by Jeremy F. Clark
During the recent Presidential primary debates there has been rhetoric from candidates in both parties about restoring America's image around the world. The argument usually goes something like this: "The United States has been very arrogant in foreign policy. We have stopped asking for help from our allies around the world and adopted a 'go-it-alone' mentality." Frequently the speaker will add analogies to high school bullies, or cowboys to support this arrogant characterization.

Since analogies seem to be in vogue these days, please allow me to make one of my own. The United States is much more like Tiger Woods or the New England Patriots. (If you are not a fan of golf or professional football, please indulge me, as the point will become evident). The common trait here is dominance;, both are completely dominant in their particular sport. Tiger is expected to win any tournament he attends, and the Patriots have just completed an undefeated season on their way to a fourth Super Bowl title. The other common trait is that other players or teams – and even many fans – despise them.

I know many football fans who this year wanted nothing more than for someone, anyone, to beat the Patriots. Fans would root for their team's archrival in a game against New England,; proving once again the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." This perverse desire for schadenfreude was present even if the Patriots' had never beaten the fan's team or their record was irrelevant to the fan's playoff dreams. So, why would fans behave this way? Why do some golf fans hate Tiger Woods? The answer is that it is human nature to be jealous of and wish for the fall of the person on the top.

Most of us have felt this very human emotion, and most often we recognize its poisonous effects and attempt to move beyond it. Nevertheless it is this emotion, and not some foreign policy slight, that motivates many of those who hate the United States. America is the undisputed super power of the world; our Navy and Air Force are so technologically superior to any other nation that we can completely dominate the air and seas on a whim. Our Army and Marines are by far the best-trained and most -skilled warriors on the planet, and no enemy would dare face them on a conventional battlefield.

Moreover, our economy is unrivaled; with many single states have greater GDPs than other developed nations. The American entrepreneur is responsible for many of the most revolutionary inventions in the last hundred years (the light bulb, airplane, personal computer and internet to name a few). The answer to that oft repeated refrain "why do they hate us?" is "because we are the greatest nation in the world" or to put it more simply "jealousy." Much like the New England Patriots, no opponent has defeated the United States and we are hated for the same reasons.

If this argument is true, what are we as a nation to do? Some would argue that we should cease our foreign military operations; we must acknowledge that our actions are perceived as imperialistic and try to be a more humble nation. This belief assumes first, that the behavior of the US is somehow nothing more than braggadocio, and second, that other nations will respond favorably to our more humble foreign policy. Each of these assumptions is wrong.

The United States, far from being an imperialist bully, is the most generous nation in the history of human civilization. [Each year we spend billions of dollars in aid to countries all over the globe; from fighting AIDS in Africa to disaster relief and various food programs. American volunteers, such as doctors without borders, travel to the most deprived nations on the planet and donate their time and effort trying to help people.

Our military is often the world's first responder in times of unimaginable natural disasters; immediately after the devastating tsunami in Thailand the United States dispatched an Aircraft Carrier group to the region. The US Navy and Marines flew endless helicopter missions to evacuate the wounded and bring water and food to those thirsty and starving people unable to help themselves. Following the disaster, the American people donated millions of dollars to help Indonesia and Thailand rebuild, a charity effort spearheaded by two former Presidents. The American people offer their military and financial support to nations all over the world without any expectations of repayment or expectation of future in-kind aid; you would think more countries could show a little more gratitude.

The United States is the only country with the ability to respond rapidly to virtually any situation, offering aid to those in need – and yet they hate us. We freed Asia and the Pacific Isles from the tyrannical grip of Imperial Japan – and yet they hate us. America fought back the forces of Nazism, liberating Europe and northern Africa from the Axis powers – and yet they hate us. The United States forced the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in doing so destroyed the greatest threat to human freedom and prosperity the world has ever known – and yet they hate us. Today we are struggling to end the despotic rule of Islamofascists whose regimes subjugate women, deny freedoms of expression and religion, and proclaim that all must worship as they do or die – and yet they hate us.

Those who claim we must act more humbly in order to improve our national image have woefully misunderstood the situation. The nations around the world that hate us, similar to those who hate the New England Patriots, will only be happy when we lose. Far more is at stake, however, than a mere football game. Those who hate America wish to see us defeated and humiliated, no longer able to project our national power around the world to aid humanity and liberty. Sadly, I fear that some of the politicians seeking this nation's highest office would be willing to oblige this desire; an event I can only pray never comes to pass.
jeremyfclark@gmail.com

Now that most reasonable people seem to agree that the surge in Iraq is working, I felt it was appropriate to re-post an article I wrote earlier this year. As you read this remember that throughout the history of human conflict wars have had shifts in momentum and the ultimate truth is that every war has been lost by the side that quit first.
This article first appeared at http://www.firstthings.com

by Jeremy F. Clark
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest decoration for bravery during combat operations. The President presents the medal in the name of Congress to a member of the military who has "distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States." Congress has awarded the medal posthumously to three soldiers during the War on Terror. The most recent was that to Navy Lieutenant Michael Patrick Murphy.

In June of 2005, Lt. Murphy was leading his four-man SEAL team in search of a terrorist leader along the mountainous boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan. At an elevation of over 10,000 feet, the team was discovered and attacked by a force of 40 Taliban fighters. The Taliban forces had the high ground and quickly surrounded the SEALs. Despite being outnumbered and miles from the nearest reinforcements, the SEALs repelled attack after attack, killing large numbers of the enemy.

After 45 minutes of fighting and with one member of his team already severely wounded, Lt. Murphy determined that his team would not survive without immediate reinforcements. He moved himself to a completely exposed position to get cellular reception to call in a Quick Reaction Force. During the conversation, Lt. Murphy was shot several times, including a hit in the back that caused him to drop the phone. Still under fire, he retrieved the phone and completed his call for help, concluding it by saying, "Roger that, sir. Thank you." He returned, now severely wounded, to continue the fight with his men.

A contingent of helicopters was sent to attempt a rescue of the embattled SEALs. Taliban forces using a rocket propelled grenade shot down the lead helicopter before it could land, killing all sixteen men onboard. The other pilots witnessed the "unbelievable firefight" as the SEALs continued to repel continuous enemy attacks. After two hours of continuous fighting, the team had nearly exhausted its ammunition, and all four SEALS were seriously wounded.

Ultimately, Navy SEALs Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz, and Patrick Murphy were killed. The fourth man, Marcus Luttrell, blown over a ridge by an explosion of a grenade and later shot, managed to evade Taliban fighters for four days (killing six more Taliban himself in the process) before being rescued. Luttrell tells the whole the story of SEAL Team 10 in his book, Lone Survivor. It was on the basis of his account that Congress voted to award Lt. Murphy the Medal of Honor.

