to fight. He knows when to take a dive, like Brewer did. He knows when to back down. He should ideally (pun intended) be a mix of political shrewdness and staunch beliefs. A man who cracks an egg to make an omelet, so to speak.If a candidate claims he supports the wrong countries and opposes “racism”(anything pro-Western culture, conservative, or white), but while in office stops sending aid to those countries and ends affirmative action, is that not better than a man who does the exact opposite? This is why looking at policy and action is more important than words. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. They always will. And if we want a guy in the White House who is on our side, we are going to have to hear a lot of pandering to the cultural left. It’s the cold, hard reality.Let's look at Ron Paul again. In the early '90s he released newsletters in his name (which were most likely not authored by him, but were still published by him with his approval) that contained race-realist sentiments that bordered on racist for many people not attuned to the language of the cultural right. They also included a variety of culturally conservative “Angry White Male” statements which characterized his world view as both pessimistic and traditionalist. Still, Dr. Paul disowned them and refused to take responsibility for them, because he knew they would be politically damning, and rather stupid to do so. Again, a shrewd and good move. Regrettably, many on the cultural right now call Paul a traitor with a globalist agenda. He isn’t a white nationalist, but he is also not a cultural liberal.So if we, the cultural right, want to accomplish anything, we can’t only go for purists. That simply is not possible in this climate. We have to transition to a climate where this is possible, and to do this, we need less-than-pure men right now.All politicians and all leaders do things we dislike. It is the nature of leadership and politics. It can’t be avoided. We need a politician who can play the game as well as stand for a core ideology we support. We need to understand which is the better move in specific situations. We need to transition to a better world, a better country, and a better society, but right now we need someone who can get elected. We need to understand it’s about creating conditions for our traditional culture and identity to exist, and that by voting tactically, we can achieve the gradual transition to a better society. But first we need a reality check.

Rethinking Christian Economics, Part 3: False Distributism

The following piece is republished from In Praise of Folly. It is part of a short series on Christian economics. Footnotes will be provided with the final installment.Distributism is the ideal that the economic goal of society should be to obtain the widest distribution of property amongst the most people. The end I agree to, but the means typically proposed to achieve that end I do not. Distributists in theory are almost libertarian in their desire to decentralize society, but in fact are more often than not crypto-socialists. If one visits the Distributist Review you will see the same flawed Marxist theories used ostensibly to decentralize property. But one cannot purse Christian ends by Marxist means, as I will discuss in depth later. We see John Médaille[10], David W. Cooney[11], Hilaire Belloc[12], and Thomas Storck[13] all arguing for the grossly unjust notion of a graduated income tax. In Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, his second plank was the implementation of a progressive income tax. This is unjust in that it charges the rich man more than the poor and privileges the poor over the rich. We see in Exodus 30:15 that when YHWH required the Children of Israel to pay for the offering it was a flat rate of a half-shekel. The rich were not to pay more than the poor nor the poor more than the rich. When Samuel describes to the Israelites what the tyranny of a king would look like, he stated in 1^st Samuel 8:15: “He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants.” It is interesting to note the Children of Israel were required to tithe a tenth of their goods to God in Leviticus 18:26. We see that when a state seeks to take more than a tenth of our earnings it is usurping God’s sovereignty. If God demanded a tenth of Israel’s produce, then the upper cap of taxation is set. If a state seeks a tenth or more of a person’s income, it is claiming that itself is greater than God. When Distributists endorse plunder under the guise of a progressive income tax they are rebelling against God’s justice and claim to be gods themselves.We see in Exodus 23:3, Leviticus 19:15, and Deuteronomy 16:19 that justice is blind and one is not to be partial to a poor man. According to Scripture, the Distributists are not inclined to justice, but to unrighteousness for they pervert justice toward the poor and take the blindfold off the eyes of justice. Why should a person be excessively taxed for having more than others? How wealthy are some of the proponents of Distributism? Why don’t they sell of all their superfluities of life and live a spartan existence and give the surplus to the poor? Rather than personally acting out what they claim to believe, they instead plunder the rest of us through the violence of the state. In his debate with George Bernard Shaw entitled “Do We Agree”[14], Chesterton foolishly argues that the coal industry should be nationalized by the British government. Mr. Chesterton’s arguments look quite silly after seeing the mismanagement of coal under English nationalization in 1946, which was undone through privatization in 1994 under the Coal Industry Act of 1994. This debate shows us again the crypto-socialist nature of Distributism.The other pseudo-socialist aspect of Distributism can be found in the works of David V. Cooney[15], Stratford Caldecott[16], Hilaire Belloc[17], Thomas Stork[18], and Angus Sibley[19] who argue for Marx’s Eighth Plank: “Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.”I am not opposed to Church influencing economic action and exerting a Godly influence in the marketplace, but I am opposed to economic charlatans who complain about corporate monopolies, granted by government, and seek to solve the problem by imposing government-granted monopolies of unions and guilds to resolve the resulting inequity.In the Old Catholic encyclopedia, two types of guilds are mentioned: Merchant and Craftsmen Guilds. Merchant guilds were monopolies as described here:

“These differed from their predecessors, the religious or frith guilds, by being established primarily for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining the privilege of carrying on trade. Having secured this privilege the guilds guarded their monopoly jealously.”[20]“The merchant guilds possessed extensive powers, including the control and monopoly of all the trades in the town, which involved the power of fining all traders who were not members of the guild for illicit trading, and of inflicting punishment for all breaches of honesty or offenses against the regulations of the guild.”[21]“The merchants’ guilds aimed at securing commercial advantages for their members and obtaining the monopoly of the trade of some country or some particular class of goods. Not alone in the German cities, but also in all foreign countries where German commerce prevailed, corporations of this sort, guilds, or Hansa (the word Hansa has the same signification as guild)”[22]

The craftsmen guilds sought to break down monopolies:

“Seeing that the merchant guilds had become identical with the municipality, the craftsmen, ever increasing in numbers, struggled to break down the trading monopoly of the merchant guilds and to win for themselves the right of supervision over their own body. The weavers and fullers were the first crafts to obtain royal recognition of their guilds, and by 1130 they had guilds established in London, Lincoln, and Oxford. Little by little through the next two centuries they broke down the power of the merchant guilds, which received their death-blow by the statute of Edward III which in 1335 allowed foreign merchants to trade freely in England.”[23]

Given that craftsmen guilds lead to the breakdown of the guild system in favor of free trade, I doubt the Distributists have any love lost for them. The Distributist answer to corporate monopolies is to have more corporate monopolies, only these corporate monopolies are good because the “good” Catholics run them. Yet, if guilds were so great why did Pope Pius VII abolish guilds in the Papal States in 1807?[24]Laborers forming fraternities or charities to take care of each other's interests is not an un-Christian idea, but coercive and monopolistic enterprises are exactly what needs to be avoided, and to believe that another set of coercive monopolistic enterprises will counter the inequity is like believing that two wrongs can make a right.Aristotle and Proto-DistributismThe positive argument for private property can be found in Book 1 of Aristotle’s Politics. Aristotle argues that man will work harder for the sake of what he owns. If all his possessions are held in collectively, then the tragedy of the commons will arise whereby resources and infrastructure are depleted but not replenished. This exploitation occurs because no one can lay claim to any of the produce of the land exclusively and each individual is given incentives to extract as much benefit as he can as quickly as he can. Furthermore, the virtues of continence and liberality cannot possibly be developed in a communist society. If all women are held in common, then the virtue of continence cannot be developed and if all land is held in common than liberality cannot be developed. The virtue of continence in general is related to self-control and in particular to sexual self-control. The virtue of liberality is giving from one’s own store to another at the right time, to the right person, for the right reason. Obviously both virtues would be impossible in a state of communism. Aristotle argues, correctly, that man’s desires are ultimately insatiable because they are unlimited, and thus they must be restrained by reason and force of habit, both of which being derived from education and the law. Widely distributed property is desirable because having a middle class is desirable. Aristotle points out in Book IV that the middle class is the mean between rich and poor, the former being in excess of wealth and the latter in a deficiency of wealth. The former seek to acquire total control over society, while the latter being envious are ungovernable. The middle class is thus in a position to serve as an impartial judge in disputes between the rich and poor. For a middle class to exist it stands to reason that property must not be concentrated in the hands of a few, but be widely distributed. The middle class has just enough property to avoid poverty, but not so much property that they can act despotically against the less fortunate while avoiding and perverting the law.Having outlined the secular argument for widely distributed property, I will now turn to Holy Scripture. We see in the Pentateuch that God feared the concentration of power in general and the concentration of property in particular. In Leviticus 25:10-13 we are told that Israel was required after every fifty years to return the land to its original owner. This mechanism was set in place by God to keep property from gathering into the hands of a few men. God’s law against usury serves the same purpose. We see in Leviticus 25:23-28 that if a man has to sell his property to pay some debt, then 1) his nearest of kin is to buy the land back or 2) the man who received the property as a pledge of debt should, once the means of the indebted man have recovered, sell the land back to him or 3) if both means fail the land is to be returned during the year of Jubilee. We see in Numbers 36:1-13 while Zelophehad’s daughters were married into the tribe of their cousins, Zelophehad’s property remained in his tribe and was not transferred to his brother. God did not want property to switch hands from tribe to tribe. We also see the same principle at work in Judges 21:17 where for the sake of an inheritance the errant tribe of Benjamin is allowed to essentially kidnap the daughters of Shiloh at Schecem to be their wives. It was considered so important that the land apportioned to Benjamin not leave their control it was necessary to ensure the tribe’s survival.The basic principle of distributed property is clearly seen in the OT. Therefore, given the best secular wisdom found in Aristotle and in divine wisdom in Holy Scripture, the moral and utilitarian reasons for distributed property can be clearly seen.The CommonsI also contend that the medieval concept of the commons should be restored, at least in spirit. For in the words of Ivan Illich:

“People called commons those parts of the environment for which customary law exacted specific forms of community respect. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their own thresholds and outside of their own possessions, to which, however, they had recognized claims of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households.”[25]

The commons are a place that is not commoditized or bought or sold, but is set in place for the sustenance of family life for those suffering from either chronic or terminal poverty (due to illness or injury or physical disability). It is a sacred place where sacred time and work is kept. It is an attempt to be faithful to the divine command of the gleanings or, in Aristotelian terms, to the public land of a well-balanced commonwealth, which ideally contains both public and private land.The danger of having people being employed by corporations or government is that when they are fired or their wages are cut they usually have no alternative to fall back on. If a man had his “three acres and a cow,” to quote Chesterton, he would have something to fall back on so as to endure the vicissitudes of life. Or, to quote Lewis:

“I believe a man is happier, and happy in a richer way, if he has ‘the freeborn mind’. But I doubt whether he can have this without economic independence, which the new society is abolishing. For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticize its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology. Read Montaigne, that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating the mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?”[26]

To be a free man, one must own the land he stands on and be able to leave an inheritance for his children (Proverbs 13:22). All forms of property tax, inheritance tax, and death tax are unbiblical, for the state has no claim to a man's property (1^st Kings 21:1-29).

