Brave new world

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 2, 2006 | Pat Buchanan

[A. Pole]

Writing in that fateful year, 1939, T.S. Eliot, intellectual and Christian, admonished his contemporaries who had placed their faith in the triumph of democracy. Democracy is not enough, Eliot wrote.

''As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality.

''The term 'democracy,' as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike – it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.''

When Eliot wrote, the world had before it a textbook example of how democracy can be exploited by its enemies: the Third Reich.

After his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler decided to take the longer road to power, the democracy road.

Named chancellor of Germany as leader of the largest minority party in the Reichstag in 1933, Hitler used plebiscites to enable the German people to participate in his rule and ratify his policies. After the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the Anschluss with Austria, national referenda were held. Up to 99 percent of all Germans endorsed his actions. By Munich, he was the most popular political leader in Europe.

This, then, is the point. Democracy is but a process by which people participate in choosing and confirming their rulers. But if the peoples of Europe have lost their belief in the truths of Christianity – the faith that made Europe – and the morality and ethics derived from those truths, they can wind up with a hell on earth.

Which brings us to Holland, a nation that can rightfully claim to be in the avant-garde of post-Christian Europe.

In Amsterdam, in the Red Light District, there are brothels, sex shops and sex museums. Women advertise their charms in storefronts. Window prostitution has been legalized, as has possession of marijuana and hashish, which are sold over the counter in coffee shops. Drugs are done openly. Pornography is pervasive.

Amsterdam has a ''liberal and tolerant attitude,'' runs a web ad. ''Instead of criminalizing everything, this upfront city wears its heart on its sleeve.'' Not to be outdone, Utrecht has a canal-based red light district. Rotterdam has sex clubs and private houses for the legalized enjoyment of the pleasures of the flesh.

Holland also leads Europe in the ''liberal and tolerant'' stance it has taken toward suicide. In April 2002, a Dutch law took effect permitting physicians to assist in euthanasia and suicides so long as the procedure is carried out in a medically appropriate fashion.

Anyone 16 or over has a right to suicide. If you are between 12 and 16, you have to get your guardian's approval to kill yourself. In World War II, the Dutch doctors who resisted the Nazi euthanasia program were heroes. Apparently, those doctors were just behind the times.

The latest news from Holland is that a new party is about to be formed, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party. Principal platform plank: reduction of the legal age for sex from 16 to 12 years old.

''We are going to shake The Hague awake!'' say the pedophiles of Holland, for whom dropping the age for sex to 12 is but the beginning. They wish to eradicate all prohibitions on sex with children and with animals.

This, of course, would cheer the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the American sexologist whose ''researchers'' either abused scores of children and infants, or who used the testimony of child-molesters to make the case that adult-child sex can be beneficial to both.

Which brings us back to Eliot's point. If one rejects Christianity, and the morality and ethics that proceed from it, on what ground does one stand to outlaw drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, assisted suicide and sex with children or dogs?

Holland today, and America – with its toll of aborted babies now nearing the 50 million mark since Roe v. Wade – raise profound questions for conservatives and traditionalists.

What if the free society chooses to become a decadent and depraved society? Do we still owe it allegiance and loyalty? Does a community have the right to impose its values, if those values are rooted in religion, on a minority that disbelieves in those values? We certainly did that during the civil rights era of the 1960s.

At what point does a regime, even if democratically elected, become illegitimate, as surely Hitler's was by the time Eliot wrote?

''What makes you think the West is worth saving?'' the priest asked Whittaker Chambers when he visited him in that hospital room in the 1950s. Good question then. Better question now.

Perhaps the Muslims, who may well be a majority in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague in 10 years, will moot the issue for us all.

[theFIRMbss]

>"... ethics from the truth of religion ..."

[A. Pole]

"We are going to shake The Hague awake!" say the pedophiles of Holland, for whom dropping the age for sex to 12 is but the beginning. They wish to eradicate all prohibitions on sex with children and with animals. [...] Perhaps the Muslims, who may well be a majority in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague in 10 years, will moot the issue for us all.

Any doubt that people in Hague were able to poison Milosevic?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

What if the free society chooses to become a decadent and depraved society? Do we still owe it allegiance and loyalty?

Immorality is a toxin to freedom.

[hosepipe]

Interesting times await.. Holland is a microcosm of the world.. in this way.. especially URP and Canada.. and increasingly the United States..

And in the future; A World Republic awaits.. as has been promised by every Moonbat Socialist from Karl Marx on.. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is alive and well in ANY DEMOCRACY.. Democracy is the social disease that CAUSES socialism, not the other way around..
----------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx

[alecqss]

I rarely agree with what Pat writes, but here he is right on target.

Ultra-Left tends to work for "anything goes" society in hopes that it will collapse. That, in its turn, would allow lefties to come to power.

After that happens, draconian laws are usually established and enforced viciously.

[ancient_geezer]

''The term 'democracy,' as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike – it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.''

Indeed, a point well recognized by the founders of this nation.

 

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
--- John Adams

 

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”
--- Samuel Adams

 

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
John Jay, letter to Jedidiah Morse 28 Feb 1797

 

The ONLY foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be NO virtue,and without virtue there can be no liberty,and liberty is the OBJECT and life of all republican governments."
---Benjamin Rush...Founding Father

 

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

 

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785) Query 18

 

[A. Pole]

orionblamblam, something for you to ponder

[LowCountryJoe]

Which brings us back to Eliot's point. If one rejects Christianity, and the morality and ethics that proceed from it, on what ground does one stand to outlaw drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, assisted suicide and sex with children or dogs?...What if the free society chooses to become a decadent and depraved society? Do we still owe it allegiance and loyalty? Does a community have the right to impose its values, if those values are rooted in religion, on a minority that disbelieves in those values?