What makes men like Lt. Murphy do such extraordinary things? There is a phrase commonly used in the military: "Drive on." This simple line is used in myriad settings, to convey in two simple words that difficulties must be overcome. It means that you never quit, that you keep going, that you always find the will to accomplish your mission. The military teaches and endlessly develops the will of its members to drive on. Combat is hard. It’s much, much harder than most people ever realize, but in combat you can never quit. If you quit, you lose; if you lose, you die. The only way to win is to drive on, even—and even especially—when you don’t think you can go any further.

Sun Tzu, whom the American military reads carefully and holds in high regard, taught that victory on the battlefield is achieved by defeating your enemy's will to fight. Military training is hard because the job of soldiers is hard. You've been deployed to war for the third time in less than three years – drive on. You've been out in the mountains for several days, and you’re cold, tired, hungry and then it starts to rain – drive on. You've witnessed friends being wounded or killed – drive on. You're surrounded, outnumbered and severely wounded and the only way to get help is to walk into the open to make a phone call, almost assuredly sacrificing your own life – drive on. The will of American soldiers is constantly tested. The will of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan—I speak from personal experience now—is strong. It must be so; the job demands it. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military most certainly has the will to fight and win.

But the will of our nation, the will of the American people who do not face the enemy in battle, can be shockingly different. It’s amazing, almost inexplicable, that those who go into battle and those who face death are more determined to fight and win than those who remain safely at home. The United States is a nation of economic and military might unprecedented in the history of the world, and yet this supremacy has somehow been attended by the weakening our national will. After the success of World War II, a victory that cost the lives of over 400,000 American military personnel, America seemed to lose its will when the going got tough. A stalemate in the Korean War was followed by "Peace with Honor" in Vietnam. Ironically, the first Gulf war and the action in Kosovo further weakened the American will: the acceptable casualty rate in war became effectively zero. Sun Tzu's theory, if applied to democratic nation-states, would most assuredly hold that victory could also be achieved by defeating the will of the civilian populace. As a former soldier, I worry that that is exactly what is happening.

Set aside the reasons for going to war in Iraq and its handling to date. We might not like where we are, just as Lt. Murphy did not like finding his team surrounded and outnumbered ten-to-one. But like Lt. Murphy, we can only ask ourselves what we ought to do next, what’s best for United States and Iraq. We have invaded another country and removed a man recognized by the world as a dictator, an abuser of human rights, and a threat to the international community. In freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel regime, we inadvertently exposed them to massive civil upheaval and malicious interference from neighboring states and terrorist organizations. Having subjected the Iraqi people to these serious threats, are we not obligated to protect them until they are capable of protecting themselves? Don’t we have to walk out into the open to make that phone call, even though we might get shot?

American politicians and the public were overwhelmingly in support of this war at its inception. Now, many—probably most—want to quit. They have lost the will to fight. Shortly after the attacks of 9/11 the President, in readying the nation for war, repeated the words of Todd Beamer from United Flight 93, who began the American counterattack that today by saying, "Let's roll." After six years of fighting the War on Terror and four years in Iraq, although we are caught in a tough spot, it’s time to drive on.
jeremyfclark@gmail.com

Imagine you happen across a heated public argument between the members of a church group and some bikers. The bikers are big, burly men with tattoos and piercings, clad in black leather and straddling thundering-chromed motorcycles. The church people are middle-class families carrying their Bibles and singing hymns. Quick: whose side are you on? If you’re like most readers of the Continental Conservative Dispatch, you’re on the side of the bikers.

On March 20, 2006, Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania wasn't on anyone's side. He wasn't thinking about religious freedom, freedom of speech, or tort law. Instead, Mr. Snyder wanted to bury his son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in action while serving in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), however, had other plans. Its members wanted to use the Snyder family's suffering to push their radical agenda: the pending damnation of America for our tolerance of homosexuality. The WBC proudly proclaims that "God Hates Fags" and states that its mission is "preaching the Gospel truth about the soul-damning, nation-destroying notion that 'It is OK to be gay'."

Based in Topeka, Kansas and founded by Fred Phelps in 1955, the WBC has about 70 followers, almost all from two families, who tend to inter-marry because marriage outside the church is forbidden. They are not affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA or any other mainstream Christian organization. But for its bizarre and offensive tactics, the WBC would be a lunatic fringe organization plunged in the obscurity that it so richly deserves.

But the WBC has discovered a fascinating pathology of our media culture: it’s possible to get media attention for an odious message by delivering it in an especially odious way. Protesting at the funerals of American Soldiers killed in the War on Terror, WBC members display signs with messages like "Priests Rape Boys," "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." The WBC staged similar protests at the funerals of Fred Rogers ("Mr. Rogers") and Coretta Scott King.

Late on the evening of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the nation, “Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America.” On a much smaller scale, the same thing has happened with the WBC. Appalled that members of the WBC were disrupting funerals of U.S. servicemen, several members of the American Legion Motorcycle club in Kansas formed the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR). With chapters in all fifty states and over a hundred thousand members (full disclosure: I’m a member), the PGR has a simple mission: honor the heroes and their families and, if necessary, provide a human wall between the WBC protestors and the mourners. A "captain" of the PGR will contact the family and request permission to pay homage to the soldier and then word is spread to all members in the area. With very little notice, in good weather and bad, the PGR assembles, mostly on motorcycles, and lines the streets around the funeral with American flags to honor those who gave all.

PGR members represent the real America. They are blue-collar and white-collar, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, white and black. Many are Vietnam veterans, who personally felt the hatred and contempt of protesters upon their return from the battlefield. Others are veterans of the current wars, who know first-hand the sacrifices their comrades have made. Regardless of their background all share a common goal: the desire to show our gratitude and provide a modicum of comfort to the families who have suffered a terrible loss.

After almost two years of WBC members harassing and desecrating the funerals of fallen Americans, Mr. Snyder, the man from York, who was burying his son, decided to fight back. He sued Fred Phelps and the WBC in federal district court in Maryland alleging defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Phelps and the WBC defended on First Amendment grounds, claiming that they had free speech and free exercise rights to do as they had done. The court rejected this defense, and a jury found for Mr. Snyder, awarding him over $2 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Phelps says he will appeal the verdict, and some legal experts think he has a good chance of prevailing.

From a legal point of view, the case is a close one. On the one hand, there is no doubt that, just like the KKK or the Weathermen or the Neo-Nazis, the WBC is entitled under the First Amendment to express its odious message. On the other hand, the First Amendment gives no one a right to an audience, and so everyone else should be free to walk away from the WBC and not be subjected to its message. Nevertheless, the WBC cannot in effect create a captive audience for its message by hijacking a private funeral ceremony and subjecting the mourning family and friends to their insane views.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this case, the jury sent a clear message that the American people stand with Mr. Snyder and the PGR, not the WBC. While it’s easy to be sympathetic to Mr. Snyder’s legal arguments, perhaps the PGR’s counter-protest to the WBC is even better than a remedy at law. The existence of extremist groups is nothing new in our society. Lunatics come and lunatics go, but America is a more open and civil society than ever before. Lunatic hate-groups like the WBC always fail because by and large Americans are animated by compassion, by love for their fellow men, and by profound belief in personal liberty. It is this America that Richard Nixon was talking about when he coined the phrase the "Silent Majority."