The View From Olympus 27: TTPs

An Army officer recently called me from the Fatherland with an important question: from a maneuver warfare (3GW) perspective, what are the differences between tactics, techniques, and procedures?The U.S. military lumps all three together as “TTPs”. That is unfortunate, because tactics are not only different from techniques and procedures, they are opposite in nature. Combining opposites not only leads to confusion, in this case it has caused tactics to be subsumed by techniques, which from a maneuver warfare perspective is disastrous.It is easiest to lay out the differences among the three by starting at the other end of the list, with procedures. A procedure is something done by recipe or formula that does not make contact with the enemy. An example is the procedure for clearing a jam in a certain type of machine gun. Once established, that procedure is valid for as long as that model of machine gun remains in service. It does not matter if the enemy figures it out, because he cannot take advantage of the knowledge. The procedure is focused entirely inward, on our machine gun. The enemy is irrelevant (beyond the fact that the gun usually jams at the worst moment in a firefight, as they all seem to do).Techniques are like procedures in that they are done by recipe or formula. How to set up an L-shaped ambush, how to emplace a minefield, how to move through an enemy-held building or neighborhood, are all techniques. Troops (usually small units) learn them by rote and get good at them by repetition. However, unlike procedures, techniques do make contact with the enemy. Because the enemy learns (something all sides tend to overlook), he eventually figures your techniques out and comes up with ways to negate them or even turn them against you. That means techniques, unlike procedures, have relatively short shelf-lives.Therefore, it is not enough to be good at techniques (though that is important). You also have to be good at inventing new techniques. Here the TTP spectrum begins to shift from science to art. This is also a point at which Second Generation militaries, with their inward-focused culture, tend to fail. They have little room for initiative or innovation, or for creative individuals. Often, they continue using techniques the enemy figured out long ago, which contributes to their defeat.Tactics is the art of selecting the right techniques for a given situation, “right” meaning techniques that bring a decisive result at the lowest possible cost in causalities and time (those two can be in tension, although more often speed reduces casualties). Tactics is an art, and must never be done by recipe or formula. Every situation is unique and the commander must see it as such (what I call “the Zen of tactics”, which requires strong mental discipline). He must be able to think militarily, to look at a particular situation and quickly decide what to do. Regrettably, to my knowledge this is not taught in any American military school or college, with the exception of the Marine Corps' Infantry Officers School.Why? Because the Second Generation U.S. military has reduced tactics to techniques, hence “TTPs”. At this point, U.S. Ground forces essentially have no tactics. They just wander around until they bump into an enemy, then call for supporting arms. We are formulaic and predictable, which plays no small role in our continuing defeats.Aggregating dissimilar things as if they shared a common nature is a serious error in logic. It is also a serious error in tactics. Modern, Third Generation tactics were fully developed by the German Army by 1918. If anyone knows the arguments as to why and how we benefit from being almost 100 years out of date, I would like to hear them.

Victoria: Chapter 2

When President Eisenhower of the old USA visited Dartmouth in the 1950s, he said it looked exactly the way a college ought to. By the late '90s it still did, despite the fact that they'd built an ultra-modern student center on the traditional green —part of the "foul your own nest" maxim that ruled most campuses from the 1960s on. Those were the days when "art" was defined as whatever was ugly or shocking or out of place, not what was beautiful.Professor Sanft had retired from the German department in 2012. Actually, he was driven out by the weirdos who then populated college faculties —the feminists, freaks, and phonies who had replaced learning with politics. I found him at a house in Hanover, which turned out to be not his residence but the college-in-hiding, otherwise known as the Martin Institute. It seemed some conservative alumni, recognizing that the barbarians were within the gates of their alma mater, had bought a house in town, brought in Professor Sanft and a few other genuine scholars, and were offering Dartmouth students the courses the college would no longer teach, like the great books of Western civilization.I knew the prof and I would get along when I saw the Zeppelin poster on his office door and smelled the pipe smoke curling out the same. The office was a vast clutter of books and papers, pipes and walking sticks, straw hats and the occasional bottle of something refreshing; no old Sandinista posters on the walls here. Professor Sanft, dressed in a white linen suit for summer and the Raj, with a pink shirt and polka-dot bow-tie, bid me welcome. Jim Sampsonoff had written, saying I'd be by. I wasn't quite sure why I was there, but the professor seemed to know."Jim says you're interested in getting an education," he opened."Well, I thought I already had one," I replied. "I graduated from Bowdoin with a pre-med major, before I decided I'd rather make holes in people with a bullet than a scalpel. It's quicker and more fun, though the pay is less.""What do you think an education is?" he continued."Going to college, taking some courses and getting a degree, I guess," I responded, suspecting this was not the right answer."No, that's just credentialing. It may help you get a job, but it won't help you, yourself, much beyond that. Do you know what the word ‘education’ means?"I allowed as I hadn't thought about that much."It's from the Latin ex, for 'out' or 'beyond,' plus ducare, to lead. An education leads you out beyond where you were, in terms of your understanding of life, the universe, and everything. Did Bowdoin do that for you?""Well, not really," I guessed. But I wasn't sure this was leading me where I wanted to go, either. "Jim said I should see you because you would help me understand why I got fired for doing what I thought was right. Would a real education help me understand that?" I asked."Yes, and perhaps a few more things besides," answered Professor Sanft. "There was a fellow named Socrates, some years back, who had a similar experience. Ever hear of him?"I had, and I remembered something about drinking some bad hemlock wine or some such, but beyond that it was hazy."You're in the same situation as most of the students who come to me here," he said. "You know where you are in space but not in time. You don't know where you came from. You live in Western civilization, but you don't know what it is. You don't know that this civilization had a beginning and went through some rather remarkable times before getting to where we are today.""Without the songs and stories of the West, our West , we are impoverished," he continued. "Weightless and drifting, we do not know where we are in history. We are what the Germans call mere Luftmenschen – in a free translation, airheads."The mention of history perked me up. Ever since I was about eight years old, I'd read a lot of military history. I learned to read not so much in school as by falling in love with C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower novels, which followed a British naval officer in his career from midshipman through admiral, in the wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon. They were fiction, but rooted in fact. I didn't realize it until much later, but they were also a great introduction to military decision-making."In the Marine Corps," I said, "I saw that people who hadn't read much military history could only follow processes, which they learned by rote. They could not understand the situation they were in. They had no context.""That's an insight most Dartmouth students don't have," said the professor. "And it is what I'm talking about, on a larger scale. Just as your fellow Marines could not understand a military situation, so you can't understand your situation in the war for our culture. Literally, you can't see your place—situ—in it.”"Jim said I was a casualty in the culture war. I always thought wars were fought by guys with uniforms and guns. I'm not quite sure what this ‘culture war’ is all about," I said."Sadly, this great culture of ours, Western culture, is under attack," the professor replied. "The universities today are active and conscious agents in its destruction. Indeed, they have generated theories as to why Western culture should be destroyed. Of course, they aren't alone. The most powerful single force in America now is the entertainment industry, and it is also an agent of cultural destruction. Many of the politicians play the game too. The usual code-words are ‘racism, sexism, and homophobia.' When you hear them, you're hearing the worms gnawing at the foundation."I'd been told my high crime was "sexism," so that clicked, and Col. Ryan was certainly a politician. It sounded as if there were a new battlefield I needed to understand."So where do I start?" I asked."By studying our culture – what it is, where it came from, what its great ideas and values are and why we hold them to be great," Professor Sanft answered. "In other words, with an education."He'd brought me back to where we'd started, though now I grasped what he meant."That doesn't mean going back to college," he continued. "You can do it on your own. In fact, to a large degree, you have to do it on your own now, even if you are a college student. That's why we have this institute, and why I'm here. And I can give you a small present that will get you started." He handed me a copy of a book: Smiling Through the Cultural Catastrophe. "Another Darmouth professor, Jeffery Hart, wrote this a few years ago. Think of it as a road map, though I've heard it's dangerous to give those to infantry officers," Professor Sanft said."Thanks, I think," I replied. Actually, we grunts did get lost a lot, we just tried to keep it a trade secret."It tells you what to read, what commentaries are best, and offers a few comments of its own," Professor Sanft said. "The books don't cost much, a tiny fraction of a year's tuition at Dartmouth, but they'll do for you what Dartmouth no longer does. They will make you an educated man of the West."I thanked Professor Sanft that day, though not nearly as much as I’ve thanked him since. I went to the Dartmouth Bookstore and stocked up. Maine would give me time for reading.When we look back on our lives, incidents that seemed small at the time may take on great importance. That half-hour with Professor Gottfried Sanft changed my life. Most of my years since that day in Hanover have been spent fighting for Western culture, then rebuilding it, piece by piece, once the fighting part was done.Thanks to Professor Sanft, this was one infantryman who wasn't lost.

25% Off "The Next Conservatism" from St. Augustine's Press

St. Augustine's Press is offering a 25% discount for traditionalRIGHT readers off the purchase of The Next Conservatism, which was co-authored by the late Paul M. Weyrich and our own William S. Lind.While not technically related titles, The Next Conservatism can in some ways be considered a supplement to Victoria. It provides an in-depth look at a sane version of politics and everyday life, accompanying Victoria's broader vision of the future.To purchase a copy go to St. Augustine's Press and use the coupon code "NEXTCONSERVE".

Rethinking Christian Economics, Part 2: Capitalism

The following piece is republished from In Praise of Folly. It is part of a short series on Christian economics. Footnotes will be provided with the final installment. Many Christians today either favor modern free-market capitalism or “crony” capitalism. Crony capitalism is distinguished between free-market capitalism in that the ‘crony’ capitalist earns wealth with the aid of government. A true capitalist succeeds solely in the basis of his entrepreneurial talent. Modern conservatism seeks to conflate crony capitalism with free-trade. Modern conservatives often assume that what we have in the US today is “free-market” capitalism when in fact it is no such thing. It is legalized mutual corruption of both the corporate and state apparatus. Such an economic model is based on nepotism and is obviously in conflict with Christian principles.Free-market capitalism, which is endorsed by Classical Liberals, Randians, and libertarians, is a much more competitive and just system than crony capitalism, but is not with out its flaws. As a disclaimer I do not reject the laws of economics (Say’s Law, Greshems Law, etc.), but I do reject the certain philosophical mindset that is often held by people who support free-markets.The leading philosophical thinkers in free market ethics are, among others, Ayn Rand, Murry Rothbard, and Walter Block. Both Ayn Rand and modern libertarians are very hostile to the notion of charity and altruism. For example, Ayn Rand bases her ethics on rational egoism/self-interest, which is defined here:

“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”[2]

Rand also rails against altruism and charity:

“What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes.'”[3]“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”[4]

We see an atheistic man-centered worldview in the writings of Rand. She takes the liberal dictum of “do whatever you want as long as it hurts no one” to its logical conclusion. Or in other words, man has no positive obligations to anyone other than himself. Rothbard, though he does not trumpet selfishness and shout down charity as Rand does, still affirms the former and agrees with Rand’s views on the latter, (i.e. that man has no positive obligation other than to himself).

