As observed, one of the favorite "arguments" of those who have no rational argument (to support a social or political theory) is in a recital of the year or era--usually coupled with an appeal to irrational fear. "This is 1484," the Inquisitor General probably told his supporters. The "New Spain dare not allow heresy." Cotton Mather, doubtless, was equally convincing in Salem of the 1680s. The hanging, rather than burning of witches, was doubtless a sop to some Massachusan's idea of modernity--much as a subject for Ted Kennedy oratory today.
America produced a number of major league charlatans and usurpers in the Century just ended, each offering the absolutely meaningless argument, that "this is the 20th Century," to justify pompous nostrums with no chance at all of achieving positive effect (other than to enhance the power of the coterie supporting the usurper). Only a few months have passed since we have one of the most successful masters of public manipulation and the unreasoned argument, ever, constantly discussing building "bridges to the 21st Century," as he promoted proposals to change the warp and woof of traditional American Society. One suspects that the German Socialist Dictator, who could be every bit as effective as ex-President Clinton with the "big lie" and the techniques of subliminal thought conditioning, must have been just as convincing at one of the great Nuremberg rallies when he reminded the devoted multitude that it was "1935"--an equally compelling justification for the systematic destruction of German cultural heritage.
Of course, Hitler had his Goebbels, as Clinton his Chuck Schumer--as Obama, later, his media lickspittles.
America was uniquely blessed, at birth, in that she enjoyed the leadership of reflective men who put principle ahead of worldly ambition; men who scanned all that was known of the human experience to discover what was most likely to work in the context of the ages to secure the best chance for freedom and safety; what would prove most consistent with the unfettered pursuit of happiness for their fellow countrymen. Men learned in history, they did not speculate like a bunch of Fabian academics, wondering "why not" over things which "never were," while conspiring to repeal the past. They took history's best examples, and tried to build on what had worked; seeking clues in that past experience to make it work still better.
They also had a unique ability to achieve a synthesis of the lessons of history with their own experiences and observations; to achieve a far deeper and clearer understanding of the psychology of others than that demonstrated by any of our leaders in the present century. It should surprise no one, then, that the predictions of the Fathers, as to the future consequences of contemplated actions, worked out as expected; even as every great project of modern "Liberalism" has either totally failed to achieve its objective, or caused far greater problems than even the most optimistic view of its accomplishments could ever justify.
The Fathers recognized that making individuals responsible for their own lives, prosperity and safety, would bring out the best in their respective natures; even as making people dependent upon a collective brings out the absolute worst; that the extent of such dependence will define the extent of the damage to the human potential; that a dependent population, class or individual, progressively loses capacity for the volitional conduct essential to freedom--for meaningful participation in a free Society.
The Fathers understood that to become a vital and functionally adult man or woman involved a positive progressive development; and part of the training of every boy and girl in focused America, from quite early ages, involved training for those adult roles. We did not have juvenile violence and teenaged anarchy among the children of focused families, because children had a sense of purpose; a sense of the importance of the male and female roles for which they were being prepared; a sense of joy in the role well-played, the job well done; the good feeling derived in service to those one loved, and a constructive pride in being who and what you were.
An important part of the training of a young lad, in the America the Fathers vouchsafed to us, included training in the correct and effective use of firearms. When the teenage boy was expected to know how to shoot, and shoot straight; we had a far safer Society. Threatened families did not have to wait for the Police to arrive, to deal with human predators. America had a huge ready reserve of effective would-be soldiers, to deal with any foreign foe. But above all, our youth had a constructive focus, and a growing realization that with proper application, they could be more and better with each developing year. And every year, starting well before puberty and extending into majority, saw a rapid increase in the adult responsibility delegated and assumed.
Well before a boy reached age 18, he was an accomplished marksman; his sister, an accomplished homemaker. The relative absence both of youthful violence and the sort of suicidal rage we see today, was not despite the greater familiarity with firearms, but in large part due to it and the acceptance of a sense of the responsibility that went with it.
