At Least Marx Had Integrity

Granted Karl Marx was a bitter, self-loathing, misanthrope, half-crazed with envy and his own depraved world view, but at least he had integrity. When advocating the implementation of his beloved communism, for instance, he made no attempt to sugar coat what would be required:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property…”

While not quite promising the mass imprisonment, terror, and murder this process would necessitate, one can pretty much surmise as much from this and other such statements in Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

Today’s communists, however, are far more image savvy, realizing that having brought about the slaughter and ruin of millions upon millions of innocent human beings, collectivist ideologies can prove a tough sell. So a bit of Madison Avenue re-packaging has been done.

The sinister moniker of “communism” and the slightly less ominous “socialism” have been replaced with the sunny, “Progressivism.” Instead of wild-eyed ravings about the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and oppressive class antagonisms, they opt for more lyrical terms such as “social justice”, and “multiculturalism.” Instead of Marx’ chilling but unmistakably clear rhetoric: “The theory of the communist can be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property”, Progressive’s prefer less confrontational terminology like “sustainable global community” and “promote the equitable distribution of wealth within and among nations.” And instead of presenting their collectivist demands to the world via a bellicose “Manifesto”, the Progressives are soft peddling theirs surreptitiously with the aid of the United Nations by means of a poetic and enchanting “Earth Charter.”

A masterpiece of abstruse, feel-good, New Age, leftist pappery, the seemingly innocuous Earth Charter is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or more accurately a Bear in dove’s feathers. In short, the Earth Charter is nothing less than a call for the establishment of a supranational governing authority to dictate the production and distribution of wealth according to ill-defined and arbitrary “principles of sustainability.” Indeed, at its crescendo, the charter declares:

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Beyond this obedience, the nations of the world (but mostly the United States) are also to disarm themselves to the satisfaction of these same arbitrary principles:

* Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
* Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
*Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
*Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

Anyone possessing the slightest knowledge of human liberty, the brutal state-sponsored assaults upon it throughout the twentieth century, and the threats it faces in the twenty-first ought be chilled to the bone at such a statement. Yet, despite the best efforts of Conservative watchdogs and pundits (see excellent analyses here, here, here, and here) the Earth Charter continues to grow in both influence and endorsement. Numerous groups and organizations, from The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNESCO; to the U.S Conference of Mayors; to sweet little nuns across North America have thrown their hats and habits into the ring in support of this insidious fraud.

This is due largely to the standard pathologies of contemporary society: “Go-Green” bandwagonism, mindless pacifism, lack of serious consideration of what implementation of the Earth Charter would actually require, and – of course – ignorance of history. But more than all this, the Earth Charter’s advance is due primarily to the shrewd advocacy and network building of its weighty founders.

The Earth Charter is the brainchild (i.e. Frankenstein) of he-of-the-unfortunate-birthmark: former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not alone. Joining Gorby in creating and infusing this doctrine is Canadian billionaire socialist Maurice Strong , and American socialist billionaire Steven Rockefeller of the inimitable Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (Mr. Rockefeller also serves on the Board of billionaire socialist, George Soros’, the Soros Economic Development Fund. It is difficult to imagine Mr. Soros does not have his slimy hands all over this initiative as well.)

But unfortunate bed fellows and ominous warnings from wingnut neo-con reactionaries such as ourselves are insufficient to counter the somnambulistic effects of the Earth Charter’s Phil Collins-meets-Walt Disney language. Very well then. We encourage one and all to read the essays of the Earth Charter’s founders and supporters themselves, for no more damning evidence can be found that this movement is a very real threat to human dignity, liberty, and well-being. (Well actually it can. But this is a good place to start.)

For our own part, we provide the following analysis, which brings us back to our friend Karl Marx.

Echoes of Marx

In the Marxist tradition, we have taken it upon ourselves to confiscate the intellectual property of the Earth Charter and reorganize it as we bloody well please; in this case according to Marx’s "Ten Measures" by which the communists will “wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie” and “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” We believe, even a brief perusal of the following will make clear the chilling degree to which the Earth Charter “principles” resonate with Marx’s vision and his prescription for implementing it. .

MARX MEASURE #1: ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS OF LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

· We affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.


MARX MEASURE #2: A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility.

· we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

· The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening.

· we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.

· provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

MARX MEASURE #3: ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision.

MARX MEASURE #4: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.

· Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

· Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.

· Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

MARX MEASURE #5: CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE BANKS OF THE STATE, BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY.
Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards

· Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

· We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

· Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play.

MARX MEASURE #6: CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

· Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.

· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

· Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

· Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.

· Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

· Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.

· Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.

· Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.

· Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

· Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

· We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

MARX MEASURE #7: EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE; THE BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION OF WASTE LANDS, AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

(See entire Earth Charter!)

· Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

· Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

· Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

· Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

· As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.

MARX MEASURE #8: EQUAL OBLIGATION OF ALL TO WORK. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.

· Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air.

· The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

· We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

MARX MEASURE #9: COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES; GRADUAL ABOLITION OF ALL THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRY BY A MORE EQUABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULACE OVER THE COUNTRY.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

· Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

· Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

MARX MEASURE #10: FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ABOLITION OF CHILDREN'S FACTORY LABOR IN ITS PRESENT FORM. COMBINATION OF EDUCATION WITH INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, ETC.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

· The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

-----------------
In conclusion, we call to your attention one particular Earth Charter “principle” - under Section II. Ecological Integrity – which, for its deliberate lack of specificity, we find especially distressing:

Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

Given the tone and rhetoric of so many of this warmed-over manifesto’s chief advocates, is it preposterous to question whether or not this dictum might be applied to human organisms? Were the Europeans, after all, not a “harmful non-native organism” to the native Americans and to the Australian Aborigines? Is human population itself not a “non-native organism” in so many corners of the Earth to which it ventures and seeks to live?

Such questions will, of course, be laughed off as rabid paranoia. That is until such time as no one is laughing at all.

Cheers,

Charlie

Remember the Alamo?

Hilarious and nauseating at once is mankind’s chronic inability to retain wisdom acquired at the cost of much blood, toil, tears, and sweat. This tragicomedy was played out for us in no uncertain terms upon our recent Stateside pilgrimage to one of the more forgotten shrines to the cause of Liberty: the Alamo.

Internationally acclaimed as our mastery of history is, we must admit our general ignorance heretofore of this brief but profound chapter in the American story. Upon being made aware, however, we were somewhat stunned (as so often we are) at the parrallels between then and now, and the lessons afforded those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

For in the eternal battle between tyranny and liberty; collectivism and individualism; centralism and federalism, our current status is not unlike that of Travis, Bowie, Crockett and the 182 other men who gave their lives at the Alamo fighting the forces of despotism. As the United Nations seeks to centralize global authority and nullify national sovereignty through its “Earth Charter”, as the European Union increasingly overrides the will of the electorate, as the Islamists openly declare their intent to enforce a global Caliphate, those of us who yet hold dear the principles of limited government, national sovereignty, individual liberty, and free enterprise find ourselves surrounded and quite possibly outnumbered.

Naturally today’s popular consensus will regard such sentiments as laughable. Indeed the story of the Alamo itself has been reduced by many to that of an embarrassing display of drunken male bravado in the face of overwhelming and – they would suggest - legitimate authority. Others claim it was a battle over slavery, with Mexican authorities on the side of right, for they had abolished slavery in 1829, well before their Anglo-European cousins to the north. (Nevermnind that the Mexican government allowed slavery once again six years later, just prior to the battle of the Alamo.) No doubt alcohol, bravado, slavery, even ethnic tensions played their roles in the blood bath of the Alamo and subsequent Texas Revolution, but clearly these issues existed on both sides of the firing line. The core drama at play here, as always, was that of tyranny versus Liberty.

Allow us to illustrate by briefly revisiting a few key aspects of this once well known tale.

In 1808 Emperor Napoleon of France put his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne. For most, nothing more really needs to be said. Nonetheless we shall continue. Shockingly, this appointment made a mess of things in Spain, ergo ties between Spain and her American colonies eroded, and a war for Mexican independence erupted in 1810. The rebels eventually emerged victorious with Spain recognizing Mexican independence in 1821.

As is the case with most such revolutions, however, (except – thank The Lord and George Washington - the American revolution) the victorious revolutionaries were quickly perverted by the power they had just won. Inaugurating the 187 year (and counting) fiasco that is the Mexican “government", General Agustin de Iturbide – one of the leaders of the revolution – was made Emperor of the new “Mexican Empire.” At this time, mind you, this empire was not an insignificant piece of real estate, comprised of more than 5,000,000 kilometers square stretching from the present day Oregon/California border to Panama.