“I must here again comment on Professor Averitt’s statement about 'greed.' It’s true: greed has had a very bad press. I frankly don’t see anything wrong with greed. I think that the people who are always attacking greed would be more consistent with their position if they refused their next salary increase. I don’t see even the most Left-Wing scholar in this country scornfully burning his salary check. In other words, 'greed' simply means that you are trying to relieve the nature given scarcity that man was born with. Greed will continue until the Garden of Eden arrives, when everything is superabundant, and we don’t have to worry about economics at all. We haven’t of course reached that point yet; we haven’t reached the point where everybody is burning his salary increases, or salary checks in general. So the question then becomes: what kind of greed are we going to have, 'productive greed,' where people produce and voluntarily exchange their products with others? Or exploitative greed, organized robbery and predation, where you achieve your wealth at the expense of others? These are the two real alternatives.”[5]

Rothbard monstrously redefines Charity as a self-interested greed:

“In fact, in the long run, the greatest 'charity' is precisely not what we know by that name, but rather simple, 'selfish' capital investment and the search for technological innovations. Poverty has been tamed by the enterprise and the capital investment of our ancestors, most of which was undoubtedly done for 'selfish' motives. This is a fundamental illustration of the truth enunciated by Adam Smith that we generally help others most in those very activities in which we help ourselves.”[6]

We see also in Walter Block in his Defending the Undefendable that charity is criticized, among other reasons, because:

“One of the great evils of charity, and one of the most cogent reasons for refusing to contribute to it, is that it interferes with the survival of the human species. According to the Darwinian principle of the 'survival of the fittest,' those organisms most able to exist in a given environment will be 'naturally selected' (by showing a greater propensity to live until the age of procreation, and thus be more likely to leave offspring). One result, in the long run, is a species whose members have a greater ability to survive. This does not imply that the strong 'kill off' the weak, as has been alleged. It merely suggests that the strong will be more successful than the weak in the procreation of the species. Thus the ablest perpetuate themselves and the species thrives.”[7]

We can see that modern capitalist philosophy is based on what is called “enlightened self-interest” or egoism. The problem for a Christian in this view is that man is the agent that determines value, goodness, and morality. The egoist asks himself first how does this act benefit me, and if it does not then I will not perform it. Such a view is contradictory to the Christian requirement to love thy neighbor; see Matthew 19:9, Matthew 23:39, Mark 12:31, Mark 12:33, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:8-9, Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14 and James 2:8, accepting wrong Romans 12:17, 1st Corinthians 6:7, 1st Thessalonians 5:15, and 1st Peter 3:9.The notion of loving one’s neighbor cannot be made compatible with running someone out of business in unlimited competition for the sake of personal gain. Is it in accord with Christian values to actively seek to drive your brother out of business and render him unable to sustain himself and his family? This does not mean that one should not produce the highest quality goods possible which in turn might drive people out of business. Quality work should be produced not with the intent to destroy livelihood, but in order to do all things for the glory of God—see Colossians 3:17. For the egoistic capitalist the world is seen in terms of conflict, i.e., between competitors. If people look at the ruthless competition that is present in today’s marketplace as a kind of bloodless Darwinian struggle, it is plain to see that the ruthless desire to win at any price is the rotten fruit that necessarily grows out of this “enlightened” self-interest. If self-interest becomes the basis for morality, why stop short of gratifying your self-interest at the expense of physically harming others? For example, in the 19^th century American West the competing railroads would hire thugs to prevent each other’s crews from laying tracks, going so far as to tear up each other’s tracks in order to get the upper hand.[8] [9]In short, such a competitive mindset is inimical to the love of one’s brother. We see the ideal of Christian love towards brothers expressed in the Amish. The products that the Amish are well known for, wood work and dairy products, are of the highest quality, but their goal is not to destroy the livelihood of their brothers. One could argue that this form of Christian economics is actually more efficient than traditional capitalist competition. Donald Kraybill explains in Amish Enterprise: Plowshares to Profits that while most small business fail, most Amish business succeed. The success is traced to numerous individual causes, but the major cause is that the Amish are a closely knit and disciplined community that helps its members out in times of need and trouble.

VICTORIA: Chapter 1

Book I: Dissolution

Chapter One

My war started May 7, 2016, at the mess night put on by my class at the Marine Corps' Amphibious Warfare School in Quantico, Virginia.I got killed.A mess night, when it's done right, is a black tie brawl. It's a Brit thing, very formal-like and proper when it starts, with a table full of wine glasses and funny forks and Mr. Vice proposing toasts and rules like you've got to stand up and ask permission to go pee (usually denied). After enough toasts things loosen up a bit, with the aviators doing "carrier landings" by belly flopping on the tables and sliding through the crystal and the infantry getting into fights. At least, that's how the good ones go.One of the Corps' better traditions was that we remembered our dead. The mess set a table apart, with the glasses and silver inverted, for those who had gone before us and never come back. And before the fun began we remembered the battles where they had fought and fallen; Tripoli to Chapultepec to Helmand. A bell rang for each, a Marine officer stood up and called that battle's name, and we became pretty thoughtful. Another Marine Corps tradition, not one of its better ones in terms of what happens in battles, was to try to pre-plan and rehearse and control everything so there couldn't be any surprises or mistakes. "Control Freaks R Us" sometimes seemed to be the motto of the officer corps, at least above the company grades. So a couple days before the mess night, the battles to be remembered were each assigned to a captain.Iwo Jima went to a woman.We were really steamed. We lost a lot of guys on Iwo, and they were men, not women. Of course, these were the years of "political correctness." Our colonel was running for general, and he figured he could kiss ass by being "sensitive to issues of race, gender, and class."It's hard to remember that we even had women in a military, it seems so strange now. How could we have been so contemptuous of human experience? Did we think it merely a coincidence that all armies, everywhere, that had actually fought anyone had been made up solely of men? But these were the last days of the U.S.A., and the absurd, the silly, the impossible were in charge and normal people were expected to keep their mouths shut. It was a time, as Roger Kimball said, of “experiments against reality.”Like a lot of young Marine officers at AWS, I was a reader, especially of what the Germans had written about war. They were the masters, for a century and a half, and we were their willing pupils. I remembered, then and always, an essay written by a German general, Hans von Seekt, the man who rebuilt the German Army after World War I. The title, and the message was Das Wesentliche ist die Tat—The Essential Thing is the Deed. Not the idea, not the desire, not the intention — the deed.So I did it. The moment came on May 7, during the mess night. The bell tolled our battles: Belleau Wood, Nicaragua, Guadalcanal, Tarawa. Iwo was next. The bell. I was on my feet before she started to move. "Iwo Jima," I cried in my best parade-ground voice.Our honor was safe that night.The next morning, I was toast. The colonel's clerk was waiting for me when I walked into the building. "The CO wants to see you at once," he said. I wasn't surprised. I knew what was coming and I was willing to take it. That's something else the Germans taught me: Verantwortungsfreudigkeit, the "joy in taking responsibility" that is central to what character means in an officer.The colonel generally specialized in being nice. But I'd endangered his sacred quest for a promotion, and in the old American military that was the greatest sin a subordinate could commit."You have a choice," he said as I stood at attention in front of his desk. "You can get up in front of the class and apologize to me, to the female captain you insulted last night, to all the women in the corps, and to the class, or you can have your written resignation from the Marine Corps on my desk before the morning is over.""No, sir," I replied."What do you mean, ‘No, sir?’ I gave you a choice. Which one will it be?""Neither one, sir." An early lesson I'd learned about war was that if the enemy gave you two options, refuse them both and do something else. "I have nothing to apologize for," I continued. "No woman has the right to represent any of the Corps' battles, because those battles were fought and won by men. And people resign when they've done something wrong. I haven't.""I've already spoken to the Commanding General," the colonel replied. "He understands, and you'd better understand, what happens if word of what you did gets to Congresswoman Sally Bluhose, Chairperson of the House Armed Services Committee. I've been informed several of the female officers here are planning a joint letter to her. If you don't help us head this off, she'll have the Commandant up before the whole committee on this with the television cameras rolling.""Sir," I said, "I thought when people became colonels and generals and Commandants, that meant they took on the burden of moral responsibility that comes with the privileges of rank and position. That's what I've always told my sergeants and lieutenants, and when they did what they thought was right I backed them up, even when it caused me some problems with my chain of command. Is what I've been telling them true or not?""This has nothing to do with truth," yelled Col. Ryan, who was starting to lose it. "What the hell is truth, anyway? This is about politics and our image and our budget. Congresswoman Bluhose is a leading advocate for women's rights. She'll be enraged, and I'll take it in the shorts from Headquarters, Marine Corps. Don't you get it?""Yes, sir, I think I do get it," I said. "You, and I guess the CG here at Quantico and the Commandant, want to surrender to Congresswoman Bluhose and what she represents, a Corps and a country that have been emasculated. But the way I see it, and maybe this is Maine talking, if we're supposed to fight, that means we have to fight for something. What's the point in fighting for a country like that? Whatever defeats and replaces it could only be an improvement.""I don't give a damn how you see it, captain," said the colonel, now icy calm again. "You are going to see it the way I see it. Do I get the apology or the resignation?""Neither one, sir," I said again."OK, then this is how it will be," Colonel Ryan declared. "You are no longer a student at this school. As of this minute. Clear out your locker and get out, now. That's a direct order, and I've already cleared it all the way up the chain.” (As if this guy would have farted without clearing it first.) “You're going to get a fitness report so bad Christ himself would puke on you if he read it. You're finished. You won't even come up for major, and you'll clean heads for the rest of your sorry days in this Corps. Dismissed."So that was that. The word spread fast around the school, as it always did. That was a good gut-check for the rest of the class. Most flunked. They parted for me like the sea did for Moses as I wandered around collecting my books and few other belongings. The handful with moral courage shook my hand and wished me well.One, my friend Jim Sampsonoff, an aviator, said something important. "You're a casualty in the culture war," were his words."The what?" I replied."The culture war," he said again. "The next real war is going to be here, on our own soil. It's already begun, though not the shooting part, yet. It's a war between those of us who still believe in our old Western culture, the culture that grew up over the last 3000 or so years from Jerusalem and Athens, Rome and Constantinople, and the people who are trying to destroy it. It's the most important war we'll ever fight, because if we lose our culture, we’ll lose everything else, too.""You mean there's more to it than whether we're going to have women in the infantry and gays in the barracks?" I asked."You bet," he said. "Look, you'll be heading back up to Maine sooner or later. Take a detour through Hanover, New Hampshire. That's where my college is, Dartmouth. Go see my old German professor, now retired, Gottfried Sanft. He's the greatest of rarities on an Ivy League campus, an educated man. You need to read some books. He'll tell you which ones."I knew my Marine Corps career was over, but I hung on at Quantico until my AWS class graduated, to make my point about not resigning to apologize for my action. They assigned me to supervise cutting brush around the base, a point the brass carefully made to the mighty "Ms." Bluhose as they ate toads for her. Come summer, I sent in my letter and headed back to Maine.Was it worth it? Yes. I made early the choice everyone had to make sooner or later, whether to fight for our culture or turn from it and die. As is so often the case in life, what seemed like an ending was really a beginning.On the way home, I took Jim Sampsonoff's advice and paid a visit to Professor Sanft.