Giving youth a sense of purpose and responsibility worked well in the American past. It worked well a thousand years before the birth of Christ. It will work well a thousand years after we all are gone and forgotten. On the other hand, when you both coddle and demean youth, while assigning a "forbidden fruit" aura to items long accepted, you ask for trouble. This has nothing to do with Conservative or "Liberal" theories. It is the reality of human nature. It will not be repealed by charlatans or cowards, fawners or usurpers.
Thus, when General Washington prepared to resign his command at the conclusion of a successful Revolution--a conservative Counter-Revolution against expanding Government;--he counseled the Continental Congress in Sentiments On A Peace Establishment as to the proper Defense for a free America: Altho' a LARGE standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few.
Following this acknowledgment and a detailed discussion of our defensive needs, our greatest hero went on to praise the Swiss system [which trains and arms the teenage boys] as a role model, before setting forth his own views of the Militia as our fundamental military reliance:
It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it; and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms [that means giving eighteen year old Americans their own arms], and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency. For these purposes they ought to be duly organized into Commands of the same formation; ...They ought to be regularly Mustered and trained, and to have their Arms and Accoutrements inspected at certain appointed times... Amongst such a Multitude of People...there must be a great number, who from domestic Circumstances, bodily defects, natural awkwardness or disinclination, can never acquire the habits of Soldiers;... and as there are a sufficient proportion of able bodied young Men, between the Age of 18 and 25, who, from a natural fondness for Military parade (which passion is almost ever prevalent at that period of life) might easily be enlisted or drafted to form a Corps in every State, capable of resisting any sudden impression which might be attempted by a foreign Enemy, while the remainder of the National forces would have time to Assemble and make preparations... And that while the Men of this description shall be viewed as the Van and flower of the American Forces, ever ready for Action... they should meet with such exemptions, privileges and distinctions, as might tend to keep alive a true Military pride, a nice sense of honour, and a patriotic regard for the public. Such sentiments, indeed, ought to be instilled into our Youth, with their earliest years, [that is certainly well before high school] to be cherished and inculcated as frequently and forcibly as possible.
In Washington's native Virginia, at the time, the Militia age was 16 to 50 (see Jefferson's Notes On The State Of Virginia, Answer to Query IX, where he laments that many were not better armed). The American tradition, as to the responsibility for training teenagers in the correct and effective use of firearms, is very clear. This involvement was considered essential, both for the preservation of a free Society and for the optimum development of the individual. For a more detailed exposition on the importance of private arms, we recommend the article linked below on the Right To Keep & Bear Arms.
Another correctly perceived essential to the preservation of a free society, was what we have termed the "Washington/Jefferson foreign policy." While we went into this in some detail in our essay for May, 1999, linked below, we would offer here some additional thoughts, including some passages from Washington's Farewell Address, offered just prior to the strong warning against political connection with foreign Nations quoted in that May essay:
Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
Washington went on to discuss the psychological factors, which affect foreign policy, in some depth. But the above will certainly give the general idea, as well as give the lie to those who claim that we were isolationists. Thomas Jefferson stated the same policy in his third State of the Union message, on October 17, 1803:
We have seen with sincere concern the flames of war lighted up again in Europe, and nations with which we have the most friendly and useful relations engaged in mutual destruction. While we regret the miseries in which we see others involved, let us bow with gratitude to that kind Providence which ... guarded us from hastily entering into the ... contest, and left us only to look on and to pity its ravages. These will be heaviest on those immediately engaged. Yet the nations pursuing peace will not be exempt from all evil.
In the course of this conflict, let it be our endeavor ... to cultivate the friendship of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and of incessant kindness; to receive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the Sea, but to administer the means of annoyance to none; ... to punish severely those persons ... who shall usurp the cover of our flag for vessels not entitled to it, ... committing us into controversies for the redress of wrongs not our own; to exact from every nation the observances towards our vessels and citizens, of those principles and practices which all civilized people acknowledge; to merit the character of a just nation, and maintain that of an independent one, preferring every consequence to insult and habitual wrong.