In the face of the Fred Phelps of our society the Silent Majority still stands. The rejection of the WBC's venom is evident in both the jury verdict for the Snyder family and the massive support for groups such as the Patriot Guard. The PGR – lining the streets with American Flags in honor of the fallen – is standing for the rest of the nation. The silent majority is still alive and strong in this nation, respecting those who serve, honoring those who have fallen and rejecting those who preach hate.

JeremyFClark@gmail.com

I sat with my young son at the top of our back yard late on a cool October evening. A small fire crackled in the fireplace and hot dogs sizzled over the flames. We were poking at the coals and talking about the brooding woods around us, here at the top of this dark hill.

Our little home is nestled into the southern side of a hill, a steep, wooded ridge running Northeast to Southwest, a few miles north of Philadelphia. The woods were infused with a palpable sense of history that night up on that hill, a feeling that filtered down through the shadowy branches of the trees, mixing with the starlight.

We were enjoying our cookout on hallowed ground, my son and I. The steep backyard where we live our comfortable suburban lives had been consecrated by the blood of patriots, and it was important to me that my boy should understand the significance of that.

There was another teen aged boy, I told him, quite possibly just your age, who sat on this same hill among the trees. The boy's name was Joe. Joseph Plum Martin, in fact, and he sat on our hill, maybe right here in this same spot, two hundred and thirty years ago.

It wasn't a cool October night when that boy was here, though. It was the first week in December, 1777, and while winter hadn't officially begun, it was already brutally cold. And Joe, even though he was only as old as you are now, was already a seasoned veteran of war.

Joe was cold that night, and he was hungry, and he was very, very tired. He hadn't been paid since summer. He and the other young men serving under General George Washington had suffered two major defeats in battle. Philadelphia had fallen to the British. Washington's spies had determined that the British, commanded by Sir William Howe, were well entrenched in Philadelphia and were far too strong to attack.

But Joe was itching for a fight, so he hoped that Howe would come to them. They were dug in up here on this fortified hill, after all, and felt confident of their position. Besides, they wanted to take out their frustration on some Redcoats.

Years later an aging Joseph Plum Martin wrote down some of his memories of that night on this hill:

"We had a commanding position and were very sensible of it. We were kept constantly on the alert, and wished nothing more than to have them engage us, being in excellent fighting trim, as we were starved and as cross and ill-natured as curs. While we lay there, there happened very remarkable northern lights. At one time the whole visible heavens appeared, for some time, as if covered with crimson velvet. Some of the soldiers prognosticated a bloody battle about to be fought, but time, which always speaks the truth, showed them to be false prophets."

But a bloody battle was just what Howe wanted, too. He desperately wanted to destroy Washington's army and have done with it before winter set in. So Joe got his wish, and Howe marched 12,000 British and German troops - nearly his whole army - out of Philadelphia.

But try as they might, the British couldn't find a break in Washington's lines. They moved back and forth, about a mile away, and Washington's troops shadowed them. They tried to outflank the line on the left, right here on this hill, on the bitterly cold night of December 7th, 1777, in a series of fire fights that became known as the Battle of Edge Hill.

Finally Howe gave up, much to the disappointment of General Washington (and Joe), and retreated to Philadelphia to settle down for the winter. They were too strong to be attacked, so Washington took his army away too, leaving behind the blood of 90 dead and wounded to seep into the ground that you and I are sitting on now.

Joe marched away with the Continental Army to their winter quarters and settled down for what was to become one of the cruelest winters that any man has ever endured It was the winter of trial for men with the moral strength to risk and sacrifice all for a noble cause. It was the Winter of 1777 in Valley Forge.

Benedict Arnold
A Drama of the American Revolution In Five Acts,
by Robert Zubrin (Polaris Books, 104pp., $9.95)

Reviewed by James Austin Bishop

It's October in New York State, 1777. The brutal heat of summer lingered too long into autumn, but is now finally giving way to crisp, cool air. The leaves have shed their deep green mantle in an annual explosion of flaming yellow, burnt orange and blood red colors that has reached its peak, transforming this heavily forested region of New England into a natural wonder, the inexpressible beauty of which future generations will travel hundreds and thousands of miles to admire.

But today that beauty is undoubtedly lost on the Patriots whose own blood, shed here for an heroic ideal, soaks into the already fertile soil of Freeman's Farm, and the acrid smell of gunpowder spoils the senses for any appreciation of clean, free air.

British General John Burgoyne's army had been pressing the Continentals from the north, but his position was becoming increasingly precarious. Faced with a growing American force, the Brits nonetheless fought gallantly and had almost won the battle of Saratoga. The Continental Army, led by General Horatio Gates, had all but secured victory when the British formed a final desperate assault, bolstered by Hessian mercenaries. The American lines wavered and were in danger of breaking. General Gates did not appear on the battlefield.
Enter Benedict Arnold.

Arnold had been relieved of command by Gates after a quarrel over tactics. Despite having no proper command, Arnold, sensing impending defeat, rallied the men and drove them against the German troops holding the British center. Under tremendous pressure from all sides, the Germans withdrew into the fortifications on Freeman Farm.

In a stirring display of reckless courage, Arnold led one column in a series of savage attacks on the Balcarres Redoubt, a powerful British fieldwork on the Freeman Farm. He then wheeled his horse and, dashing through the crossfire from both sides, galloped northwest to the Breymann Redoubt. There he joined the final surge that overwhelmed the German soldiers defending that fortification. As he entered the Redoubt Arnold took a bullet in the leg. The resulting wound almost cost him his life. As it was, the injury was to plague him for the rest of his life.

Burgoyne surrendered on October 17, utterly defeated, in one of the most decisive battles in history. Historians consider the Battle of Saratoga to be the turning point of the Revolutionary war, convincing the French and the Americans themselves that an American victory was possible. Had Benedict Arnold died in battle that day, there would be few heroes of the American Revolution more hailed and revered today than he. Instead, Arnold lived to fall into disgrace, narrowly avoiding hanging, and his name has become synonymous with "traitor."

The story of the Revolutionary War is a story of miracles and dumb luck, unlikely heros and villains, selfless bravery and a nobility of ideals that, if fiction, might well be rejected by a publisher as stretching the credulity of a potential audience too far beyond their ability to suspend disbelief. It follows, then, that any successful retelling of that story would come from a mind in tune with the miraculous; a mind familiar with the possibilities inherent in causes larger than the self.

Enter Robert Zubrin.