Tactical Libertarianism

Libertarianism has quite a few drawbacks—that we know. Libertarians are usually universalists, essentially cultural Marxists who have adopted capitalism. Their nation-state destroying adherence to free market economics is a serious problem for national industry and in addition, they are severely anti-union and usually pro-immigration. They support moral degeneracy by legally sanctioning vices of all kinds and helping to attack foundations of Western civilization such as explicit Judeo-Christian morality present in our schools and supporting gay marriage. They often defend obscenity and the right to be as crude as one wants without much remorse.With such highlights as defending bestiality and crack cocaine as legal choices in the future, libertarians often make us cringe. Most people in society view the hardliners as extreme moral relativists out of touch with reality.With all this in mind, why would a traditionalist ever vote for a libertarian?I have utterly no illusions that most of these libertarians, even the culturally conservative ones such as Ron Paul are not our allies ideologically, and their illusory views on the way society works are sad at best sometimes. But let's look at the reality: Libertarians are not going to get everything they want, no matter what the agenda is. We still have a socially conservative base that is growing in the Republican Party, and the Democrats still provide a hearty opposition.So why vote for them if they have an ideology that essentially opposes the nation-state, opposes traditional culture, and are not likely to get their agendas passed?I have and I will again, and here's why.First of all, I don't vote based on my politician's "views" or his ideology. Anyone who does so - is misunderstanding the point of voting in the first place—assuming that one's vote does in fact count.I vote based on his track record of voting for and enacting policies in line with what works in reality.When you understand how politics works and you understand the nature of the beast of democracy, it becomes a lot easier to swallow the reality. Though we have ideals--to win or to preserve our culture and our way of life—we need to be practical.The advantages of libertarians are numerous:1. Firstly, they are non-interventionists. Right now our country spends more on military than ANY other area combined. Libertarians are open to defense cuts which we severely need, and they oppose frivolous wars which we can't afford to fight. Traditionalists support a warrior ethos, of course, but they shouldn't support meaningless wars, which are the mark of a declining power—the same as Rome, Persia, and the USSR. A nation needs a strong military, but needs to refrain from idiotic entanglements.2. Libertarians support cutting foreign aid, especially to countries with dubious motives. This is something traditionalists most definitely support.3. Libertarians are virulently against statism, and this means they attack the liberal police state for us. In addition, they oppose wire tapping and NSA surveillance which is utilized to harass traditionalist and conservative organizations. Besides, I don't think any real traditionalist supports big brother.4. Libertarians are staunchly pro-weapon and pro-self defense, even in the case against police and the authorities, which are increasingly persecuting us and our allies.5. They are often pro-life, and crusade against abortion, something traditionalists in almost all cases are against.6. Libertarians are opposed to the Federal Reserve and its massive Keynesian inflation spending, which drives up prices, drives down value, and over all makes our economy worse.7. Libertarians defend freedom of speech and association. In a world where our views are considered to be of the lunatic fringe, even allies who disagree with our message but defend our rights are important.8. They are opposed to militarism in our local police forces. This militarism is increasingly making U.S. citizens feel unwelcome in our own states and hometowns. It's destroying our communities and our sense of freedom, our culture in the United States. We need other citizens to oppose it.9. Libertarians oppose massive taxation, something all Americans who are productive, feel is excessive. Tax cuts are good for us, as long as they are not just for the wealthy elite, which is usually the case of corporate conservatives in the Republican Party.10. Libertarians don't support regulation of homemade foods or farming which is a part of traditional rural life and something many Americans are persecuted over. They support a do-it-yourself lifestyle, so if we choose to "get away" from society and "do it ourselves," we can. They may support liberal degeneracy but they support the right to be traditionalist as well. We can't win only with force.11. Libertarians often support secession, and for those of us with aims for an ethno-state or separation from the failed state of modern America, this is a good thing to know for the future.12. Libertarians oppose legislated morality. Now, this is a tricky thing. Here we can argue over society and vice, making arguments going either towards totalitarianism or total liberalism based solely on philosophical principle, but people who do this do not live in reality. Morality cannot be legislated, it has to come from a culture organically or else it will fail. This is why criminalizing and persecuting gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography, alcohol, or tobacco is pointless when they are personal choices. Unlike gay marriage which is an ideological assault on a core facet of western civilization (not homosexuality itself, just the concept of a homosexual marriage—homosexuality has existed since ancient times and always will), having vices is not. Martin Luther was a drunk, Nietzsche took opium, Cowling visited brothels, and Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler. Hell, Sherlock Holmes injected cocaine! (Granted, he was a fictional character, but I’m trying to make a point.) Men of the traditional West have always had vices, but they were of a personal nature. Not all of us are puritanical, and why would we be? Puritanism is not traditionalism, my friends. And as conservative as I may be, I enjoy having fun. Libertarians are with the un-puritanical traditionalists on this one as well. Now some things such as hard drugs need obvious public policies, like strong public intoxication laws to discourage bad behavior, but in practice the use of such things is a personal vice.The point I am making here is that between a corporate conservative, a statist liberal, A RINO and a libertarian, the libertarian can actually benefit a traditionalist or nationalist. They aren't our allies, but they are a tactical resource that is worth voting for to preserve freedoms that make our traditional world view flourish.Of course there are huge issues in voting libertarian. You also get their cuts to agriculture subsidies, their universalist world view, and their support of mass immigration (Not all libertarians support mass immigration. Sure, the Libertarian Party does, but Ron Paul has opposed mass immigration and Rand Paul voted against the failed amnesty bill because it lacked proper border controls or preventions of immigrants voting before becoming citizens. It would be nice to have a candidate who votes against immigration on the principle of culture, but that is sheer idealism). But most other types of mainstream politicians also support these things at least tacitly, and given the choice, the tactical benefits often outweigh the drawbacks. Until we get a candidate who we can vote for or support that has a real chance of winning, the libertarians may be our best bet at times.The thing that we have to remember is we are utilizing them for a specific purpose, not supporting their ideology. If they do not benefit us, we do not support them. The potential, though, is that they may be the only allies we have left at times, aside from the sporadic true conservatives in the house and senate. A Jim DeMint doesn't come along too often, and Pat Buchanan is on the wrong side of 75. Until our numbers and influence grows, we should consider voting tactically. James Harmon is a writer, artist, and teacher. He holds an MFA in painting. He stubbornly maintains his Republican party registration despite being to the right of Ghenghis Khan. As a national conservative, he still tries not to take things too seriously, or else no lady folk would find him pleasant to be around. He does rail about the wilds of free market capitalism, but just as any other critic of economic liberalism, he enjoys the finest cigars, whiskeys, card games, and European imported foods.

The View From Olympus 26: The New Great Game

With Russia's retaking of the Crimea (and soon perhaps part of Ukraine proper), we find ourselves facing a new great game. While the great game of the 19^th century focused on northern India and Afghanistan, the new great game is a much greater game. Its playing field is the globe, and the contenders are globalist internationalism and national sovereignty.Washington is the leader of globalist internationalism, with the European Union playing Sancho Panza. The globalists seek to bring about “one world,” where the state has withered away and its replacement is world government.Earlier generations of internationalists desired an official world government, in the form of the League of Nations or the United Nations. Today's globalists, more clever, realize they are more likely to attain their ambition if they leave the form of the state in place but transfer its authority to larger entities. This might be called the “European Union model.” The real basis of world government becomes the globalist, internationalist elite that rules in every country and has more in common with its counterparts elsewhere than with its own people. This man behind the curtain is seen whenever a people elects a national government not made up of globalist internationalists. The globalists refuse to recognize its legitimacy, as we saw recently in Ukraine and some years ago when Hamas won in the Gaza strip. On the contrary, the globalists pull every lever to bring a non-globalist government down, elections be damned.The two Great Powers that reject globalist internationalism and adhere to national sovereignty are Russia and China. It is not surprising that Washington has tense relations with both. The new great game will determine not only which player wins, but which survives. A victory by globalist internationalism will bring the extinction of the state as anything more than a hollow form. But if state sovereignty is able to reassert itself, it is difficult to see globalist internationalism surviving. It will be a superhero that has lost its powers.The current front in the new great game is Ukraine. As of this writing, state sovereignty is winning—not that of Ukraine, which is an artificial state, but that of Russia. Russia is playing by the rules of the 19^th century: policy reflects raison d'etat, and both threats and opportunities often call for the threat or use of force. Globalists loathe a policy based on national interests and use force only against those too weak to resist them. Russia is not in that category, so Washington is left to wring its hands and bleat.The drawbacks of an international system based on state sovereignty can be expressed in one number: 1914. But conservatives should remember that war was not inevitable in 1914, and a system of state sovereignty had largely kept the peace in Europe since 1814, when a coalition of states stuffed an earlier internationalism, that coming out of the French Revolution, back into Pandora's box.Globalist internationalism, on the other hand, is Tolkien's “one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.” It represents Huxley's Brave New World coupled with the ideology of cultural Marxism. The Globalist internationalists intend to ram both down the throats of everyone on earth.Between the two contenders, conservatives must favor state sovereignty. A victory for globalist internationalism would mean the extinction of conservatism and everything it believes in. Russell Kirk's “Old Night” would descend everywhere, as all variety was replaced by a gray uniformity, the Left's “equality” achieved by the abolition of man.So in Ukraine, I say “two cheers for Moscow.” Not three, because Moscow is taking a high-risk road, where a few blunders there and in Washington could create a 1914-like situation. But Russia represents state sovereignty that fights back, unwilling to bow before the dictates of the globalist internationalists. A victory of state sovereignty is a conservative victory. In the new great game, conservative must recognize which side we are on.