This was the policy, under which America grew from a fledgling to the mightiest world power--at least since the fall of Rome. It is a practical policy--it will always be practical--because it was based upon the realities of human nature; that the more responsible a citizenry, the stronger the social fabric; that to be truly respected, one must treat others both with respect, but also with a firm determination to vindicate what is one's own; that to be truly free as a people, you must chart your own course, regardless of the appeals and blandishments of other nations. The policy is benevolent and idealistic, without being officious; helpful to all, but subservient neither to any nation or any collection of nations.
We have quoted but a few passages of the views of Washington & Jefferson; true leaders, who wrote with the clarity and candor of men with clear vision and deep understanding. How pathetic, by comparison, are the recent ex-cathedra pronouncements of some of the charlatans just now strutting across the political stage; loathsome opportunists, seeking to reverse our heritage. Did Clinton, or any of his point men--like the neo-Nazi Schumer--ever even acknowledged what the debate over firearms or NATO is really about? In Communist Russia & Nazi Germany the holders of dissenting viewpoints could very quickly become non-persons--if they were not immediately liquidated. Have we, in modern America, degenerated to such a point, where we will allow the likes of William Clinton--or some of the more apologetic Republicans--to similarly denigrate George Washington & Thomas Jefferson; their views no longer even to be discussed when decisions of towering consequence are being made?
Those who would defend the American tradition are constantly beset by a "stupidity factor," a tendency for men in high places to buy pigs in a poke; to accept at face value, the agenda of enthusiasts upon whom the media smile. The thing which stands out most in the recent rush to pass "gun control" legislation, supposedly to deal with a youth crisis caused by the availability of firearms, is that almost no one has been willing to even discuss why Americans in other generations considered the ready availability of firearms to be a good thing; why the Swiss who have deliberately armed their youth have had no similar crises; why America had no similar problems when we adhered to the principles of Washington and Jefferson--when God-fearing boys were encouraged to aspire to be honorable and manly men; as God-fearing girls were encouraged to aspire to be virtuous and feminine women. But now the views of Washington & Jefferson are not to be considered!
No one has been willing to even look at the cause for the suicidal rage that led to the outbreaks at various suburban High Schools, leading up to Columbine (or those still more recent)--although some would blame the movies rather than guns for the extent of the violence. (There is no question, but that movies--now so realistic in their effects that many only remember that they are fiction after they leave the theatre--have served to desensitize youth to brutality; probably making the eruptions of violence far uglier than they otherwise would have been. But movies are not the cause for the suicidal rage that has been and continues to be unleashed.)
With the trashing of traditional sex roles--the teenager's raison detre--we have left our youth with a spiritual emptiness never before known. The suicidal rage, as the epidemic of narcotic addiction that has swept a far larger percentage of our youth, are but two consequences of the egalitarian compulsion. Both are further aggravated by the new secular non-religion--which activist judges and leftwing educators have now established, in clear violation of the First Amendment.
The cry has been for action, not for debate; to legislate, not consider; to put on a show, not understand. And Senators, who acknowledged that they were not doing anything meaningful or constructive, went along with a ludicrous teenage gun control proposal in 1999, upon the pretense that by compromise rather than confrontation they would moderate the damage to Americans' Constitutional Rights! But what exactly did this "compromise" gain?
Henry Clay was known as the great compromiser for his ability to find an intelligent middle-ground to avoid conflict. A Clay compromise would enable his contemporaries to coexist in a spirit of amity and mutual toleration; to live and let live. No one was asked to surrender any long held vested right; nor any deeply held personal conviction.