What it boasted in territory, however, the Mexican empire lacked in substance. After just ten months of arrogant disregard for his new nation’s constitution, Iturbide decided to dissolve the government, prompting rebellion. He then reinstated it, prompting further rebellion. He then submitted his abdication, prompting further rebellion. He then fled the country, prompting his being declared a traitor. He then returned to Mexico, prompting his immediate execution at the hands of local officials.

Somehow, however, from the midst of this swirling vortex of ineptitude, a constitution establishing a representative federal republic of the people came into being: the 1824 Constitution of Mexico. It was this constitution and its promise of freedom, deliberately styled after the Constitution of the United States of America, which inspired multitudes of American and European settlers to emigrate to the the "Mexican Republic."

This experiment in self-government and free-enterprise yielded the usual results: thriving communities of increasing strength and prosperity. Settlers came in droves, bringing with them their customs and beliefs, not all of which were looked upon favorably by the Mexican officials. Ostensibly their objections were over the settlers’ tendancy to ignore laws regarding compulsory Roman Catholicism and the abolition of slavery. We suspect, however, a more fundamental impulse was at play – envy. Consider the words of French political writer and statesman, Alexis De Tocqueville, who was composing his classic Democracy in America at this very point in history:

“The territory of the Union (The United States of America) presents a boundless field to human activitiy, and inexhaustible materials for labor. The passion for wealth takes the place of ambition, and the heat of faction is mitigated by a consciousness of prosperity.

But in what portion of the globe shall we find more fertile plains, mightier rivers, or more unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America? Yet South America has been unable to maintain democratic institutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placed in a remote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territory before them, the Spaniards of South America would have no reason to complain of their fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperity than the inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be such as to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are no nations upon the face of the earth, however, more miserable than those of South America.”

“Other inhabitants of America have the same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and their customs; and these people are miserable. The laws and customs of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that special and predominant cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.”

It was those laws and customs, and the prosperity they wrought, that incurred the wrath of the Mexican authorities, much as the success of the Jewish Palestinians enraged the Arab Palestinians in the 1920s (and does to this day.) Thus, in 1834, President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (the self-styled Napoleon of the West) rescinded the 1824 Constitution, dissolved the Mexican federation of free and sovereign states, and set about centralizing all power under his control in Mexico City.

Lo and behold, the Liberty Lovers – American, European, Mexican et al – who had chosen to live in Mexico because of Her freedom, rebelled when that freedom was taken away.

This is why 185 men held their ground at the Alamo, even when it became obvious that doing so meant certain death. Whether seeking the restoration of the 1824 Constitution, or out and out independence for a “Republic of Texas”, they fought to defy tyranny personified in Santa Anna, to slow if not stop his advance across Mexican Texas, and to appeal to the world on behalf of Liberty. This conviction was articulated clearly and profoundly by then Commander of the Alamo, Lieutenant Colonel Willam Barret Travis, in his letter to “The People of Texas and All Americans in the World”:

‘Fellow citizens & compatriots;

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country.

VICTORY OR DEATH.

William Barret Travis”

Travis and his men held to this pledge. Unable to achieve victory, they fought to the death. Their courage, however, galvanized Texan forces who just 46 days later won independence for Texas under General Sam Houston at the Battle of San Jacinto; their famous battle cry, “Remember the Alamo!”

Santa Anna was captured the next day. At one point during his confinement, he made a statement about his motives which revealed not only his own mindset, but which represents the mindset of “Centralists” immemorial in terms of their esteem for the freedom of man:

“It is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.”

Is this rationale for despotism, dripping as it is in arrogance and unconscious contempt for the unalienable rights of man, not echoed in the manifestos and statements of votaries of The State ever since? Do we not hear it, for example, in the United Nation’s so-called “Earth Charter?”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Did we not see it in Britain’s House of Commons’ betrayal of the people with their refusal to put the European Union Treaty to a referendum?

Does not the European Union itself increasingly see fit to ride roughshod over the rights and freedoms of the people it presumes to govern?

