NOVAE MILITIAE

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/PeopleView.Cfm?PID=57

His St. George battle flag:

http://www.leonidaspolk.org/Polk-s-Corps-Flag.html

Within the bosom of every liberal resides a little fascist. Within the head of every democratic socialist hides a little tyrant. Hidden within the game plan of “democratic capitalism” is the will to power, and in the end, as its neocon prophets such as Thomas “World-Peace-Through-Perpetual-War” Barnett clearly indicate ( http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/periodic-musings-blog/2007/2/11/lets-be-clear-the-boys-arent-coming-home-hugh-hewitt-interviews-the-ultimate-neocon.html ), it will be no less dictatorial than were the strongmen of the 20^th century. That is the analysis of the Old Right, from the paleolibertarians associated with Von Mises Institute to Catholic monarchists such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Observe the advent of hate speech laws in Canada and Europe, laws backed by socialist types and so-called “conservatives” alike. Witness the nearly complete eradication of the right to arms in those countries. See how they increasingly bear down upon the practice of orthodox Christian faith, especially in the area of the family. “Sir” Elton John openly fantasizes about how he would ban religion. Clerics are hauled before state tribunals for speaking negatively about sodomy. In Germany, homeschooled kids are yanked out of their homes by the state and placed in mental institutions. In the United Kingdom , plans are afoot to place X-ray cameras in lampposts that would take “naked” pictures of passers-by to ensure they aren't carrying some sort of concealed weapon.

And then consider the possibilities for the United States when we see liberals here in this country salivating over it all. Consider, for instance, the proposed spanking ban in California. Consider PC speech codes on American college campuses.

It is this meliorist will to state power on which the liberal elite are drunk to the gills. Per Joe Sobran, with central points bolded:

Here I think we should keep in mind Burke’s distinction between “the abstract rights of man” and man’s actual nature. Conservatives tend to believe in Original Sin, or something like it, that will forever prevent man from achieving perfection. This attitude produces a disposition that tends to be both skeptical and tolerant, deeply dubious about overhauling society. Societies and traditions can’t be built from scratch; as Burke said, we must build out of existing materials — that is, real human beings and their habits, rooted in history.

Liberals, on the other hand, speak freely of “ideals,” imagined perfections that we can achieve if only we have the will. “I have a dream,” as Martin Luther King said. Hence liberals typically talk of abolishing evils — “eliminating poverty,” “eradicating racism,” “doing away with prejudice,” “ending exploitation,” and so forth. This usually means strenuous government action, massive coercion and bureaucracy, because these things don’t just evaporate of themselves.

Conservatives don’t speak much of “ideals.” They think, more modestly, in terms of norms, which are never perfectly realized, but only approximated by sinful man. Consider homosexuality. Whereas the liberal wants to impose “gay rights,” by law and coercion, the conservative sees homosexuality as a defect, which to some extent can and must be tolerated, because it can’t be “eradicated,” but it can’t rationally be exalted to the plane of normality; and he knows that all talk of “same-sex marriage” is nonsense, like trying to breed calves from a pair of bulls. But to the liberal, the only issue is equal rights; human nature and normality have nothing to say to him. What the conservative sees as life’s mysteries, the liberal sees as mere irrationality.

One word is notably absent from the liberal vocabulary: enough. For the liberal, there is hardly such a thing as “too much” government. There is no point at which liberals say, “Well, we’ve done it. We’ve realized our dreams. We have all the government we need, and we should stop now.” No, they always want more government. There is no such thing as enough government.

Again, Chesterton sums up liberalism in a phrase: “the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.” We see this again in the grisly business of abortion. To the typical conservative it is an ugly thing, something that may not be entirely “eliminated” but must be contained, condemned, and above all must never be accepted as normal. But to the typical liberal it is a right — even “a fundamental human and constitutional right”! http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-11-lead.shtml

And so, they are coming. They’ve already pretty much arrived in Canada and Europe. What is to be done?

Stand against them, that’s what.  Defy the tyrannical little bastards.  And fight them, if necessary.

It is secession time again. Begin with a secession of one. Resolve in your heart to oppose the coming tyranny with every fiber of your being.  Opt out. Get libertarian.  Fly the flag of a freer time and place, like the Bonnie Blue or the Gadsden.   And then find like-minded individuals with whom you may form community. Find them in cyberspace. Find them in real space. Prepare, hunker down and stand firm.

You see, there is ample cause for hope. The liberal Establishment in the West, despite the fact that it marshals great force of arms, is corrupt, weak, and double-minded. It is Rome in the late 4^th century. Below are the analyses of a couple of traditionalist conservatives who see this. First, from Larry Auster’s board, a snippet from discussion that took place there several weeks ago. Again, salient portions bolded:

Here are some additional reasons for the increase in the liberal attacks on Christianity.

First of all, liberalism was deliberately designed to defeat Christianity, because Christianity has been the most important part of the West’s identity for more than a thousand years now. True, the West contains various important pagan elements (Greek, Roman, Norse, etc), but these elements are not comprehensive and ubiquitous, as Christianity was. Indeed, as far as I know, the various nations of the West were (except for the U.S. ) officially “Christian nations” prior to roughly World War I, and even the U.S. has always been an unofficially Christian nation. Therefore, those wishing to make a fundamental change in society recognized that enemy #1 is Christianity.