The goal of the Senators who compromised your 2nd Amendment rights was not to coexist in freedom; rather to appease an hysterical agitation. In return, the compromisers gained nothing. By their own admission, they passed legislation which was not directed towards any real problem; cringing, as it were, before a media stirred by slogan--by an endless staccato refrain that Congress was controlled by a gun lobby; that Congressmen had been bought by the NRA. (We lacked but the charge that the gun industry was controlled by an International Jewish conspiracy. Perhaps that will come next.) Herr Goebbels would have been right at home in the contrived rush to restrict freedom. Is it not remarkable, how similar the tactics of collectivist totalitarians, even generations apart?
When the Senate accepted Henry Clay compromises, they acted with deliberation, not panic; acted after thorough debate, not a rush to legislate. Their leaders are still revered as Statesmen, a century and a half or more later. In stark contrast, the Senate appeasers of 1999! Those men surrendered all credibility. In a race to appease, they demonstrated not only political cowardice, but seriously flawed analytic and conceptual abilities. They will not be remembered even a decade hence as anything other than political poltroons and dolts. Fawning toadies praising the Emperor's New Clothes, are not people we can respect!
Those who would preserve the wise just heritage of the Fathers, must act now--and act effectively--if we are not to suffer irreversible damage. It is virtually certain that more and probably far worse school massacres are coming, because we are being drawn ever deeper into the very course--the demeaning, and purpose denying agenda of the Left--that has caused the problem. And we can be equally certain that at each eruption, we will be treated to the same staccato, machine like, repetition of the terms of demonization. It worked for Hitler. Will we let it work for the American Left?
We are, at the same time, being drawn deeper and deeper into a theory of international relations, absolutely unacceptable to American Conservatives; one which unresisted must prove fatal.
On May 25, 1999, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, spoke in Stockholm in support of the Clinton-Blair led N.A.T.O. aggression against Serbia: There is emerging international law that countries cannot hide behind sovereignty and abuse people without expecting the rest of the world to do something about it. Tony Blair has been making similar pronouncements. And Clinton, while--as always--trying to sound more moderate--as the consummate Fabian--did nothing to distance himself from this doctrine. It is in fact, the sole implicit rationalization for the Balkan war!
On the May 27th, 1999, CNN program CrossFire, a "moderate" Republican Senator from Pennsylvania went one step further; citing the same concept of an "emerging international law," to argue that it would be better to continue the bombing--and that means killing, maiming and impoverishing innocent people--even past any point where the Serbs might be willing to accept the original NATO demands, in order to establish a "legal" precedent by bringing the Serbian President to trial for "War Crimes"; to establish an International Criminal jurisdiction over all of us.
One could almost laugh at the absurdity, if it were not already the source of so much human misery. Those who talk today of "emerging international law" have very convenient memories. Before World War II, most of the civilized world considered it little less than an act of barbarism, an outright atrocity, for military forces to inflict unnecessary harm on civilian populations. It was Adolph Hitler, who initiated the concept of Total War--the wanton, punitive destruction of civilian life, as a way to bring sovereign nations to their knees. It tells us much about Clinton, Blair--and I guess Arlan Specter--that they were so happy to revive the program.
Yet here, too, we have a clear issue--indeed the ultimate issue for a free nation;-- although not one that many in Congress are willing to go into very deeply. As quoted in that May, 1999 essay, Secretary of State Jefferson defined the basic principle in a memo to President Washington in 1793: Nations are to be judges for themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another. That was certainly the philosophy of early America. What Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan, have really proposed is that we reverse the decision of 1776! Where, ultimately, will the new Bush Administration stand on all of this?
And who, pray tell, is to define what abusing people encompasses? Since the New Deal, American "Liberals" have treated the American tradition, which allows people to fail, to freely select their own associates, to allow religious observance in their local schools, as abusing people. These days, they even attempt to intimidate religious leaders who preach what the Bible has to say about sexual perversion, by suggesting that they are creating a climate of "hate," which the "Liberals" consider to be an abuse of people. Those who manufacture and sell tobacco & guns; those who favor cutting off Welfare for illegal aliens; those who take pride in their racial heritage; those who try to stop the killing of infants about to be born; all have been accused of what is tantamount to abusing people.