Rethinking Christian Economics: The Biblical Context of Usury

The following piece is republished from In Praise of Folly. It is part of a short series on Christian economics. Footnotes will be provided with the final installment. This paper will attempt to deal with an often under-discussed and misunderstood extension of the principle of Christian stewardship: Economics. Modern American Christians seem to espouse, whether implicitly or explicitly, one of three views on economics: 1) Laissez-faire capitalism; 2) “Crony” capitalism or 3) Socialism. Each of these economic models take modern economic systems and grafts Christianity onto them. They start with something else first and then add the Bible to it rather than grounding the systems upon the Bible itself. As in all world and life issues, the Christian is ought to ask first: What does the Bible say about this matter?This paper is not exhaustive, as I have not dealt with all the possible formulations of Christian economics. Rather, I intend to bring central ideas to the reader’s attention and attempt to organize my thoughts on a hypothetical Christian economic order. In this paper, there are three main topics that I intend to cover: 1) Usury, 2) Distrubutism, and 3) Socialism. For transparency, I would like to inform the reader that I reject the first, have a qualified support for the second, and totally reject the third.The Biblical Context of UsuryUsury is often considered the practice of charging unusually high rates of interest on money that is lent. Originally, however, usury denoted interest of any kind; that is, usury and interest were considered synonymous. Thus, when I refer to usury throughout this paper, I will use the original definition.In practice, usury requires the borrower to repay the lender a sum which is more than the principle of the amount borrowed. How much this additional amount will be is determined by the rate of interest and the period of capitalization (that is, the regularity at which the interest is added to the principle) agreed upon by the lender and borrower. The moral objection levied against usury asserts that if the borrower only borrowed the principle of the loan from the lender, then the borrower ought to be required to repay only the principle and no more. Within this framework, it is immoral for the lender to require more to be paid back to him than the original principle, for the lender would be in fact gaining money without doing any work. For example, if person A lends $1,000 to person B at 15% interest for 1 year to be capitalized annually, then the lender earns $150 without lifting a finger. The lender produced nothing and yet he earned money. It is understood that no man is entitled to either money which he has not worked for, or money that was not given to him. The borrower borrowed $1,000 dollars, not $1,150 dollars; therefore, the borrower does not owe the lender an additional $150. I will demonstrate that usury is a form of extortion and is hence not a legitimate obligation of the borrower. The Bible is very clear on the immorality and sinfulness of issuing loans with interest:Exodus 22:25-27: “If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.”Leviticus 25:35-38: “If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.”Nehemiah 5:6-10: “And I became very angry when I heard their outcry and these words. After serious thought, I rebuked the nobles and rulers, and said to them, “Each of you is exacting usury from his brother.” So I called a great assembly against them. And I said to them, “According to our ability we have redeemed our Jewish brethren who were sold to the nations. Now indeed, will you even sell your brethren? Or should they be sold to us?” Then they were silenced and found nothing to say. Then I said, “What you are doing is not good. Should you not walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the nations, our enemies? I also, with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and grain. Please, let us stop this usury!”Psalms 15:5: “He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.”Proverbs 28:8: “One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for him who will pity the poor.”Jeremiah 15:10: “Woe is me, my mother, That you have borne me, A man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent for interest, Nor have men lent to me for interest. Every one of them curses me.”Ezekiel 18:13: “If he has exacted usury Or taken increase– Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him.”Ezekiel 18:17: “Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor. And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes– He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!”Ezekiel 22:12: “In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me,” says the Lord God.”The above verses provide a solid case that God did not want the Israelites to extort their fellow Israelites by means of usury. However, we see that in Deuteronomy 23:19-20, although God prohibited usurious loans to His people, God allowed the Israelites to charge usurious loans to gentiles. This “loophole” was closed by Jesus Christ in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-42), as well as by his command to love our enemies in Matthew 5:44, an likewise in Luke 6:27 and 6:35. We see that we should treat our enemies as the Samaritan treated the Jew in the parable. We see that we should love and pray for our enemies and do them no wrong – and if usury is wrong to apply to a man, it necessarily stands in opposition to Christ’s command. If a man will die because of lending usuriously to his brother in Ezekiel 18:13, how greater will his punishment be for usuriously lending to his enemy under the New Covenant?Someone might object to my interpretation of the prohibition of usury by reference to the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:27 and Luke 19:13. For proper exegesis, scripture must interpret scripture. We see that the master wanted the third servant to put the money into the bank to earn interest. But was the point of the parable to teach us lending practices? Patently, no. The purpose of the parable is to teach us that if we use what God gave us, then He will entrust us with more, and that if we squander His gifts, then what He has given us will be taken from us. Christ’s words in Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:34-35 clearly indicate that we should be liberal givers. Luke 6 even indicates that we should not even demand back the principle of the loan.Now many will say that, “Yes we should give charitably with an open hand expecting nothing in return, but in the world of business and finance different rules apply.” This is not sound reasoning. Of course charity is interest-free, but loans and charity are clearly differentiated. We see that in Exodus 22:25-27 God is clearly not talking about charity, but a business transaction. For how could a loan ever be considered an act of charity? A loan is expected to be repaid, but charity is not. The prohibition of usury in business practices is also seen in Nehemiah 5:1-4, where heavily leveraged Jews were indebted for the mortgages of their land, vineyards, and homes. We also see in the Jewish Encyclopedia that according to scripture and rabbinical tradition that lending usuriously to a brother was prohibited in all cases: “There are three Biblical passages which forbid the taking of interest in the case of ‘brothers,’ but which permit, or seemingly enjoin, it when the borrower is a Gentile, namely, Ex. xxii. 24; Lev. xxv. 36, 37; Deut. Xxiii. 20, 21.” [1]The prohibition of usury in the New Testament is extended to the unsaved as seen in Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:34-35. We see that Jesus frequently expands the original promises and protections of the OT to cover not only Jews, but also Gentiles and the unsaved. Consider in Leviticus 19:18 that the Jews are commanded to love their neighbors, yet the usage of “neighbors” here is actually a status reserved only for other Jews. Thus, the Jews were not required to love the Amalekites, Philistines, or Edomites, among others; in fact, God ordered the Israelites to exterminate them. Followers of Christ are told also to love their neighbors in Matthew 5:43. Yet we learn in Luke 10:29-42 that our neighbor may be our worst enemy. We see that Christ has extended the definition of “neighbor” to even include those we consider enemies. It can be reasoned, then, that according to Luke 6:34-35 the prohibition of usury includes everyone, because Christ does not specify Jew or Gentile when he states that we should lend to anyone who asks, without expecting repayment. Anyone must also include the Gentiles and the unsaved.The critic might say that if we lend to anyone without even expecting the principle in return then we would all be taken advantage of and be left naked and bankrupt. This is not completely true. Of course Christ does not intend us to lend to people who 1) will spend the money on their pleasures, 2) who are affiliated with prohibited means of employment such as prostitution, pornography, drug dealing, the military industrial complex etc, or 3) people who will likely spend the money on criminal activity. We are to be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves. A lot of potential objections are already dealt with right here.But what are we to do in the event that the person to whom we lent money does not repay the loan and seeks yet another loan from us? The answer is that we are not required to loan to that person again. Why? Firstly, we are not required to because retrospectively that person was unworthy of the loan in the first place, and secondly, given that the amount of money that most Christians possess is limited, the Christian should give where it will do the most good. If a Christian lends money to a person, then whether or not he continues to lend to that person will be contingent upon the borrower’s faithfulness to the agreement. If a Christian gives charity to a person, then whether or not he should give charity to that person in the future is contingent upon the how the recipient dispenses of the gift; that is, it ought to be based upon whether or not the charity accomplished its intended goal. In sum, Christians should seek out and aid those whose need is genuine. Furthermore, if a brother in a business transaction fails to pay back the loan and fails to make alternate provisions, then he has proven himself to be a liar and thief, thus forfeiting his right to the brotherhood. Liars have their place in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8).Even with all this aside there is a lot of risk for a Christian lending money. For example, 1) he is not to expect even the principle of the loan back and 2) he is not allowed to leverage political power to obtain what is owed to him by another believer (1^st Corinthians 6:1-11).We see that 1) usury was prohibited between Jews in the OT, 2) in the New Testament usury is prohibited in all cases, 3) we are not required to lend to spiritual reprobates and 4) in 1st Corinthians 1:18, Paul writes: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

The View From Olympus 25: Another Crimean War?

It may be that the winter Olympics in Sochi will have yet another, even more spectacular closing ceremony. What might that be? Russia retaking the Crimea.Among the manifold disasters that engulfed Russia in the late 20^th century, few were more painful than losing the Crimea to a newly independent Ukraine. The Crimea includes Sevastopol, the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet. The fleet is still based there under an agreement with Ukraine, but Ukraine can change its mind. Russia has no Black Sea port on its own territory that can replace Sevastopol, even if it had the rubles to rebuild Sevastopol's extensive facilities, which it does not.My bet is that the Crimea is topic number one in the Kremlin. I further suspect troop movements are already underway to position forces for a coup de main in the Crimea, perhaps as part of a broader mission to support the Russian population in eastern Ukraine.The harsh fact is, Ukraine as presently constituted is not a viable country. As he did with the Poles, Prussians, and Silesians, Stalin pushed the Ukrainian population west (or starved them), and filled the resulting vacuum with Russians. East and west Ukraine were different to start with, in part because far western Ukraine had not even been part of the Russian Empire. To its great good fortune, it belonged to Austria-Hungary. The city now called Lviv was then Austrian Lemberg, and Austrian Ukrainians were known as Ruthenians. Once again in today's events we see how much central Europe needs an Austro-Hungarian Empire.The tension between Russian-majority eastern Ukraine and western Ukraine has been evident since Ukraine became independent. Political power in Kiev has alternated between the two, with the current legal (he was elected) Ukrainian president, Mr. Viktor Yanukovych, representing eastern Ukraine and the Russians. The revolt against him began when, reflecting the interests of eastern Ukraine, he opted for closer relations with Russia instead of the EU. Western Ukraine wants the opposite, so it rebelled.Trying to keep eastern and western Ukraine united in one unhappy country is a losing proposition. The new government in Kiev has promptly demonstrated this fact. Instead of seeking to conciliate the Russians in eastern Ukraine, it has made them its target. Among its first acts was de-recognizing Russian as an official language and disallowing Russian in the state schools. These actions were declarations of war on Ukraine's Russian population, a point not missed in Moscow.It is easy to see how events might play out. Russian leaders in eastern Ukraine are already meeting to coordinate their response to the new government in Kiev. Mr. Yanukovych is probably safe in Russian hands. Authorities in eastern Ukraine petition Russia for help to protect them against Kiev's anti-Russian actions. Mr. Yanukovych, as legal President of Ukraine, asks Russia for the assistance of Russian forces. Moscow announces that in response to these requests, Russian forces will enter eastern Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians whose rights are being violated. A coup de main, which Russians traditionally do well, seizes first Sevastopol and then all of Crimea. Ukraine's armed forces are not strong enough to resist Russia, especially in majority-Russian areas where Russian troops are welcomed. Resistance by guerrilla warfare is not possible there because the anti-Russian guerrillas would not have a base among the population.Instead, spontaneous violence in both eastern and western Ukraine results in a population exchange. Ethnic Russians leave western for eastern Ukraine, while ethnic Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine head west. Eastern Ukraine sets up a “Ukrainian” government under President Yanukovych, which Moscow promptly recognizes. Sooner or later eastern Ukraine, including the Crimea, asks to join the Russian Federation and is accepted. Russia has the Crimea back, with the Black Sea Fleet's now-secure base.What should the United States and the EU do in response to such a scenario? Accept reality. Again, Ukraine as presently constituted is not viable. It is two mutually hostile peoples in the embrace of a shotgun marriage. Each will go on trying to slip a dagger into the other's back so long as they are forced together.Peace will only come when each side is allowed to do as it wishes. For eastern Ukraine, that means coming home to Russia. Where the EU can help is with western Ukraine. Brussels should put western Ukraine on a fast track for EU membership. Washington can join in an effort to provide the massive financial assistance western Ukraine needs, while avoiding the depression that the IMF forces on any country it rescues. Western Ukraine will soon enough say “good riddance” to eastern Ukraine if its reward is joining, or for the Austrian parts, rejoining, Europe. And to their great good fortune, all parties will have avoided what none needs, a second Crimean War.

REVOLUTION!