Furthermore, the liberal campaign to change the West may be likened to a large army invading a huge nation. (Think of the Japanese invasion of China in WWII, or the invasions of Russia by Napoleon or Hitler.) The invaders have occupied a large territory, but vast regions remain unconquered, and the high command of the invading army recognizes that resistance is stiffening. True, the invaders are still advancing, but the more perceptive officers recognize that if current trends continue, the advance could be halted or even (God forbid!) pushed back. Thus, although liberals are the (unofficial) rulers of America , their more astute strategists recognize that their rate of advance into enemy territory is slowing down, and the enemy is gaining strength. Thus the need to rally the troops with lurid stories of Christian partisan fighters being on the brink of taking over the country, when, in fact, conservatism and Christianity have less real power than they ever have. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007105.html

Next, from blogger and author Jim Kalb:

How bad will things get?

Right-wingers are alarmed by totalitarian features of advanced liberalism: its insistent universalism, its theoretical coherence and simplicity, its resolute suppression of alternative principles of social order, its principled rejection of common sense, inherited ways, and the very concept of human nature. In the long run, they ask, how much difference can there be between “inclusiveness” — putting all persons and all human goals and actions into a single relation to a single universal and comprehensive order of things — and “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”? If anything, the former aspiration seems more unlimited and therefore more frightening.

From the liberal standpoint, of course, all this is a joke. The liberal state is different from every other state. It’s a system of power that isn’t a system of power. By controlling everything it sets everything free. That’s why it’s not fanaticism but moderation to say that only liberal states are legitimate. Worrying about “totalitarian liberalism” is like worrying about “oppression by neutrality” or “enslavement by freedom.” It might be an interesting paradox, but as a practical matter it just shows there’s something wrong with you. Above all, liberals are good people and don’t do bad things except to the extent they fall short of liberalism.

Still, what are the practicalities? It may be right — I think it is — to shrug off the liberal self-image as hopelessly self-deluded, but there are some things to say in its favor. In principle, liberalism may be far more ambitious than Mussolini’s fascism, and its ultimate goals may be far more inhuman, but it habitually proceeds by much softer means. Rather than crush an opposing force directly it weakens it by a thousand influences that make it unable to function and assert itself. Criminal prosecutions, when they come, are just a way of formalizing and putting beyond dispute a principle that’s already all but universally accepted. The Swedish government didn’t decide to toss Ake Green in the slammer for a sermon denouncing homosexuality until the Swedes had abandoned religion, made the provident state the basis of everything, and decided that since family relationships no longer served a serious function the sole public standard for sexual connections would be universal equal acceptance. When they came for Pastor Green, no one defended him and they could do what they wanted without being forced outside their comfort zone.

In the end, the liberal state is not principled, and nothing built into liberalism limits how far it can go. Nonetheless, it’s enduringly squeamish. It will use the final measure of force only against weak opponents whom everyone that matters has agreed to hold in contempt. Groups and institutions that stand firm, present their views forcefully and confidently, and keep on going in the face of abuse — who preach the word in all settings, in season and out of season — will prevail. That’s something Catholics, among others, need to remember. How bad things get — and they could get very, very bad — is up to us. http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1071

Speaking of the measure of American conservatism’s resolve to retain its gun rights, libertarian attorney Jeffrey Snyder tells liberals in his essay A Nation of Cowards, “We will not go gently into that good night.” This is the Churchillian resolve to “fight. . .(to) never surrender.” We have tens of millions in this country who will fight, won’t surrender, won’t go gently into that good night, most of them with arms in their hands.  And as Snyder argues, all of us should be equally passionate about all our inherited liberties. Our would-be oppressors are soft and weak. Their contraceptive mentality will ensure that they decline in numbers as we increase (provided we are living by the teaching of the historic church, and are having more babies than they are). They are distracted by Islamic expanse and the chaos of their cities.  At the end of the day, they wield only what is an illusory, easily conquerable power, like that of demons. If we play our cards right and if we muster the needed measure of resolve, some day the reins of power will be removed from their hands, their wrongs will be righted, and America as originally conceived will be restored.

As Kalb says, it is up to us.

This morning I was thinking about the klounocracy ( http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/periodic-musings-blog/2006/10/16/as-the-2006-elections-draw-near-.html ), how it got here, and how I don't intend to be subject to it.  I was reminded of this article by Peggy Noonan, in which she asks whether or not the cultural and political wheels are coming off the cart.  It's in important read: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007460

She relates an incident described in Christopher Lawson's book about the Kennedy family:

Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford's lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It's called "Symptoms of Withdrawal." At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford's mother's apartment in Manhattan . Teddy was expansive. If he hadn't gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. "Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta." Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy "took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. 'I'm glad I'm not going to be around when you guys are my age.' I asked him why, and he said, 'Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.' "

Mr. Lawford continued, "The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of 'maybe we shouldn't go there.' Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on."

Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family--that it might "fall apart." But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.

And--forgive me--I thought: If even Teddy knows . . .

In Vino Veritas.  Teddy knows.  And I suspect he's not the only one.

All the more necessary, then, to be prepared and to teach preparedness to our children, and our children's children.