The Socialist world deems many of the enterprise building practices, which made America an economic marvel, to be an abuse of people. Under the Nazi variety, they quickly refined the scapegoat to be the Jewish business; under the Communists it was virtually any business. Every expansionist totalitarian regime in history has justified its wars of conquest--at least in part--on preventing the abuse of people. Sometimes, there was even merit in the claim. But usually, it involved claims such as that the nation being conquered had abused its people by denying them the "true faith"; or the modern economy that the conqueror promised; or their "right" to be part of a greater Reich; or their "right" to be made equal; or to enjoy "Democracy."
This confluence, of a fundamental attack upon the concept of sovereignty with policies that grievously undermine the social fabric of America, does indeed suggest that 21st Century Americans have decisions to make that are as critical as any in their history; decisions every bit as critical as those in 1800, which set America's course for the next six decades. Moreover, there are other, not generally recognized factors, which could make the issues yet more crucial.
While many are aware of the squeeze implicit in an attack on sovereignty coupled with a deliberate undermining of the American capacity for Defense, few have noted that we are nearing the end of one of the great economic cycles; an end likely to occur before the end of February, 2002. (We have a separate piece on this, below.)
The basic problem is that every 36 years--starting with the Panic of 1857--American financial bubbles burst, with immense political consequence. This phenomenon was somewhat masked after the brief market top at 1000 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average in December, 1965, by Lyndon Johnson's studied escalation of the Viet Nam War--as an economic prop to the economy between 1964 and 1969. Yet while our money lost value with inflation, the stock market did not get back to the 1000 level until the early 1980s. By then, the Dollar was only worth about a third as much. But Johnson had smoothed out, what was in fact an iteration of the more chaotic repetitions of 1893 and 1929.
A crash, sometime in late 2001 or very early in 2002, is made all the more probable by the very mindset, increasingly apparent in market circles. Whenever you start hearing talk of a new paradigm in any market, you need to be at least cautious. When more and more people suggest that what has happened in the past cannot happen in the future, you need to pause and reconsider. There is a factor in human psychology, well known to market professionals--indeed, so well known that almost every recommended "trading system" is to some extent a discipline intended to break its hold--which causes one committed to a course, to an investment vehicle or issue, to endlessly try to justify the soundness of the position; to believe that he must be right; to rationalize all developments, all data, to support the charted course. This leads even the market savvy to sometimes fight the market; to argue for a position--to stay too long, and lose more than they can well afford.
It is perhaps an extension of this mindset, coupled with one of those disciplines intended to combat it--ie., playing the momentum of the market itself, rather than trusting your own judgment--coupled with a sort of mob psychology, a panic to get rich, which always causes a great "bull market" to eventually go too far. The crash is usually much faster than the rise. But our point is not to tell you when to exit. Our intention is to alert you to another threat to the free legacy, most of us hold dear.
When the crisis comes, there is no doubt but that the collectivist Left will try to exploit it--as they did before, both here and in Europe. You can be certain that whether they focus on the idle rich, White Southerners, WASPs, the Religious Right, gunowners, or whomever, they will seek scapegoats and power. When the staccato chants of demonization start in earnest, we must be ready. When the proposed changes in our way of life seem almost inevitable, we must step into the breach. We must be ready!
The battle for the heart and conscience of America, is not a fight for this year or next. It is not about ex-President Clinton--whether he was the opportunist, blowing in the wind, that many had so long assumed him, or the crypto-Nazi disciple of Machiavelli and the Fabian Socialists, for which conduct in the Balkans and with respect to the Second Amendment argue so strongly. It is not about how much many of us may like President Bush's personality; not about whether we trust him or do not trust him. What we are involved in is in determining whether our heirs in the 22nd Century and beyond will enjoy the free Society, for which men like Washington and Jefferson risked everything, or a continuation of the long night of tyranny that now threatens to descend again upon us.