The Cossacks have awoken; the Ukrainians are waking from their slumber, and the Slavic spirit is reignited. We are witnessing a palingenesis before our eyes, something that makes the Golden Dawn in Greece seem somewhat tame in comparison, and the meager election gains in Scandinavia lukewarm. What we’re seeing is the rebirth of a people, the loftiness of soul that Nietzsche spoke of. In Greece, Golden Dawn is jailed because they are such a threat. In Sweden, Party of the Swedes gains support and the Sweden Democrats are the third largest party in the ultra-liberal culture of Sweden. In Hungary, Jobbik and Fidesz have started to transform the country into a traditionalist and Eurasian force. Russia has shown its might by standing up for Syria and preventing Obama’s wars, and preserved its traditional culture through law. And now, the Ukrainians have risen to take their state back.Yanukovich has been deposed by the nationalists. The main question here is which way Ukraine will turn. Will Ukraine become another globalist satellite state for the United States via the European Union or will they partner with Russia for trade and keep a Eurasian alliance with the more traditionalist countries? Will the eastern half of the country, which is culturally Russian, break away from Ukraine proper and form their own sovereign state like they have threatened? Will the western nationalists accept this if so? Or will there be a massive civil war with Russia backing the eastern breakaway territory like other separatist, pro-Russian territories such as south Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transistria, effectively enforcing a geographical and cultural split in a sovereign state with the United States backing the nationalists? Will the EU plunder Ukraine’s national resources and force them to accept mass immigration and globalism? Will Ukraine’s culture survive?To understand the Ukrainian situation, one must understand the history of Ukraine itself. The situation is not simplistic, and no easy answer awaits these lingering questions. The huge problem is a cultural divide in a country that is partly a distinct cultural and national state, and partly a Russian territory. The Ukrainian socialist republic was a product of the Soviets which created the nation we know today as Ukraine. The Ukrainians in the west harbor a deep animus towards the Russians because Stalin created a genocide there in the 1930s, via starvation. The westerners view themselves as a distinct nation, but the eastern half of the country, however, is largely Russian and often votes for the far-left but culturally-conservative Ukrainian communist party. The western half is nationalist and often far-right, with a support for the center-right fatherland party to the right wing nationalists of Svoboda. Right Sector, which is composed of western nationalists declared that it wants to create a nationalist state free from “Russian chauvinism and European slavery.” Easier said than done.First of all, the two major world powers right now are Russian/Chinese Eurasianists, which are culturally right wing and traditionalist even if economically they tend to be left wing. The other side is the United States and the European Union which are culturally left wing and center-right economically (capitalist). These two sides are at war, culturally and economically, and every single country is a chess piece. For a country like Ukraine, which is not valuable to the United States but is highly valuable to Russia, it could be potentially destabilizing to lose their manufacturing power and their economic power as an ally. For this reason, many pro-Russian sources have claimed the CIA backed the revolution to scorn Putin for foiling Obama’s war plans. The revolution has taken place right during Russia’s Olympics in Sochi—a major embarrassment for Putin. It is tit for tat, by the Americans, it would seem, to get back at him for making Obama out to be a fool and warmonger to the world.Despite this seemingly un-serendipitous revolution, the Ukrainians, several of whom I am in contact with, such as the noted political writer Olena Semenyaka, are well known within the Svoboda nationalist party, have claimed that the CIA is not backing the revolution whatsoever, and Euromaidan is happening because Yanukovich is a corrupt neo-liberal politician who does not care about Ukraine or its people. Which is probably true. I don’t pretend to know what is really going on. The situation could easily fit into a conspiracy theory, but I am loath to buy into such notions, and remain skeptical of them. Yet there are some serious things to make one question the legitimacy of the revolution.Regardless, The nationalists claim their revolution was done independent of outside forces—something I tend to side with, though being naïve about the CIA and the United States' tendencies is equally ignorant. I don’t know the exact truth, but I do know this: If Ukraine joins the European Union it could be potentially devastating for the country, whereas Putin's Russia is a reliable, traditionalist, friendly nation. The EU hates nationalism and traditionalism, and works to destroy it. So now that Yanukovich is deposed, is Yulia Tymoshenko going to become the leader of Ukraine? And will she lead the country to glory or ruin?Unlike her more right wing traditionalist friends, who until the Euromaidan, were labeled “far-right” on Wikipedia, but during the revolution were changed to “center-right and then to right wing” under their description (curious change, don’t you think?) Tymoshenko is pro-European, and pro-neoliberal. At least Yanukovich did not sell out his country to the EU, though he tried to. He is of course, obviously a Russian-backed leader and does not stand strongly for much of anything. Like a typical politician he is primarily concerned with saving his own skin first, which is why the Ukrainians wanted him gone. His sole redeeming factor seems to be his support for Russia as Ukraine’s partner instead of the European Union. However, he tried to get the best of both sides, and for it Putin pulled out and initiated a trade war which precipitated the revolution. Yanukovich is obviously duplicitous and not a real ally to anyone—Russia, the EU, or the nationalists. Ukraine needs a strong leader who will make the right choice, which I believe is to be siding with Russia.If the nationalists are smart and join the Russian/Kazakhstan/Belarus trade union, and keep Russia as their main trading partner, the nationalists will have created a conservative state and put a thorn in the side of the United States' globalist world power. If they join the European Union, which with Tymoshenko in power is very likely, Ukraine may face a terrible future of mass immigration, neo-liberalism, fast food, and all the other hallmarks of the encroaching globalist power that is trying to stamp out European culture for good.The powerful thing we have learned from this is that we, nationalists, have shown our power and our strength. We’ve shown we can revolt and depose leaders. We’ve shown that unlike the feckless Occupy movement, who have accomplished nothing in several years, we have accomplished the transformation of a society and primed it for a possible independence that may not have been imagined before. All in less than a third of a year. This means that regardless of Ukraine’s fate, the nationalists have shown we have far more power than we think. This gives us hope. For years and years we have watched as nationalist state by nationalist state has fallen or turned culturally left wing. Now, the tables have turned. The Ukrainians are showing the way, showing that with proper organization, the nationalists are the only hope for real change. Unlike occupy, we have no identity politics to divide us, we have no sex or sexual orientation persecution issues we fixate on. We don’t fixate on “equality,” whatever that means. We fixate on our culture and our heritage. By being united as a people, we can fight the powers that be, stop history in its tracks, raise a fist, and not back down.Ukraine shows it is possible; that we are a threat to the New World Order and globalism. Hopefully, the nationalists do what is best and support Putin instead of joining the EU. But even if they don’t, it still shows the power of what we can accomplish. It’s a beacon to the world, whether you agree with what the outcome is or not. I support Putin staunchly, so I hope the Ukrainian nationalists will as well. He’s on our side. He has issues, yes, but he’s a conservative and supports nationalists. We have to pick our allies. Russia is our ally. Let’s hope that Ukraine joins as well, and makes the right move.Even if they do not, however, we know now that change is possible, and that our power is real. Our time is coming and soon we may have the same revolution in our states. We can fight. We can win. Ukraine showed us this. Let’s just hope for our sake and theirs, they don’t waste the revolution by forfeiting their sovereignty and culture to the European Union. James Harmon is a writer, artist, and teacher. He holds an MFA in painting. He stubbornly maintains his Republican party registration despite being to the right of Ghenghis Khan. As a national conservative, he still tries not to take things too seriously, or else no lady folk would find him pleasant to be around. He does rail about the wilds of free market capitalism, but just as any other critic of economic liberalism, he enjoys the finest cigars, whiskeys, card games, and European imported foods.

The View From Olympus 24: The Navy Commits Intellectual Seppuku

The December, 2013 issue of the Naval Institute's Proceedings contains an article, “Don't Say Goodbye to Intellectual Diversity” by Lt. Alexander P. Smith, that should receive wide attention but probably won't. It warns of a policy change in Navy officer recruiting that adds up to intellectual suicide. Lt. Smith writes, “Starting next year, the vast majority of all NROTC graduates will be STEM majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) with minimal studies in the humanities … As a result of the new policy, a high school senior's best chance of obtaining a Navy scholarship is to apply for Tiers 1 and 2 (engineering, hard sciences, and math), since CNO guidance specifies that not less than 85 percent of incoming officers will come from this restricted pool.”Lt. Smith rightly bemoans this loss of intellectual diversity, the only diversity that has real importance. But the problem is much worse than that. An armed service dominated by engineers and other science types will not be able to think militarily.The engineering way of thinking and the military way of thinking are not merely different. They are opposites. Engineering, math, and other sciences depend on analysis of hard data. Before you make a decision, you are careful to gather all the facts, however long that may take. The facts are then carefully analyzed, again without much regard for the time required. Multiple actors check and re-check each others' work. Lowest-common-denominator, committee-consensus decisions are usually the safest course. Anything that is not hard data is rejected. Hunches have no place in designing a bridge.Making military decisions in time of war could not be more different. Intuition, educated guessing, hunches, and the like are major players. Hard facts are few; most information is incomplete and ambiguous, and part of it is always wrong, but the decision-maker cannot know how much or which parts. Creativity is more important than analysis. So is synthesis: putting parts together in new ways. Committee-consensus, lowest-common-denominator decisions are usually the worst options. Time is precious, and a less-than-optimal decision now often produces better results than a better decision later. Decisions made by one or two people are often preferable to those with many participants. There is good reason why Clausewitz warned against councils of war.There is a direct correlation between the type of education an officer receives and his ability to think militarily. An education in the humanities, especially history and literature, is the best preparation for thinking militarily. An education in engineering, math, and hard science is the worst. Are there engineers who can think creatively? Yes. But there aren't many.The problem has yet another layer. Engineering, math, and science tend to draw certain types of people. Humanities draw different types. The first are inward-focused, rule-bound, risk-averse, and bureaucratic. The outward-focused, improvisational risk-takers who hate bureaucracy and embrace Verantwortungsfreudigkeit—joy in making decisions and taking responsibility—are usually drawn to the humanities. Von Moltke is only one of many historical examples. He painted, he wrote poetry, he was deeply interested in antiquities, touring the Middle East to see them, and, as the saying at the time went, he knew how to be silent in six languages.An anecdote: In the 1970s, I had the privilege of having dinner with General Hermann Balck, a truly great commander, one of the few German generals who really had Fingerspitzengefuhl (the Allies had fewer). John Boyd was also at the dinner table. At one point, Boyd said to General Balck, “You know, General, with your very quick reactions, you would have been a great fighter pilot.” Balck's instant response was “Ich bin kein Techniker”—“I am not a technician.” It was the only time I saw Boyd get shot down.The navy has suffered for decades from too many technicians and too few tacticians (and strategists), thanks to Rickover's baleful influence on the Naval Academy. He wanted nuclear engineers, so he made Annapolis into even more of an engineering school than it already was (all the service academies are biased toward engineering). This was counterbalanced by Naval ROTC graduates, more of whom came out of the humanities. Now, that pipeline will be shut.The result will be a Navy that does splendidly in peacetime. It may be able to do well enough in war, so long as events unfold slowly and the enemy offers up few surprises. But if a U.S. Navy completely controlled by engineers ever faces a competent opponent, one who frequently does the unexpected and drives events at a rapid tempo, it will come apart, the same way the strong, technically skilled French Army of 1940 came apart. Like that French Army, the U.S. Navy will be revealed as militarily incompetent.It won't be necessary for China or anyone else to destroy our Navy some time in the future. It is committing intellectual seppuku now.