Are the statements of the Islamists not clearly in agreement that “despotism is the proper government,” a despotism of sharia law for all the world?

When Santa Anna’s forces first surrounded the Alamo, they raised the flag of no quarter and demanded immediate surrender. Travis and his men responded with a cannon blast. Today, through the gentle guises of environmentalism, multiculturalism, tolerance, international cooperation, community cohesion, and social justice that same demand is being made increasingly of Liberty Lovers worldwide. What shall our response be?

To the world we say: Herinner Alamo! Erinnern Sie sich an den Alamo! Souvenez-vous de l'Alamo! Remember the Alamo!

Cheers,

Charlie

"The Dreadful Curses of Mohammedanism"

FITNA

FITNA the film

Will anyone listen? One hundred and nine years ago, Sir Winston Churchill wrote the following. And yet, here we are.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Cheers,

Charlie

Resurrection - Can Christianity Arise Anew to Save the West?

“In history every nation that watered-down it’s Judeo-Christian heritage was taken over by Islam. Every single one.”
-Walid Shoebat, former Islamic terrorist, on The Gathering Storm Report 3/14/08
--------------

Christendom - the concept of nations or families of nations united through their mutual devotion to the teachings of Christ and thus comprising a formidable foe to the forces of evil - is a concept which no doubt strikes terror in the hearts and minds of secularists and multi-culturalists presently at the helm of Western Civilization (and driving it straight into the wall.) For to them, if “evil” exists at all, it comes in no greater form than Christianity. In part, we feel their pain. The prevailing caricature of Christianity is that of a vapid, bubbleiscious, painted-smile cult offering all the spiritual depth of an Osmond family reunion on the Lawrence Welk show. To this we would most assuredly say, "no thank you." We would also say to secularists as well as to Christians who have helped facilitate this caricature, this is NOT Christianity.

Even more terrifying for non-believers are proposals for the formation of some kind of structured world body defining and defending an official Christendom. "The Global Christian Alliance" as illustrated by Mr. Timothy Furnish, or the "Shire Strategy" of Mr. James Pinkerton. Both strategies, these gentlemen propose, would redefine the Judeo-Christian heritage shared by the vast majority of the free world and better enable it to defend itself against enemies of that heritage, most particularly Islam.

Again, unfortunately, we must side with skeptics and withhold our support for these proposals. Our parrot-senses are always set a-tingling when e’er such “organizing structures” are conceived on so massive a scale, for it is our experience that such efforts, no matter how well-intentioned, are doomed to balloon into behemoth, ineffectual, ripe-for-abuse bureaucracies which at present are far more problem than solution (i.e. The United Nations, The European Union, NATO et al.). Besides, for Christianity, such an organizing structure already exists: it’s called The Church.

The world seems possessed of a kind of redefinition fever at present. In Britain we are redefining “Citizenship.” In America we are redefining “Conservatism.” And here we are, in effect, seeking to redefine the Church in terms of Her role of checking evil in the world. In all cases, we would argue, what is called for is not redefinition, but rediscovery.

At one time, not very long ago, men could write passages in regards to Christianity, such as the following by Sir Winston Churchill, and not be the laughing stock of the literary world nor required to spend the remainder of his career apologizing for his “unfortunate remarks”:

“And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they themselves be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. Let us then declare that King Arthur and his noble knights, guarding the Sacred Flame of Christianity and the theme of a world order, sustained by valour, physical strength, and good horses and armour, slaughtered innumerable hosts of foul barbarians and set decent folk an example for all time.”

How did we get from “guarding the Sacred Flame of Christianity and the theme of a world order” to the Archbishop of Canterbury? How did we get from “slaughtered innumerable hosts of foul barbarians and set decent folk an example for all time” to “Who Would Jesus Bomb?”

This question was answered thoroughly and eloquently by Pope Benedict the XVI in his address at the University of Regensburg on 12 September, 2006. In short, the Pope explained that what is weakening Christianity and so perverts Islam is the degree to which both have divorced Faith from Reason.

Islam by its foundational theology, the Pope points out, has never claimed nor desired a relationship with rationality.

“But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

Islam is pure passion and, as such, subject to all the perversions man is capable of when not obedient to Reason.

By contrast, Pope Benedict instructs, Christianity is literally founded upon Reason.

“Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: 'In the beginning was the λόγος'. (In the beginning was the Logos, the Word.) God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.”

Now is that not something one can sink one’s beak into? Is this not the “Sacred Flame of Christianity and the theme of a world order” of which Sir Winston spoke; which motivated men to fight “against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour?” What need have we of a “Global Christian Alliance” or a “Shire Strategy” when for the better part of 2000 years this has been the essence and motivation of Christianity: Logos – the communion of Faith and Reason?

Western Civilization owes its all to this communion. The faith that there exists a Logos, an Absolute Reason (God) which precedes everything, transcends personal interpretation, is accessible to and comprehensible by all, and to which all are morally and practically beholden, has enlightened the foundations of Western Civilization from Magna Carta through the Declaration of Independence. Indeed is not the history-altering power of the latter drawn from its authors' defiant appeal to truths endowed by the Creator which they declare to be “self-evident?”

But the Lefterly winds of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have worn down our understanding of Reason and reduced its scope in our eyes. As a result, the Church and Western Civilization are weaker for it. Founded as we are, where Reason retreats, evil advances.

“This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.”

For the survival of Western Civilization, a rediscovery is needed; a rediscovery of the Church’s original mission to spread and defend the Word of God, the Logos.

“The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. ‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God,’ said Manuel II (14 century Byzantine emperor), according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian (Islamic) interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.”


But, of course, as you may recall, instead of dialogue, this invitation compelled practitioners of the Religion of Peace to hold massive protest rallies across Indonesia and Iran, force the closure of Christian seminaries, attack seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and shoot an Italian nun to death in Somalia. The Pope – and thus the Church’s - response? Complete and utter surrender.


What hope can there be for a civilization whose very foundational institutions have not faith in its reason for existing? Little. On this Easter day, however, let us hope and pray for the wisdom and courage to witness the resurrection of Logos from the midst of this cowardly, souless, bureaucracy we have made of the West, so that we might restore her to honor and resume our duty as guardians of the Sacred Flame.

A blessed Easter to all!

Cheers,

Charlie

The Weakest Possible Position

Unrivalled Churchill biographer and dear friend, Sir Martin Gilbert got it wrong in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post. In it he elaborates upon parallels between the free world’s appeasement of Iran and the free world’s appeasement of Nazi Germany seventy years ago. Sir Martin notes that by the time Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, it became plain to even the most devoted members of that era’s peace movement that the preceding years’ Appeasement directives had greatly facilitated Germany’s meteoric military escalation while enfeebling Britain and France’s defences so as to place them in “the weakest possible position.”

"You'd lost your allies, you'd lost territory, you'd lost raw materials. You were in the weakest possible position," he explains.

As a result, Sir Martin points out, the Second World War was prolonged into a "a six-year war rather than a six-month war," producing worldwide death destruction and destitution the likes of which mankind had never known.

We submit however, that it could have been worse. We could have lost. Yet we didn’t. How? Because we were not actually in the weakest position possible.

For in fact, despite reckless under-funding of the military and suicidal rationalizations of bald-faced evil, the free world’s Arsenal of the Will was well-stocked and in fine repair. Faith, patriotism, honor, loyalty, commitment, work ethic … all were in abundance in the hearts and minds of virtually every man, woman, and child. Thus comprised the indomitable spirit of Judeo-Christian Civilization, resulting in the ultimate victory of Good over Evil.

In the decades since, however, we have witnessed the pell-mell depletion and desecration of that Arsenal of the Will. We have made a mockery of Faith; a joke of patriotism; a dishonor of honor; and a sin of loyalty, commitment, and work ethic. This spiritual disarmament has precipitated a number of practical arrangements which lend themselves handily to our eventual destruction.

Europe, having completed the sale of its soul and signed its contract with the devil (a.k.a. "The Lisbon Treaty") now wonders why it is powerless to stop even the “Soft Jihad” within its ever-fading borders.

Britain, only just now realizing it may well be too late, is scrambling to re-discover its essence after having denied it for sixty plus years, while flirting with throwing in the towel of sovereignty altogether and leaping into the void that is the European Union.

And America appears increasingly anxious to join the game, gleefully marching in step and chanting “O-BA-MA” like hearing-impaired Congolese kindergartners on their way to re-education camp.