When he first rallied America's then disheartened Conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the late Barry Goldwater was fond of quoting the following passage from the writings of the French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who made numerous apt predictions for the American future; including one that Americans would lose their freedom to guardians but would console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in lead-strings, because he sees it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that hold the end of his chain.
Such an elective tyranny was not the future they fought for in the Revolution.
The issue is not over tools or technology. The responsibility is no different, if the home owner defends his "castle" and his family with a flintlock or a laser. The issue in 1775-1776 was the freedom and responsibility of that home owner. The issue in 2204 will be no different. Only the urgency in our own time is far greater.
Had America lost the Revolution; had our people been forced to remain as British subjects, disarmed and occupied; there would indeed have been an opportunity for great oppression. But soon enough the conqueror would have found distraction; the frontiersmen would have rearmed for their very survival; and in good time, the sparks of freedom would have rekindled the will; and with the will, Americans would have found the means to rise again. Yet today, with modern communication & technology--not to mention the means to transport oppressive forces with incredible speed--the possibilities for regaining freedom lost, are very bleak indeed. What we approach, then, is our American Armageddon.
The forces of a new international Left will not stop with ex-President Clinton's bombing of Serbia; will not be content with an America free to opt in or out; with an America, which might elect to return to the path that made us the envy of Mankind. Their domestic allies will not even pause with the new gun control measures. With every opportunity, they will extend the scope of their attack; using the arguments of deception, slogan and demonization, that have become their mainstays.
Both at home and abroad, we approach the moment of truth. If our elected leaders either do not understand or will not stand for the America, we believe in; if we cannot force them to stand up to the endless staccato iteration of a demonizing refrain, our situation will indeed be desperate. If "Liberals," posing as moderates are allowed to continue control in Washington, via pseudo-compromise, or concessions to a "spirit of bi-partisanship," we will see not only more of what we already despise, but further corruption of the judiciary--only lately brought back to an almost even keel;--perhaps a new domestic activism, this time embraced by some Republicans, to go along with the Clinton-Blair-Annan redefinition of International Law. It could mean a yet more corrupting and morally debilitating educational system. It could mean, year by year, a continued weakening of our ability to effectively resist--whether with reason or force--a gathering Godless tyranny. Under these circumstances, there is no way that we can tolerate the absurd response of politics as usual.
Conservatives and Libertarians need to not only understand what they believe; they need to understand the underlying reasons for what they believe; need to be able to explain those reasons to a generation steeped in the shibboleths of a deceptive and intrusive ideology. The Fathers could explain why they believed as they did, in great depth, with profound result.
We need to identify primary issues, ones upon a favorable resolution of which all other issues may depend. And we need to find articulate and persuasive spokesmen, who however we may disagree with them on other issues, we know will stand fast on those primary issues. Such an issue, of course, is American Sovereignty. Another is the right of free Americans to private arms. Another, our right to direct the education of our own children. However important some of the other issues, we can sustain losses and still come back to them. But once submerged in a "New World Order," part of a Utilitarian worldwide despotism engaged in redefining Truth until it has no meaning, we will lose all volition over those other issues.
Already the politicians are maneuvering for the 2002 elections. Confront them--confront them with courtesy (for you are an ambassador for our cause) however despicable some of them may seem;--but pin them down on those primary issues, and see how they have performed in the past. With God's help, with determination and insight, with reason, even humor, we can find and elect good men and turn the tide. We can also intimidate some of the opportunists. But there is no more time to lose; no more time to hesitate. We have touched here, only on those primary issues. But mainstream American values are being attacked today on almost every imaginable front; the attack made ever more insidious by the Fabian mindset of the perpetrators. The moment of truth is at hand.
A free America in the Twenty-Second Century depends on what we do now!!