The View From Olympus 23: The Iranian Bomb

Several weeks ago I wrote about a clear and present danger to America's security, a U.S. Senate Bill entitled The Nuclear Free Iran Act of 2013. Not only would the bill endanger the current negotiations with Iran by applying new sanctions, it would pre-commit the U.S. to war with Iran if Israel attacks that country. You read that right: we would be in not if Iran attacks Israel, but if Israel attacks Iran. In effect, the bill hands Bibi Netanyahu a legal right to declare war on behalf of the United States.Fortunately, the bill appears to be losing support in the Senate. Senators are facing the fact that their constituents do not want America to fight another war anytime soon.But some analysis of Iran's nuclear program may also point to reasons why we should not go to war over it. Does Iran want nuclear weapons? Undoubtedly it does, if they can be had at not too high a price. But it also appears—and this is the conclusion of our intelligence agencies, for whatever that is worth—Iran has decided the price is too high, at least for the foreseeable future. So instead of building a bomb, Iran has decided to learn how to build a bomb as well as delivery systems for it. Then it will halt its nuclear program, beyond what it needs for civilian purposes, mostly power generation. Under international law, Iran has the right to civilian uses of nuclear energy.All this is fairly well known. Where most current analysis falls short is in its assumptions as to why Iran wants a bomb. It is assumed the purposes of an Iranian bomb are to deter an attack by the United States and either to deter the same from the Israelis or to launch a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack on Israel.These assumptions are open to question. Not being blind to American politics, the Iranians surely know the only thing that would bring an American attack is getting a bomb. There is zero chance that an American president could ape George Bush and launch an all-out invasion of Iran to achieve “regime change.” The American people would quickly let Congress know what they thought about such an adventure, as we saw when President Obama made noises about attacking Syria. The American people have had it with wars of choice on the other side of the world that send their kids home in body bags or crippled for life and cost trillions of dollars we don't have. So an Iranian bomb, instead of reducing the danger of an American attack, would create it.Similarly, were Iran to lob a nuke on Tel Aviv, it would commit suicide. Israel not only has about 500 nuclear weapons, plus delivery systems that would survive an Iranian attack, the Israeli mind-set is such that its retaliation for an Iranian nuclear strike would be annihilating. 3000 years of Persian history and culture would be wiped off the map and out of history. Americans may not be much aware of Persian history and culture, but Iranians very much are. And, as in the case of the U.S., Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would raise both the likelihood and the legitimacy of an Israeli attack on Iran. So once again, building a bomb would reduce Iran's security, not enhance it.So why would Iran want a bomb? Because Pakistan has one.From an Iranian perspective, Iran's principle threat today is neither the U.S. nor Israel, but Sunni Islam. Iran, as the leading Shiite state, is at war with the Sunnis—real shooting war, not metaphorical war. That is Tehran's top priority, and it is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.Pakistan is overwhelmingly Sunni. Shiites are regularly murdered in Pakistan. Sunni suicide bombers sometimes blow themselves up in Shiite mosques in Pakistan in the middle of worship services. Sunnis, many of them, regard Shiites as “worse than infidels,” because they claim to be Muslims but, from Sunni perspective, are heretics. Wars inside a religion can be even more brutal than wars between religions.And Sunni Pakistan has the bomb. In fact, it has several hundred nuclear weapons, with sophisticated delivery systems for them. From an Iranian perspective, letting the Sunnis have a bomb while the Shiites don't is a problem. It may be a far bigger problem to them than either Israel or the United States.I have heard this analysis from area specialists, but it never seems to make it into the American debate about an Iranian bomb. If it is correct, it puts the question of an American attack on Iran in a very different light. Do we need, or want, to involve ourselves in the Islamic civil war between Sunnis and Shiites? To pose the question is to answer it: obviously not. Let them fight each other until doomsday, preferably with vast casualties on both sides. The energy they expend fighting each other is energy they do not have to attack us.Were the Senate to consider this argument, I think there is little chance it would vote to give Mr. Netanyahu a blank check to take the United States to war with Iran. Is your Senator aware of it? You might want to send him a copy of this column.

The View From Olympus 22: His Majesty's Birthday

January 27 is the birthday of my liege lord and reporting senior, Kaiser Wilhelm II, so as usual I telephoned him to offer my felicitations. Frequently I find him just returned from some madcap adventure. This year was different.“Happy birthday, Hoheit. I trust you have been celebrating in good form. A ride in a Zeppelin-Staaken R-7, perhaps?”“Thank you. Actually, you find me in the Garnisonkirche here in Potsdam. They called me to the Fernsprecher in the rector's office. As I'm sure you know, in Heaven all churches are Anglican.”“Well, of course they are. In Heaven everyone's upper class. What other church could they possibly attend? But may I enquire why you are in church on your birthday?”“I find myself spending a good deal of time in church now. This year marks the hundredth anniversary of that vast civilizational catastrophe you know as World War I. Our culture, Western culture, in effect put a gun to its head and blew its brains out. Everything since has merely been the twitching of the corpse.”“If I may ask a somewhat delicate question of Your Majesty, how much responsibility do you, in hindsight, bear for that disaster?”“Your President Wilson's closest advisor, Colonel House, spent a great deal of time with me in 1914. As he subsequently wrote to Wilson, in 1914 I neither wanted war nor expected war. I was know derisively in Germany as the “Peace Kaiser” because in one crisis after another I insisted Germany back down to preserve peace. My error in 1914 was not insisting Austria back down, even though she was in the right. Germany was encircled with enemies at that point, and my advisors were terrified that if we did not support Vienna we would lose our last ally. My instinct was to overrule them, but I didn't. That was my error all too often, before and during the war.”“If I may say so, Your Majesty was almost always wiser than your advisors.”“Thank you, but that means I wasn't stupid, but weak. That may be a fair verdict. I was no Frederick the Great. But remember, he was an absolute monarch, and I was a constitutional monarch. Often, my cabinet simply ignored me.”“Your Majesty will be pleased to hear that according to a piece in the January 18 Financial Times, the German public no longer accepts the canard, invented by the Versailles Treaty, that Germany caused World War I.”“Heaven rejoices that the German people are beginning, just beginning, to rediscover the truth about the history of their country. Except for the thirteen short years of the Third Reich, Germany was a normal country. Germans have as much right to be proud of their history, and the history of their military, as any other people. It is shameful the way the Bundeswehr is forbidden virtually the whole history of the German armed forces, except the few short years of the War of National Liberation from Napoleon. This is due in large part to the influence of the Frankfurt School, as you well know.”“Indeed. Cultural Marxism is even stronger in Germany than in the United States. But let me ask, if I may, about another influence, that of the Fischer Thesis. What is your response to Fischer's charge that World War I was the inevitable culmination of a German plan to become a world power?”“The Fischer Thesis is an example of ideological history. Ideology dictated the conclusion, that the Second Reich was merely a forerunner of the Third—utter nonsense—and then Fischer erected a sand castle of evidence to prove it. That sand castle all stood on one event, a single late-night tabagie where I and some of my senior advisors, especially some General Staff officers, got drunk on anxiety, hubris, and perhaps a few other things as well. As you have observed with the U.S. military, a roomful of officers can late at night turn into a room full of twelve-year-old boys. The discussion had no effect whatsoever on policy. It dissolved in the next morning's light. The Fischer Thesis dissolves with it. Germany had no master plan to conquer the world. It is pure invention, by a German Left that wants to teach Germans to hate Germany.”“I can happily inform Your Majesty that the German people are beginning to reject the Left's version of German history. Financial Times reported that only 19% of Germans now believe Germany bore 'chief responsibility' for World War I. 58% said each of the Powers was to blame.”“That 58% is right. My cousin Nicky was yesterday lamenting the role he played in July 1914. Like me, he could have stopped it but didn't.”“What does your other cousin, King George of Great Britain, say about it?”“I don't know. He's not here. He was something of a rotter, you know.”“He and Winston both.”“Winston's not here, either. Oh, I think he'll get here, eventually. But he has to spend some time in the servants' hall first. In fact, now that you've made me think of him, I'll ring and have him bring me up a pot of good English tea.”“A suitable beverage for celebrating your birthday in this penitential year. I thank Your Majesty for his time and insight. I always suspected Fischer conjured up his facts. Now we know. Until next year, Hoch Hohenzollern!”Deutschland hoch in Ehre, dann und jetzt! May the German people ever so regard it. Goodbye!”

The View From Olympus 21: Terrorist Attack

One of the more obvious facts about our country's situation is that we cannot afford another war. We cannot afford it financially. Another massive explosion of debt (the Iraq war cost three trillion, including veteran's care, and Afghanistan is on its way to two trillion) could bring about the collapse of American government paper, and with it the dollar. The consequences of that would be far more dire than the actions of any foreign “threats.”We cannot afford another war militarily either, because our recent record suggests we will probably lose. Unless someone is foolish enough to take us on in Second Generation war, our Second Generation military will suffer another defeat. Like other Second Generation armed services, it cannot beat the Third Generation without overwhelming material superiority. It cannot defeat Fourth Generation opponents even with huge material superiority. Since more and more wars are Fourth Generation, our only rational option is to stay out of them, at least until we either reform our obsolescent services or simply send them home and save some money.For several years, the most likely new war facing us has been a war with Iran. Such a war might begin as a Second Generation air and sea war, which we would win. But a defeated Iran would be likely to come apart as a state, facing us with yet another region of stateless disorder. Regardless whether or not we intervened on the ground at that point, the forces of 4GW would have another win.It should therefore not be too great a reach in logic, even for Congress, to grasp the fact that we need to avoid war with Iran. The Obama administration has grasped it, and is currently doing an admirable job of war-avoidance. There is a genuine prospect of not only a nuclear agreement with Iran, but of a whole new strategic relationship, one that would push an Iranian war completely off the table.Now comes the curious part: a bi-partisan coalition of senators and congressmen is doing everything in its power to sabotage the deal with Iran and put us back on the course to war. A 52-page Senate bill (that's a short one), the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, would impose a whole new set of economic sanctions on Iran. Its passage would run a strong risk of killing the negotiations. Iran could only remain at the table if it agreed to swallow a major and public humiliation. The Iranian government may not do that; it may be politically unable to do that even if it wants to.And oh, by the way, the Senate bill requires the United States to provide military support to Israel if it attacks Iran. Not if Israel is attacked by Iran; we are in another Mideast war if Israel itself is the attacker. And they say Kaiser Wilhelm II gave a “blank check” to Vienna in 1914...This provision of the Senate bill points to the most important fact about it: it was de facto written in Tel Aviv. It was sponsored by Israel's Likud government, it serves that foreign government, and it threatens to take the United States to war for the interests of Israel against our own interests.How could such a thing happen? Because almost all members of Congress live in mortal terror of the Israeli lobby. Every Senator or Representative who has dared to take the lobby on has lost his seat. It pours enormous amounts of money into funding his opposition, and he loses. The Israeli lobby owns Congress like a kid owns a yo-yo, and it plays with it in the same way.Given the multitude of disasters involvement in another war would probably bring to this country, the Israeli lobby's push for the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 is nothing less than a terrorist attack. Its weapons are money and votes, not bombs, but the effects could easily be the same: thousands of Americans dead and billions (or trillions) of money lost. The damage to our economy could be fatal. And in the end, the Fourth Generation would win another victory.Lose-lose is seldom wise policy. Is there a chance the American people could wake up on this one, the way they did to stop an attack in Syria?

The Rights of Men or the "Rights of Man?"