Benedict Arnold, A Drama Of The American Revolution, In Five Acts, is as the title suggests a dramatization of the Revolutionary War. The historically accurate play is Zubrin's first, as well as his first work of historical fiction.

Zubrin is an internationally renowned astronautical engineer and the author of, among man other worksy, The Case for Mars, which no less a "possibility thinker" than Arthur C. Clark hailed as "the most comprehensive account of the past and future of Mars that I have ever encountered." Whether describing future possibility as with "The Case for Mars," satirizing current political events in The Holy Land, or dramatizing past historical fact in Benedict Arnold, it is Zubrin's ability to grasp the larger vision and to share it in a way that grips the imagination that makes his writing so compelling.

"The American Revolution has always fascinated me, because it was a moment that a people rose above its apparent practical self-interest to launch and win a fight for a visionary future," writes Zubrin, and visionary futures are a concept with which he is uniquely familiar.

Zubrin’s knack for characterization is on full display in Benedict Arnold, leaving the reader with strong impressions of the motives, passions and moral grounding that drove the players in this most crucial moment in American history.

"The key struggle was more moral than military," says Zubrin, and it is a testament to the men of that time that even the most common among them remained morally resolute through that struggle in the face of incredible hardship. It was three of the humblest and most unlikely of heroes, for example, who rose above the chance for personal gain to thwart Arnold’s treachery and save the cause, while Arnold himself, a genuine hero, succumbed to all-too-human passions - jealousy, greed, a beautiful young woman - betraying his beloved Washington and the Revolution itself. It is one of the miracles of the Revolutionary war, not that strong men like Arnold sold out, but that more like him did not.

"That miracle carries a message of real hope and challenge for our kind," says Zubrin. "It dares us to be great."

Zubrin captures the reader's imagination on the first page with the American charge into the Hessian lines and keeps his grip throughout; taking us from Benedict Arnold's most noble hour at Saratoga, through his decline at the delicate, manipulative hands of beautiful and treacherous spy, to his utter disgrace and flight to the British side - all in a single sitting.

Strap in for a visionary trip into the past. Gain insight along the way into the minds of such heros as Washington, Lafayette and Hamilton, villains such as Peggy Shipton and Captain John Andre', and understanding of the passions that drove one of the most intriguing personalities in all of American History – Hero of the Revolution and traitor to the cause - Benedict Arnold.

About the author:

Dr. Robert Zubrin is an internationally renowned astronautical engineer, a former senior engineer at Lockheed Martin, and he is president of the Mars Society, a non-profit group promoting planetary exploration, and founder of Pioneer Astronautics, a successful space technology research and development firm. Zubrin is the author of over 150 technical and non-technical papers in the areas of space exploration and nuclear engineering, and holds two US patents. His other books include the non-fiction Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, and Mars on Earth, the hard science fiction novel First Landing, and The Holy Land, a science fiction satire on contemporary events.

By James Austin Bishop

Introduction

The core dilemma facing this nation as we move into the 21st century is the insidious weaving of political correctness into the fabric of American culture. There are two competing worldviews - opposing forces locked in battle, engaged in an epic struggle for the dominance of the American mind. The Culture War is indeed a war, make no mistake, and the winner of that war will determine the ultimate course of American cultural evolution.

Origins Of The Culture War

Steven Yates, PhD. and author of "Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong with Affirmative Action" recently wrote an article on LewRockwell.com entitled "Understanding the Culture War: Gramscians, Tocquevillians and Others" in which he in turn reviews an article by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, published in Heritage Foundation's "Policy Review" entitled "Why There Is a Culture War. Together the two provide clear insight into the origins of the disease that is Political Correctness and nicely articulate the basis of the "Toquevillian America" philosophy which is the subject of this essay.

On one side of the Culture War are the "Gramscians", and on the other, the "Tocquevillians". The names are taken from the intellectuals whom Fonte credits with authoring the respective warring ideologies: The Italian neo-Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, French political philosopher and author of Prison Notebooks, and Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the esteemed and influential Democracy in America.

The Oppressors and The Oppressed

The liberal world-view so prevalent in America today can be traced directly back to Gramsci, whether or not modern liberals know the name - and most of them probably don't. Gramsci agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into two classes, the "bourgeois" and "proletariat" - oppressor and oppressed, respectively.

But Gramsci took it a step further and divided the oppressed into subordinate groups instead of the single homogeneous proletariat of Marx. Gramsci identified these oppressed groups as "women, racial minorities and many criminals."

Gramsci distinguishes two ways that the dominant group exercises control over the oppressed group, whereas Marx had written only of one:

1. Direct control through force and coercion - political domination couched in terms of service to the economic interests of the bourgeoisie.

2. What Gramsci calls Hegemony, which is the tacit use of a values system that supports and reinforces the interests of the proletariat.

The oppressed groups don't even know that they are oppressed, according to Gramsci, because they have absorbed the values system, or "false consciousness", that represses them.

"False Consciousness"

Yates points us to one example of this - the radical feminists who speak of romantic candlelight dinners as a form of prostitution. If a radical feminist claims that dinner is prostitution, or that all sex is rape - even married, consensual sex, and if "ordinary" women object, then the objection arises only as a result of this "false consciousness" asserting itself.

The Marxist Revolution - Infiltrating the Institutions

Gramsci argued that before there could be any Marxist "revolution", it would be necessary to build up a "counter-hegemony". In other words, a system of values that undermined the oppressor group and that favored the oppressed groups would have to be instilled into the cultural consciousness. The entry points for the insinuation of this altered values system into the dominant culture would be those institutions that we take for granted - schools, churches, businesses, media, as well as art, literature and philosophy. Only by infiltrating these traditional sources of consciousness can the Gramscian revolution overthrow the shackles of the oppressors and usher in a true Marxist revolution.

Brainwashing the working class

In the opening of his new book, Hooking Up, Tom Wolfe says "by the year 2000, the term "working class" had fallen into disuse in the United States, and "proletariat" was so obsolete it was known only to a few bitter old academics with wire hair sprouting out of their ears."

But while terminology has changed, the underlying socialist philosophy remains as strong as ever. Wolfe points out that the "proletariat" in the United States, people who had undoubtedly never heard the name Saint-Simon, were nevertheless "fulfilling Saint-Simon's and the other nineteenth century utopian socialists' dreams of a day when the ordinary workingman would have the political and personal freedom, the free time and the wherewithal to express himself in any way he saw fit and to unleash his full potential."

Ironically, the working man thus described does not boast of having attained this level of freedom, indeed is often ashamed of it, because he has "been numbed by the..."intellectuals", who had spent the preceding eighty years being indignant over what a "puritanical," "repressive," "bigoted," "capitalistic," and "fascist" nation America was beneath its democratic façade". They have, in other words, absorbed the "false consciousness" of Gramsci.