This all in addition, mind you, to a present day neglect and under-funding of tactical military resources in Britain rivaling that of their Appeasing predecessors seventy years ago; with America – again – poised to follow suit.

Behold – THE weakest possible position: a civilization hollowed out from the core, comprehending little value in defending itself, primed to implode upon the slightest external pressure. Say, for instance, a nuclear Iran. How do you say “slam dunk” in Arabic?

Given this, Sir Martin’s gentlemanly caution waxes considerably more ominous.

"A grave mistake was made in the 1930s in finding all sorts of reasons for not regarding the Nazi threat as being a serious threat. Therefore, when you're working out your thoughts on the current situation, about fundamentalism, just remember that it is very easy for highly competent, educated, civilized, sophisticated people to find excuses and benign explanations for everything that happens."

Of this, we are painfully aware. Yet, Sir Martin remains hopeful.

“Do I have faith that the leaders know what the situation (with Iran) is? Yes. If they don’t then we’re in real trouble.”

Western Civilization, and indeed the world, cannot endure another dalliance with such “real trouble” Therefore let us do more than hope. Let us educate. Let us see to it that our leaders do, in fact, know the situation and act now, before it is too late; lest the dismal lesson Sir Winston Churchill draws from the disaster of Appeasement prove appallingly prophetic.

“Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered.

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”

There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”

- Sir Winston Churchill, The Second World War.

Cheers,

Charlie

BBC Blames Iraq Archbishop Murder on U.S. Invasion

Of all the convolutions of logic the Left has performed in its passion to blame all that is wrong with the world on the United States, this one is perhaps the most breathtaking. In reaction to reports of the murder of Archbishop Rahho in Iraq, the BBC saw fit to post the following:

"The BBC's Hugh Sykes in Baghdad says centuries of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and the small Christian community in Iraq were shattered by the US-led invasion of 2003. "

(Full story here)

What hope can there be for a people of whom far too large a majority think this way?

We pray for the soul of Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, the Iraqi people, and what remains of Western Civilization!

In the meantime - we invite all readers to take part in our Churchill's Parrot Iraq Invasion Online Refresher Course. Written last March upon the fourth anniversary, the course remains - sadly - every bit as necessary today as previously ... as the above account makes so painfully clear!

Cheers,

Charlie

What’s Ailing Maggie?

The House of Commons betrays British democracy. A day and a half later, The Baroness Thatcher has been hospitalized. Coincidence? We think not. For what true champion of liberty could not be traumatized by this government’s escalating abuse of Britain’s political legacy?

“Yesterday will go down in history as the day our politicians surrendered most of what was left of Britain's sovereignty and trusted the nation's future to a European superstate,” writes a commenter in Britain’s Daily Mail . “What we witnessed last night was the political class ganging up against the voters who gave them power. … The result - barring a miracle - is that Britain will now surrender its veto over 60 important areas of policy to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.”

What sounds hyperbolic is, sadly, plain fact. Our good friends at Brits at Their Best have revealed this little morsel of treachery:

“We have just learned that forty-eight members of the House of Commons voted 'aye' on a little-remarked motion during the ‘momentous’ referendum vote. This was the motion that the United Kingdom's Parliament and its laws take precedent over any others, including EuropeanUnion laws.

Clause 9 – ‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’ It was brought forward by Bill Cash.

This simple affirmation of sovereignty, which has been a long-accepted constitutional principle, was rejected, with only 48 sterling members voting for it. (emphasis added.)

It is a shocking insight into the thinking of Parliament as it is presently constituted. Those who are leading us have admitted that they are led. By voting no they are stating that our independence as a sovereign nation - with all that implies - does not exist."

That heavy sucking feeling in your bowels right now? That’s what Maggie felt at first too.

Mind you this entire fiasco has taken place against the will of the vast majority of the British people. The subtlely monikered I WANT A REFERENDUM.COM held private referendums on the issue which produce rather clear results:

* This is the highest ever turnout in such an unofficial ballot.

* With the 36.2% voter turnout, more voters turned out for this unofficial referendum than do for “real elections” which average 35.4%. for local elections not held with general elections.

* Voters were asked two questions:
1. Should the UK hold a national referendum on the EU's Treaty? 88% voted yes and 12% voted no. Less than 1% did not answer.