"What if?" As a minarchist I have to ask. If, indeed, a free society chooses to become this way -- the decadent way the Buchanan describes -- then why would they then be in the minority? Is anyone else confused by this Buchanan paragraph or did he just shift the argument in mid thought?

And as to Buchanan's question of "Do we still owe it allegiance and loyalty?": well, the answer is that one should either leave the society or do their damnedest to promote change through persuasive and non-violent means. But, if one does stick around and go the 'persuasion route', allegiance and loyalty become very contentious issues that have to be reconciled. A good nationalist like Buchanan ought to know this!

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Is anyone else confused by this Buchanan paragraph or did he just shift the argument in mid thought?

I am. BTW what is a "minarchist"?

[attiladhun2]

Which is why the word "democracy" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders of this nation were not familiar with the term "socialism," but they understood the concept of wealth re-distribution by the majority taking from a minority. They called the concept "democracy." The Constitution does not set up such a system, but sets up a representative republic. However, that idea has been almost completely eroded away since FDR.

[marsh_of_mists]

It's favoring rule by short kings.

[hosepipe]

[[ Which is why the word "democracy" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders of this nation were not familiar with the term "socialism," but they understood the concept of wealth re-distribution by the majority taking from a minority. They called the concept "democracy." The Constitution does not set up such a system, but sets up a representative republic. However, that idea has been almost completely eroded away since FDR. ]]

Correct.. Democracy IS Mob Rule and America is being morphed into a democracy by democrats and RINOs.. and hardly anyone notices.. I have heard George Bush call America a democracy on many occasions BUT never heard him call America a republic.. Needless to say, he wants a democracy in Iraq instead of a republic(shiite, sunni and kurd States)..

Bush may have an (R) after his name but is and is proving as president he really is a democrat.. No big deal to RINOs, immense big deal to NON RINOS.. Thats why his likeablity quotient is falling like firearms in a French War.. when the enemy fights back..

[grey_whiskers]

RE: Your post 8 this thread.

Please don't feed the troll.

Cheers!

[orionblamblam]

>something for you to ponder

Indeed. Especially this:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Know God, know masters. No God, no masters.

[LowCountryJoe]

A minarchist is someone who believes in the minimalist of government intervention in matters of wealth redistribution and of legislating morality. Use a search engine to see the term in context...the current definition found on Wikipedia is accurate.

I sort of fall into a minarchist camp although my tag really suits me better. I guess the problem I really have is with America in its current state of affairs -- a state where everyone has seemed to forget that each individual State is its own sovereign identity, with its own laws and own constituent preferences. We are the United States, united only because we could (and still can) protect ourselves better through a common alliance (with common rights identified and sealed in a Constitution) but separate because we each wanted to independently govern ourselves the way we wanted to be governed in our smaller geographic regions. Somehow, both political parties have forgotten this and it seems that it's now the United States of America.

[A. Pole]

He is no a troll, he is an Objectivist.

Have a look as Galt's Gulch

[orionblamblam]

> He is no a troll, he is an Objectivist.

Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter.

[attiladhun2]

While Bush is not as conservative as I'd like, I thoughly disagree that he is no better than a Democrat. If Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush we'd have had two more Ruth Ginzberg-types on the SCOTUS. There would have been no tax cuts (only serious tax increases). Someone like Janet Reno would be AG. We would still be dealing with Saddam as ruler of Iraq, and we would be doing an endless dance with the UN concerning what to do about terrorism. The diffence between having a Democrat in the WH is enormous. I live here in CA, believe me, I wish McClintock would have been Gov., but the state is better off with liberal Arnold than any Democrat any day of the week.
I am sure many rank-and-file nutcase Dems would rather see the most radical, tree-hugging, redistribute-the-wealth and nationalize industry socialist get elected to office, but they settle for Bolshevik-lite. Similarly, many of us would prefer our candidates to be unswervingly conservative. Since politics is the art of compromise, that is not going to often happen. Absolutists usually end up with absolutely nothing. I'd prefer half a conservative than no conservative at all.

[attiladhun2]

While Bush is not as conservative as I'd like, I thoughly disagree that he is no better than a Democrat. If Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush we'd have had two more Ruth Ginzberg-types on the SCOTUS. There would have been no tax cuts (only serious tax increases). Someone like Janet Reno would be AG. We would still be dealing with Saddam as ruler of Iraq, and we would be doing an endless dance with the UN concerning what to do about terrorism. And as far as spying on Al Qaeda-types here in the U.S., forget it! The diffence between having a Democrat in the WH is enormous. I live here in CA, believe me, I wish McClintock would have been Gov., but the state is better off with liberal Arnold than any Democrat any day of the week.
I am sure many rank-and-file nutcase Dems would rather see the most radical, tree-hugging, redistribute-the-wealth-and-nationalize industry socialist get elected to office, but they settle for Bolshevik-lite. Similarly, many of us would prefer our candidates to be unswervingly conservative. Since politics is the art of compromise, that is not going to often happen. Absolutists usually end up with absolutely nothing. I'd prefer half a conservative than no conservative at all.