"Organic" intellectuals

These intellectuals played an important role in the Gramscian vision of the transformation of society. Specifically, Gramsci called these "organic" intellectuals, as opposed to "traditional" intellectuals. Organic intellectuals were those who belonged to the repressed groups and were attempting to undermine the dominant culture, with the help of any "traditional" intellectuals who could be persuaded to defect. In fact, writes Yates, "changing the minds of "traditional" intellectuals was particularly valuable, as they were already well positioned within the dominant educational institutions." Thus began the "long march through the institutions" - a phrase we owe to Gramsci.

"Diversity"

Gramsci's notion of "organic" intellectuals is evidenced in today's demands within the institutions for more and more "diversity". But this is a diversity of faces, not ideas. "Traditional" intellectuals wield power, especially in education. But as Yates points out, the Gramscian gatekeepers control who is admitted into the ivy-choked halls of academia, and today's in educational institutions, dominated by feminists of "all stripes and colors (and sexual preferences and fetishes)" an outspoken conservative might save himself the trouble of applying.

Deconstruction

The reigning doctrine in our Gramscian educational institutions is deconstruction. The high priests of deconstruction were two Frenchmen, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Of these Tom Wolfe writes, "They began with a hyperdilation of a pronouncement of Nietzsche's to the effect that there can be no absolute truth, merely many "truths," which are the tools of various groups, classes, or forces."

Relativism

Gramsci described himself as an "absolute historicist," his views deriving from the philosopher Hegel. All systems of value, all moral codes, are nothing more than the products of the period in history and the culture that spawned them. There is no such thing as absolute truth or objective morality. There are only value systems that represent the interests of the bourgeois or the proletariat, and the mission of the organic intellectuals is to undermine the dominant value system. The chief means of accomplishing this is to capture control of language, especially the language of morality.

The Language of Morality

Wolfe writes of the doctrine that "language is the most insidious tool of all." The duty of the "organic" intellectual is to "deconstruct the language, expose its hidden agendas, and help save the victims of the American "Establishment": women, the poor, nonwhites, homosexuals, and hardwood trees."

Capturing control over language, especially the language of morality, opens the doors to psychological control of the masses. "Most people will reject ideas and institutions if they become convinced of their basic immorality; most people, too, lack the kind of training that will equip them to untangle the thicket of logical fallacies that might be involved," writes Yates.

Having assumed control of the language of morality, especially in institutions such as the media and academia, the way is now clear for the Gramscian transformation of society.

Political Correctness

The deconstruction movement in academia is a systematic effort to destroy the values of "dominant groups": straight white Christian males of non-Marxist European descent. The values that are under attack are truth as the goal of inquiry, transcendent morality as the guide to human conduct, freedom and independence as political ideals, hiring and contracting based on merit. In a Gramscian world, all of these are myths of the dominant consciousness.

Yates points out that political correctness is the primary weapon in the war against those values. Academic schools of radical feminism, "critical race theory," gay and lesbian "queer theory," the preoccupation with "diversity" as an end in itself and all other forms of PC are direct descendents of Gramsci - they are the chief arm of enforcement of the Gramscian transformation of American society.

The Opposition

But there is a force arrayed against the powerful and moneyed drive toward a Gramscian world. Fonte describes this opposition force as the "Tocquevillian Counterattack."

The core philosophy here is that of American Excptionalism - the idea that there are normative values embodied in America that, far from being mere historical products, are to be embraced for what they are: the values that make America the special place that it is. Fonte describes a "trinity of American exceptionalism" that define the unique development of America:

1. Dynamism. This is the support for entrepreneurship and economic progress, including the changes that economic progress yields, and support for equality of opportunity for all individuals to participate in this process.

2. Religiosity. This is the idea that freedom is only possible to a moral citizenry - that moral values have their origins with God, that character development is a necessary component of education, and that social problems should be dealt with at the local level through the voluntary efforts of men and women of good will and character.

3. Patriotism. Love of country. Support for the Constitution. Limited self-government. The rule of law.

Other Opposition Forces

There is a third set of views, also opposed to the creation of a Gramscian world, but that are not Tocquevillians in Fonte's view because they do not accept all of the three components above. These views might accept two of those three components or emphasize one over the others.

For example, the libertarian author of The Future and its Enemies, Virginia Postrel, puts most weight on the first, distinguishing "dynamists" from "stasists."

Most Libertarians reject the second, adhering to philosopher Ayn Rand's view that morality originates from the necessities of sustaining human existence, or the exercise of reason in responding to a knowable, objective world, rather than from God.

Then there are the members of today's pro-South movement who mistrust the first and who believe that the third can only be realized through secession.

Fonte describes adherents to this third set of views as "libertarians, paleoconservatives, secular patriots, Catholic social democrats, and disaffected religious-right intellectuals."

"Only The Tocquevillians"

But as an opposition force, Fonte doubts that those listed above "will mount an effective resistance to the continuing Gramscian assault. Only the Tocquevillians appear to have the strength - in terms of intellectual firepower, infrastructure, funding, media attention and a comprehensive philosophy that taps into core American principles - to challenge the Gramscians with any chance of success."

Thus far this group, for whatever reason, has not even come close to stemming the Gramscian tide. Despite having its own foundations, and despite considerable intellectual firepower (Fonte names his favorite Tocquevillians: William Bennett, Michael Novak, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Marvin Olasky, Norman Podhorets and scholars such as Williams Galston, Wilfred McClay, Harvey Mansfield and Walter McDougall, as well as writers such as Irving Kristol and Charles Kesler) the Tocquevillians have yet to seize the moral high ground.

Reclaiming the Language

One thing is certain, and that is that, as a beginning, the Tocquevillians must reclaim the language of morality. We must reject the premise of every Gramscian philosophical argument and examine the language used to find the true meaning. We must take advantage every opportunity to expose the liberal Gramscian lie.

We must demand of our institutions, particularly the media and our schools, that they explain or defend the relativistic "truths" broadcast to our living rooms or fed to the minds of our children.

Tocquevillians must stop allowing themselves to be put in the losing position of defending their beliefs against arguments that assume the moral high road and instead reject the arguments themselves as being based on false assumptions. In this way we will gradually re-claim that "most insidious tool of all", the language, and begin the long journey back to America the way it was intended to be - a nation of free and responsible individuals, subjects to no one.

Recently I had the misfortune to become involved in yet another abortion debate, during the course of which I was given cause to ponder a wider perspective on the issue than the usual, mundane "oh no you can't," "oh yes I can" pro and con banalities. Bear with me.

The spark which fired these particular synapses came from an unexpected source - an otherwise intelligent being of my acquaintance, man of science who on most social issues leans decidedly to the right of center. The sentiment leading to my arousal was expressed as follows:

"A fetus, at least early in development, is not a human being. "Killing" a fetus is no different than "killing" any other tissue biopsy. ...the bottom line is that all this bull- about a five-celled embryo being a full-fledged human being is bull-." (Expletives modified so as not to offend my own fragile sensibilities.)