In the comic book version of history promoted by the left, all Europe groaned under the weight of tyrannical absolute monarchs, who could do whatever they pleased, until the glorious French Revolution recognized the “Rights of Man” (all of which it proceeded to violate). As usual with the Whig interpretation of history, none of it is true.After the fall of Rome, absolute monarchy was rare in the West until the late 17^th and 18^th centuries. Kings' subjects had rights, lots of them, and they were not shy about claiming them. Medieval in origin—the Middle Ages were on the whole a good time, not a bad one—they differed from the “Rights of Man” in fundamental respects. First, they were real, specific, and concrete, not air-fairy promises. I, as a subject, have the right to the products of this field. I have the right to having my grain ground at this mill, at a price not to exceed this much. I have the right not to pay these taxes. I have the right to take certain grievances to the king, in person. I have the right to walk this path (still with us as right-of-way). I have the right, depending on my function in society and thus my class, to serve in the king's army, or to refuse to serve in his army. If you violate my rights, you will face a dangerous rebellion.Second, these rights of men (and, differently, women) could neither be established nor withdrawn by law. Rather, they were first established in fact by being exercised, then enshrined in custom, and only finally recognized by law, based on precedent. The rights came first, the law afterward.This made traditional rights—we know them best as the “rights of Englishmen,” which is what the Americans rebelled to defend in 1776—robust. Because the “Rights of Man” are invented by legislative fiat, they can be easily withdrawn by legislative fiat. Because they depend on the state, they can be withheld by the state. The constitution of the Soviet Union was full of rights, but the same state that created them could and did ignore them. The same thing has occurred in western Europe, where “rights” such as free speech are being withdrawn at the demand of the cultural Marxists. Whatever they deem “hate speech,” which is to say open defiance of cultural Marxism, is now prosecuted.Before the rise of absolute monarchy in a few places, most prominently France, in the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries, kings had to respect their subjects' rights. In Spain, a new king, as part of his coronation, had to visit each province, formally swearing to respect that province's rights. Even in France, the parliaments (which were courts, not legislative bodies) could and regularly did defy the king and block actions he wished to take right up to the catastrophe of 1789. That disaster, the French Revolution, began because the king could not levy new taxes without the approval of the Estates General, which he had to call into session. That was one of his people's rights.Ironically, in the 18^th century absolute monarchy was not traditional, it was a violation of tradition and its sweeping away. Those promoting it were the equivalents of today's progressives, not conservatives, who fought to defend traditional rights. Progressives, then as now, wanted an all-powerful central government that could push through their agenda, the people's rights be damned. In most of Europe, they were not successful in creating the all-powerful monarchs they wanted. In most German states, the Landstände, which were legislatures like France's Estates General, retained significant power.Conservatives reject rights created by the wave of a hand, at the demand of some philosopher or ideology (a recent absurdity is “animal rights,” which cannot exist because animals cannot compel us to respect them). That is not because we are against rights, but because we know our rights can neither be created nor legitimately taken away by the state. Something is our “right” because it has been for a long time. Its origin lies in precedent, not politics. If a government violates it, we have the right to rebel and demand its restoration. In both Europe and America, where culturally Marxist governments are violating real rights on a massive basis, rebellion is growing. People want the rights of men, not the evanescent “Rights of Man.”

Why "Judeo-Christian?"

Some readers have inquired why we often use the term “Judeo-Christian” to describe Western culture, instead of just “Christian.” The reason we do so has nothing to do with modern Israel or present-day Judaism. Rather, like much on traditionalRIGHT, it reflects historical accuracy.Western culture has often been described as a product of Athens and Jerusalem, Athens standing for reason and logic and Jerusalem for monotheism and a moral code. Athens and Jerusalem have often been in tension with each other, and that tension has been one of the sources of Western culture's dynamism.While Jesus Christ's earthly life centered on Jerusalem, the West's moral code finds its origins there long before he lived. That moral code, including the Ten Commandments, traces to ancient, Old Testament Judaism. So, of course, does monotheism. Western culture is unimaginable without either, much less without both. Hence we describe it as “Judeo-Christian.” Honesty about the historical record demands we do so.The New Covenant Christ established changes the basis for salvation from following the law laid down in the Old Testament to faith, i.e., accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah and our Savior. However, the Old Testament remains important to Christians as a moral guide. Christ came, as He reminds us, not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. The Ten Commandments remain mandatory for Christians, as do many other broad rules in the Old Testament, such as charitable giving. It is only narrow rules, such as those pertaining to ritual purity or forbidden foods, that fall away. While the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant, it also incorporates important elements of the Old, enough so that our culture remains Judeo-Christian. Again, that is the clear historical record.Understanding Western culture as Judeo-Christian is especially important for conservatives because it is perhaps the central reason conservatism rejects fascism (and fascism's sub-set, National Socialism). At its root, fascism was an attempt to abolish the whole Judeo-Christian heritage of Western culture and return to the value system of the ancient world, where power was the highest good. Athens might have been too soft for fascism; Rome and Sparta were more its inspirations. What astonished the ancient world about Christianity was not that its Savior died and rose from the dead; that was claimed by many mystery cults. What was astonishing, indeed incomprehensible to the ancients, was that Jesus Christ said he came to serve, not to be served. That stood the entire ancient world's hierarchy of values on its head.Historical accuracy and intellectual honesty—both enemies of cant—are among traditionalRIGHT's most important values. Appropriately to this topic, they spring from both Jerusalem and Athens. They are Western, and we uphold them for the same reasons we uphold the rest of the West's heritage: because they are true, because they are good, and because they are ours. May they always remain so, all ideologies to the contrary.

The View From Olympus 20: Scratch Another State

Several years ago, one of the “causes” favored by the Washington establishment and its globalist partners in the European Union was breaking up the state of Sudan. They prevailed, and through the spending of billions of taxpayers' dollars and Euros, the facade of a new state was brought forth and named South Sudan. Over the past several weeks, that pseudo-state has dissolved in Fourth Generation war, of the sub-category “war between ethnic groups.”Quelle surprise! The only real surprise is that the globalist elites are still surprised when their handiwork destroys yet another state. Or at least they pretend to be, pretense being a necessary quality in those who would be members of the establishment. Everyone not playing a game of “let's pretend” figured out long ago that in an age of Fourth Generation war, when a state is fractured its remnants continue to fracture. The end result is not “democracy” and “human rights” as defined by Jacobins but bottomless chaos and statelessness's usual outriders, war, plague, famine, and death. None of which counts for anything to the establishment, which justifies itself by its stated intentions, not its usual results.Meanwhile, back in the Sudan, which is again merely a geographic expression, two ethnic groups, the Nuer and the Dinka, are doing what they have always done, namely killing each other. Why? Because he's a Dinka and I'm a Nuer, or vice versa. That is war at its most elemental, reaching far back into pre-history. As ground for killing, it is quite enough. With spears and bows replaced by AKs and technicals, the body count is far higher than it used to be. Grafting the products of modernity onto traditional societies usually makes a mess.Why did the establishment crusade to break up the state of Sudan? Because it was a corrupt, inefficient tyranny. Of course it was: it's in Africa. There as in much of the world, the options are tyranny or anarchy. The fortunate get an honest and efficient tyranny, but those are few, and none are African. The billions of dollars spent to prop up the Potemkin state of South Sudan mostly went to Swiss bank accounts. Again, that's Africa. They did not create a state. A piece in the January 1 New York Times reported that, as is the case in all pseudo-states,

Instead of governing through strong institutions, many power brokers and generals in this nation still essentially command their own forces, their loyalties to the government often determined by their cut of the national oil revenues."It is an extortion racket with bargaining ongoing on a regular basis, with either violence or the threat of violence" as a form of negotiation, said Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

That describes virtually all the pseudo-states the globalist elites have created by their wars against real states: Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan (which under the Taliban became as real a state as Afghanistan can). The chain of serial failure will continue (they really, really want to do Syria but fear the cries of " a lá lanterne " from their voters if they do), because the Globalists are Jacobin ideologues and all ideologies demand shutting out reality. Anyone “in” who dissents from Jacobinism is immediately “out.” After all, what's more important, additional thousands of little brown people dead or your career?Realism knows that when Fourth Generation war raises its head in a typical corrupt third world tyrany, the best possible outcome is that the tyranny effectively represses it. That is what appears to be happening in Egypt (you can hear the globalists clucking). If both we and the Syrian people are lucky, it may happen in Syria, as badly off as the state there now is. If the public makes it clear to both the American and Europan Establishments that they want to stay out, the state, and with it some measure of order, may still have a chance, even in Africa. Sadly, for the Sudan, it's already too late.

Victoria: Preface

The triumph of the Recovery was marked most clearly by the burning of the Episcopal bishop of Maine.She was not a particularly bad bishop. She was in fact typical of Episcopal bishops of the first quarter of the 21^st century: agnostic, compulsively political and radical, and given to placing a small idol of Isis on the altar when she said the Communion service. By 2055, when she was tried for heresy, convicted, and burned, she had outlived her era. By that time only a handful of Episcopalians still recognized female clergy, it would have been easy enough to let the old fool rant out her final years in obscurity.The fact that the easy road was not taken, that Episcopalians turned to their difficult duty of trying and convicting, and the state upheld its unpleasant responsibility of setting torch to faggots, was what marked this as an act of Recovery. I well remember the crowd that gathered for the execution, solemn but not sad, relieved rather that at last, after so many years of humiliation, of having to swallow every absurdity and pretend we liked it, the majority had taken back the culture. No more apologies for the truth. No more "Yes, buts" on upholding standards. Civilization had recovered its nerve. The flames that soared above the lawn before the Maine State House were, as the bishopess herself might have said, liberating.She could have saved herself, of course, right up until the torch was applied. All she had to do was announce she wasn't a bishop, or a priest, since Christian tradition forbids a woman to be either. Or she could have confessed she wasn't a Christian, in which case she could be bishopess, priestess, popess, whatever, in the service of her chosen demons. That would have just gotten her tossed over the border.But the Prince of This World whom she served gives his devotees neither an easy nor a dignified exit. She bawled, she babbled, she shrieked in Hellish tongues, she pissed and pooped herself. The pyre was lit at 12:01 PM on a cool, cloudless August 18th, St. Helen's day. The flames climbed fast; after all, they'd been waiting for her for a long time.When it was over, none of us felt good about it. But we'd long since learned feelings were a poor guide. We'd done the right thing.

***

Was the dissolution of the United States inevitable?Probably, once all the "diversity" and "multiculturalism" crap got started. Right up to the end the coins carried the motto, E Pluribus Unum, just as the last dreadnought of the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy was the Viribus Unitis. But the reality for both was Ex Uno, Plura.It's odd how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. As the 20^th century historian Shelby Foote noted, the first Civil War made us one nation. In 1860, we wrote, "the United States are." By the end of the war, the verb was singular: "the United States is." After 1965 and another war we disunited—deconstructed—with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos with congenital halitosis, you name it. The homosexuals said silence = death. Nature replied diversity = war.In four decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As late as the mid-1960s—God, it's hard to believe—America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most productive, the freest, the top superpower, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families, a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a third-world country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars, and bums; as in third century Rome, law applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. First television, then the Internet brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.

***

In this Year of Our Lord 2068—and my 80^th year on this planet—we citizens of Victoria have the blessed good fortune to live once again in an age of accomplishment and decency. With the exception of New Spain, most of the nations that cover the territory of the former United States are starting to get things working again. The revival of traditional, Western, Christian culture we began is spreading outward from our rocky New England soil, displacing savagery with civilization for a second time.I am writing this down so you never forget, not you, nor your children, nor their children. You did not go through the wars, though you have lived with their consequences. Your children will have grown up in a well-ordered, prosperous country, and that can be dangerously comforting. Here, they will read what happens when a people forgets who they are.This is my story, the story of the life of one man, John Ira Rumford of Hartland, Maine, soldier and farmer. I came into this world near enough the beginning of the end for the old U.S. of A., on June 28, 1988. I expect to leave it shortly, without regrets.It's also the story of the end of a once-great nation, by someone who saw most of what happened, and why.Read it and weep.