At first blush this would seem a perfectly logical assumption. A mushy little cluster of cells could hardly be characterized as a "full-fledged human being" by any thinking person. That cluster of cells - how many was it? Five? - has not yet had the opportunity to develop any recognizable human form - no arms, no legs, no system of nerves through which to feel pain or pleasure, no brain, no mind, no beating heart. It probably doesn't even have a social security number or a 401K.

The obvious question to proceed from that position is, of course, just how many cells does it take a life to make? What is the magic number of cells to which when just one more cell is added transforms a "tissue biopsy" into a human being? And more importantly, who among us would be so arrogant as to presume to know?

The answer, of course, is that no one can know. Therefore, we are called upon to make one of the two easy choices: Either life begins at conception, or it begins at birth.

There really is no rational reason to believe that a "tissue biopsy" is somehow magically transformed into a human being as it passes into the cold, unless one is willing to believe that God Himself is standing at the end of the delivery table waiting to breathe life and soul into that mass of cells at that moment. But life-begins-at-birth is the most convenient claim for the self-absorbed, or for the justification of such procedures as partial-birth abortion.

The life-begins-at-birth position is, of course, every bit as arbitrary as would be a claim that life begins when the cell count reaches 110,041, if not moreso. Ergo, in our quest to determine just when it is socially and legally acceptable to obliterate a new life, why stop at birth?

Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton who calls himself a "Darwinian leftist", is known for his advocacy of animal liberation, infanticide, and euthanasia. In his book Writings on an Ethical Life, Singer argues that logical reasoning from the principle of ethical impartiality supports his claim that the lives of some animals are more valuable than the lives of some human beings. He asserts, for example that "a chimpanzee, dog, or pig...will have a higher degree of self-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility."

Killing a human being, then, is more serious than killing an animal only in that humans are capable of planning for the future, while animals are not. Therefor, if it is permissible to kill an animal for some good purpose, then it is equally permissible to kill a brain-damaged infant or a senile oldster.

To take this to its logical conclusion, even normal human infants lack the rational capacities for self-awareness that are found in some animals, and the life of a newborn human is therefore no more valuable than that of an animal with greater intellectual capacities.

There is then no rational behind the arbitrary assigning of "full-fledged human" status to that mass of human cells for no better reason than that it has passed through the birth canal, and the line between infanticide and "abortion" is blurred even further.

Now it falls to someone to decide at just what point in the mental development of the human child it does attain "full-fledged human being" status, with the concomitant right to life.

By extension, the life of an older human who has reached a stage of advanced senility at which his intellectual capacities fall below those found in some animals also has less value than that of those animals, and it becomes permissable to kill him as well, regardless of how his wife, kids and sister, aunt Bessie, might feel about it. But again, someone has to decide when that point is reached - the point at which that human life no longer has "value."

Thinking such as this taps a keg of social horrors which, once released, would continue to foam until society itself is flat and dead.

It is the height of human arrogance to presume to know at what point life begins, or at what point life no longer has value and should end. At the moment of conception, that single cell does not have the capacity to plan for the future, nor can it feel love or hope or charity. But the unique genetic code for that unique individual has been set down at that moment, and the human being who is to come has been absolutely determined.

At that moment, the moment when God's blueprint for that indivdual human has been written, life has begun, and it is not for a fallible human society to decide that it has no value, or less value than its inconvenience is worth.

Nor is it for us to decide that a life in decline has lost value at some point prior to that at which God's code has determined that it should end.

If there exists on Earth just one valueless human life, then no human life has value, and nothing matters.

by James Austin Bishop

The leaders of the West Chester, Pa., "Peace" movement are Fascists.

I labor under no illusions - I know that if any one of them were to read that statement, they would become apoplectic with indignation, quite possibly to the point of busting an artery. I am truly sorry for that, but the statement stands. Those people (Led by a local public figure named Karen Porter, an activist frequently quoted in local news accounts), are Fascists. They are Fascist in their Ideology, in their tactics, and in the objective effects of their “anti-war” activities.

I mention Porter and her Useful Followers only as an example of the newest generation of “peace” activists to arise in response to the newest war – the war of Western Civilization against a version of Radical Islam that is stuck somewhere in middle-ages, having never experience the type of religious enlightenment that moved Christianity up and out of the age of Inquisitions and other abuses of civilized life. Islam never emerged from its own Dark Ages, and we are all paying for that now.

But I digress. This is about the response of pacifists to the real threats against civilized nations, and what would happen if groups like that led by Karen Porter were to have their way.

There exist legitimate political, philosophical and moral arguments against the war with Islamic Fascism. Wrong-headed though those arguments may be, they are nonetheless deserving of a respectful hearing and civil retort, inasmuch as they are held in good faith. How sad for those who cling to pacifism as a moral principle, then, that they are drowned out of the debate by a cacophony of rabid anti-Americansim for its own sake - a shrill hysteria facilitated and amplified to obscene levels by the electronics of the sympathetic State media.

George Orwell wrote of the pacifists in England during WWII that "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.''' The immorality of pacifism in response to evil was as evident then as it is today. The refusal of "principled" pacifists to acknowledge that distances them from reality.

Let’s take a look at Reality for a moment. Let’s imagine Reality as represented by a metaphysical orb - The Sphere of Reality. Inside of this imaginary sphere, principled pacifism would occupy a position on the outer edge of the sphere, well away from the center. Accepting my image, placing reality at the center and principled pacifism on the fringes, how much more detached from the center would we then find those who are so loudly arrayed against us – The West Chester Peace Movement-style of leftover 60's radicals, the European Socialists, the academic and practicing Communists, the New York Times and other media and academic institutions? In fact, they occupy no position in my Sphere of Reality, but float aimlessly, well outside of our orb.

Far from acting out of any motive remotely resembling principle, the forces and individuals mentioned above are driven by blind hatred for the United States and nothing more. None of those ideologies, institutions, groups or individuals have ever been adverse to killing in all its forms - from the murder of an unborn infant up to and including mass starvation, torture and genocide - as a principled pacifist would be. It is only when the United States stands to benefit that they find themselves suddenly horrified by talk of war.

Principle, then, even misguided principle, demonstrated by consistency, would be a requirement for a position within the orb. But the Useful Idiots arrayed against the United States are anything but consistent, and regularly demonstrate their lack of principle by their hypocrisy and unabashed hatred (as is manifestly demonstrated every weekend in the Center of West Chester, Pa.) They form alliances between despots, murderers and sundry generic loons, yet are treated by the media as if they were somehow deserving of enclosure in the orb.

Consider these disconnects from reality:

President Bush's various approval ratings soar in the polls by more than 20 points in one amazing night, January 28, 2003. In describing this unprecedented surge in support, and after citing the actual incredible poll numbers, NBC reports that "we found that people had not changed their minds in significant numbers." (NBC Nightly News, Wednesday, January 29)

A former Attorney General of the United States, Ramsey Clark, in attempting to defend radical Islam, compares Jesus Christ, in a country where 80 percent of the population identify themselves as Christians, to terrorists.

Washington Post television reviewer Tom Shales characterizes President Bush's call for an end to the practice of infanticide that is euphemistically termed "partial-birth abortion" as "a sop to the far right," which if true would place the 70 percent of the population who are opposed to that grisly procedure on the "far right" (making the "far right," in reality, the center).

The Socialist Party, with Tom Daschle and Teddy Kennedy leading the way, accuse Bush of a "rush to war" and of not having made a convincing case to the international community. Over 80 percent of the population disagreed at the time.

These same suspects, along with the academic Communists, facilitated by the State media, and the European Socialists, repeatedly accuse the United States of acting "unilaterally" with respect to Iraq, as if Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Turkey and Israel were potted plants.

Convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal gets top billing at a "peace" rally.

Tom Daschle. Sean Penn. Hillary Clinton. Mumia Abu Jamal. Dan Rather and the Communist World Workers Party. Michael Moore and Sean Penn, Communists and Socialists, murderers and morons, floating around in the void, runny noses pressed against the outside of the orb, hurling invective at those on the inside.

Such is the state of the modern “peace movement.” The adherents of that movement remain now, as they were then, Idiots; useful to the forces of Socialism, Islam, Communism, Anarchy, and any institution, policy, religion, or political ideology that is anti-American. If it’s bad for America, it’s good for the “pacifists,” by definition.

by James Austin Bishop

Science Fiction, Political Satire
(Polaris Books, 308 pp., $14.95)

Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Dr. Werner Von Braun. Gene Roddenberry. Doctors Carl Sagan and Robert Goddard. Dr. Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill, and, not least of that list, Dr. Robert Zubrin. Dr. Zubrin, renowned visionary and space engineer, shares with these great men the honor of having won the prestigious Robert A. Heinlein award for "lifetime achievement in promoting the goal of a free, spacefaring civilization."

Zubrin, the 9th person to have won the award, is the author of multiple books and hundreds of papers through which he promotes his visions of the exploration and eventual colonization of space, with a special focus on Mars. Now, Zubrin has turned his ability to envision the possible beyond Earth, and focused it sharply on the impossibly absurd right at home.

The Holy Land is built on a unique concept that is both brilliantly conceived and wonderfully implemented; science fiction as a vehicle for satire. With penetrating insight, Zubrin lines up the crosshairs and lets fly a volley of satirical missiles at his target - the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the larger war on terrorism. The resulting direct hits expose the absurdity...and the truth...of it all to the reader with the force of a physical blow.

Given the recent pain of September 11 and the ongoing, daily struggles in the Middle East, it takes chutzpah write a book lampooning those events; but Zubrin pulls it off masterfully. Sometimes the only way to come to grips with a situation so out of control that it makes you want to sit down and cry is to do just the opposite.

Zubrin begins The Holy Land by establishing his premise, which quickly becomes apparent to anyone who's read a newspaper in the past two years. The Minervans are an alien race of human-like beings who have suffered terrible persecution from the Central Galactic Empire. They were nearly wiped out by that empire, in fact, until the Western Galactic Empire intervened. The WGE (Weegees) help the dispersed Minervans to establish their own homeland, in the city of Kennewick, Washington, U.S.A., ...Earth, which they claim is their ancient homeland.

The Weegees barely tolerate the Minervans themselves because of minor differences in an otherwise common religion: The Weegees worship a triune goddess, while the Minervans accept the divinity of one, but not the other two, of those goddesses...the goddess Minerva.

The Americans are another story, however. The United States is a fanatical, fundamentalist theocracy. The presence of the Mivervan "pagans" is intolerable to them, and the U.S. government sets out to exterminate them all.

With their superior technology, the Minervans make quick work of US forces in a disastrously one-sided battle, and the ensuing dialog between the president of the United States and the Secretary of Defense gives us an early insight into the workings of the mind of an opportunistic despot in an exchange that is at once hilariously absurd and chillingly recognizable:

"We've lost 40,000, but they've lost 400. That's one of theirs for every 100 of ours. We can afford that easily. There are 300 million Americans and only 1 million Minervans. At this rate, we will defeat them by simple attrition. No wonder they are begging for a cease-fire."

The President bowed his head in prayer. "Let us all give thanks to God for this glorious victory."

The exchange is recognizable, yes, but only if we imagine it coming from, oh, Iraq's minister of information, for example, and therein lies the genius of Zubrin's satire. The transposition of the cultures involved awakens the reader like a slap in the face to the insanity of situations to which we've become inured.

The parallels between Zubrin's alternate world and real-life conflicts intensify when the United States, realizing that direct assault won't work, sets out to turn Galactic opinion against the Minervans. Some of the original inhabitants of Kennewick remained when the Minervans settled, living side-by-side with and enjoying the fruits of an advanced civilization. But others chose to move away, and those are rounded up by the government and forced into refugee camps in Kennewick. They live in squalor, under the constant eye of the Galactic News which willingly reports on the oppression of the Kennewickians, by the Minervans.

But if conditions are so bad for the Kennewickians in the camps, why won't the government send food and medical supplies? Better yet, why don't they help them to relocate?

Why, because they're Kennewickians, of course. Kennewickians can only live in Kennewick.

Substitute "Palestinian" for "Kennewickian" and suddenly a political dynamic that seemed impossibly complex is shown for what it is - more propaganda than plight.

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, wrote, "The Holy Land ingeniously highlights the absurdity of the Palestinian position." The book certainly does that, but the Israelis don't escape Zubrin's barbs so easily.

The Minervans, while they would be willing to coexist with and even help the Earthlings, look down on them as inferior. Zubrin explores that relationship through the interaction between the two main characters - Hamilton, a POW Army Sergeant, and his captor, Aurora, a Minervan priestess (3rd class). As those characters are developed throughout the story, Aurora at one point concedes that some Earthlings might possess just enough rudimentary intelligence to maybe, just maybe, be "potentially" human.

But the distance between the two characters in terms of experience, civilization, knowledge, and religious and social training is so vast that it is impossible for one to even comprehend, much less agree with, the beliefs and perceptions of the other. Those unbridgeable differences make conflict between the two cultures a foregone conclusion - compromise is impossible where no common ground exists.

The American efforts to gain sympathy from the Western Galactic Empire fail. Even indoctrinating the Kennewickian children into Minervan hatred and sending them on suicide missions to "martyr" themselves (while staying "in frame" for the duplicitous galactic press) brings no sympathy, and the Americans realize that more drastic measures will be required.

The tension between the Weegees and Americans is complicated by the fact that Earth, and particularly the North American continent, contain huge reserves of "helicity," a substance that fuels the galaxy. Weegee "bluebacks," paid in exchange for the helicity, enrich the corrupt American government officials and fund their plans for holy war.

To declare all out war against the Weegees would be suicide, of course, so the Americans plan a series of stealth strikes against them. Training camps are established by the American government in Peru, and recruits are sent there to learn how to strike. Weegee bluebacks are used to purchase advanced technology to aid the terrorists.

The worst attack on the Western Galactic Empire comes when American terrorists hijack four Weegee spaceships with the intention of using them as weapons on a suicide mission designed to cause massive casualties.

Three of the hijacked vessels succeed.

The date of the attack is August 11.

When the Weegees come to Earth to exact retribution, the Americans divert them to Peru, where the terrorists were trained. Never mind that the hijackers were Americans, trained and funded by Americans. The helicity must flow.

Zubrin doesn't let the real-life Americans off the hook either, as you can see by the situation above. Far from it - his cutting wit slashes and hacks at every aspect of the Middle East conflict, exposing the raw innards for the inspection of anyone with the eyes, and the intellectual honesty, to see.

Nor does Zubrin stop at purely political nonsense. Rather, his humor illuminates the silliness of virtually every aspect of our present-day lives. No one and nothing is safe from Zubrin's satirical volleys.

Not our male-dominated cultures:

"Some of them, for example Earth, really do have governments largely led by men..."

The princess looked astonished. "But that's absurd! How could they possibly survive?"

Pallacina shrugged. "Apparently, not very well."

Not Feminism:

"...The men own all the factories and fish farms and have all the jobs in them...Of course, since we control the government we can balance the scales a little by taxing their excess income."

"How much of it do you tax?"

"Only 90 percent. However, when a Minervan woman chooses a man for a husband, she assumes ownership of 90 percent of his income. Thus together, these two measures set the male share of national income at 1 percent, which is bearable, although we hope to trim it considerably and obtain a more reasonable split in the future."

"Ninety-nine to one isn't reasonable enough for you?"

"Of course not...It's pretty much the same way all over the galaxy...But the cause of women's rights is advancing, and I think that some day we will obtain equality."

And certainly not political correctness:

"...We're being placed under guard, while those assassins are being given the free run of the ship." She shook her head.

"They're reporters," Danatus said. "They need to be able to move freely to get their story."

"Aren't you at least going to search their boxes?"

"We can't. We don't search other reporters, and they are suspicious, so searching them would be suspicion profiling. That would be illegal."

Aurora shook her head again. "May Minerva awake you."

The Holy Land is a literary caricature of a world gone mad, a warped mirror in the face of which the reflections, while often grossly exaggerated, are mostly instantly recognizable (but sometimes only subtly so - look up the location of Kennewick, Washington, on a map. Then look at the location of Israel, and compare the relative positions in relation to the surrounding enemy territories).

Dr. Robert Zubrin has produced a cutting, eye-opening, satirical tour de force. The Holy Land is a must-read for anyone with a social and political conscience. It's also funny - fearlessly funny. If you've already staked out an immovable position on Israeli/Palestinian/War-on-terror issues, then you might just be in need of a wakeup call. Maybe you're right, chances are you're not...in which case, may Minerva awake you.

If She doesn't, The Holy Land surely will.

by James Austin Bishop

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is not the sole perogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings." - Ronald Regan, June 1982, London.

"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush, State of the Union, 2003

The history of humankind could be distilled down to a story of one great, long struggle to be free. The desire to be free has always been and remains man's deepest longing, a longing that can be denied only by the force and violence of other men. The United States was founded on the principle articulated in the three quotes above - that freedom is a natural right and cannot be granted by mere men. But freedom can be taken away by men, and so governments exist for the purpose of protecting that right to liberty that our founders recognized as self-evident.

It is this fundamental understanding of the unalienable human right to freedom that has made the United States the most wealthy, powerful and moral nation that the world has ever known. But, to a moral people, along with great wealth and great power come great responsibility. And there can be no greater responsiblity or righteous cause than to use American power and wealth to spread the freedom that we take for granted to the rest of the world.

The morality of it aside, American interest in bringing liberty to other nations can be seen in a practical light as well. Democratic nations do not make war on each other. Political, personal and economic freedom is the only environment in which wealth grows, and people who live with prosperity do not covet that which other people possess. Free people are peaceful people.

Consider this map from Freedom House: The color yellow indicates countries that are free. The light green are countries that are somewhat free, and the dark green are countries that are not free.

The vast majority of the totalitarian states are Islamofascist (with a little old-fashioned Communism thrown in for good measure). That region of the world is the source of most of the violence and war of our time. That region of the world is a cauldrin, cooking up a witch's brew of violence, the ingredients being poverty born of oppression, totalitarian brutality, terrorism, and a handful of weapons of mass destruction thrown in for some bite.

The United States, having now been attacked its own soil by the products of that culture of violence, has three choices; we can do nothing, which would be tantamount to suicide, we could do like Israel does and, when they come after us, we kill some of them, then they kill some more of us, and on and on while the region becomes more militarily powerful and destructive, or we can take our fate into our own hands and use the power, wealth and compassion of America to change that culture of violence forever. The United States, thank God, has leaders who possess the courage and determination to do what has to be done.

But in this new age of American "nation building," there is a large and vocal contingent that asserts that some people cannot handle freedom. The idea of establishing a democratic form of government in the Middle East has been ridiculed or dismissed as impossible by the American and European left (and, to be fair, by a good number of those on the right - many Libertarians and even some Conservatives).

That idea that the Muslim world does not want or is incapable of sustaining Democracy is the height of Liberal arrogance and bigotry. The yearning to live free, as we have seen, is fundamental to all human beings. The lack of freedom in Islamic nations is a result of common, garden-variety thugs and dictators, not of the culture. Thugs and dictators do not have to be Muslims to covet power, and men do not have to be Christians or Jews to covet freedom.

Japan in 1945 was still a feudal society, ruled by an emperor and its military. It was a racist country of totalitarian rule and had been that way for a thousand years. No Japanese citizen had ever voted in a free election. Women had no rights and were often brutalized and treated as property.

But the United States undertook to change that culture of violence when we occupied Japan in 1945. We did not try to convert the Japanese to Christianity as a condition of their liberty - far from it, we introduced the concept of democracy while respecting the ancient Japanese culture. The same thing happened in South Korea, and and it can happen in the Muslim world. But it can only happen with American leadership and our continued presence, to ensure protection and guidance and aid to people only just now learning what it means to be free. Not only does America have a moral right to try to bring freedom to the Muslim world, we have a moral responsibility to our fellow human beings to do so, because we are Americans.

General Eisenhower spoke to this quality of the American people in his farewell address:

"We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibiliteis; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of pverty, disease, and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

Freedom isn't everything. It's the only thing.