2. Should the UK approve the EU's Treaty? 89% voted against the Treaty and 8% voted in favour. 3% did not answer.

* In eight of the ten seats a greater proportion of people voted for a referendum than voted for the sitting MP.

Naturally the House of Commons paid no mind to this. After all they know what’s best for the people. And what’s best for the people of Britain is complete allegiance to Brussels! More hyperbole? We fear not. For consider these minor trappings of sovereignty I WANT A REFERENDUM.COM has revealed were NOT debated in the EU Referendum/Lisbon Treaty “debate":

* No amendments on borders, immigration or asylum were debated

* No discussion of the extension of The European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction over this area

* No defence amendments were debated

* No discussion of the creation of the 60,000 strong new EU army (known as permanent structured cooperation), the new commitment to a common defence, the defence solidarity clause, nor the European Defence Agency.

This is problematic to say the least. Nauseating even. Enough to land one in the hospital.

“As the pettifogging regulations flood in from Brussels over the years ahead, there will be absolutely nothing we can do about it,” concludes the Daily Mail comment. “And all because, on Wednesday March 5, 2008, British MPs decided en masse to break their word to the people - and surrendered the national independence for which their forefathers laid down their lives. Is it any wonder that more and more Britons are losing their faith in the political process?"

We are happy to report that Maggie appears to be on the mend. Would that we could say the same for the government she once led.

And to our brethren throughout the Anglosphere, we advise you pay close attention to this issue. Britain is again your canary in the coal mine. This is the trajectory of creeping socialism. Guard jealously your sovereignty and the principles that have made your nations great. For once they are lost, they may never be recovered.

Cheers,

Charlie

Good Bye Free World!

The House of Commons voted last night to remove Britain from the happy family of representative democracies. We are as yet speechless. More to come. For now, we give you this.

MPs reject referendum on EU treaty

Charlie

Captain O My Captain

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head
It is some dream that on the deck
You’ve fallen cold and dead.
- Walt Whitman

Try as we might, even the finest brandies and most sublime of cigars are not enough to conjure the ghost of our dear friend for just one more chat. So be it, for his is a well-earned respite. And the occasion of Mr. Buckley’s passing has given us cause to review our vast store of his genius, and delight yet again in its inspiration.

The eulogies have and are being made. Well intentioned but none so profound as his own would be. But alas, he is not here to compose it. Let then his life and words be his eulogy here, for even we can add little to them.

In our reminiscing, we have come across a favorite bit of Bill’s which we share with you now, his chapter in the Heritage Foundation's publication, The March of Freedom: Modern Classics in Conservative Thought. Entitled The Conservative Framework and Modern Realities, Mr. Buckley's essay articulates - as only he can - the distinction between Liberalism and Conservatism in this modern era.

He challenges readers with questions such as, “Can one make homemade freedom, under the eyes of an omnipotent state that has no notion of or tolerance for, the flavor of freedom?” And dishes up such delicious Buckley-isms as, “Subsidies are the form that modern circuses tend to take, and, as ever, the people are unaware that it is they who pay for the circuses.”

Most valuable, perhaps, in this essay, however, is Mr. Buckley’s masterful illustration of the distinctions between liberalism and conservatism. He writes:

“It is the chronic failure of liberalism that it obliges circumstance--because it has an inadequate discriminatory apparatus which might cause it to take any other course. There are unemployed in Harlan County? Rush them aid. New Yorkers do not want to pay the cost of subways? Get someone else to pay it. Farmers do not want to leave the land? Let them till it, buy and destroy the produce. Labor unions demand the closed shop? It is theirs. Inflation goes forward in all industrial societies? We will have continued inflation. Communism is in control behind the Iron Curtain? Coexist with it. The tidal wave of industrialism will sweep in the welfare state? Pull down the sea walls.”

What then ought be the conservative response?

“The direction we must travel requires a broadmindedness that, in the modulated age, strikes us as antiquarian and callous. As I write there is mass suffering in Harlan County, Kentucky, where coal mining has become unprofitable, and a whole community is desolate. The liberal solution is: immediate and sustained federal subsidies. The conservative, breasting the emotional surf, will begin by saying that it was many years ago foreseeable that coal mining in Harlan County was becoming unprofitable, that the humane course would have been to face up to that realism by permitting the marketplace, through the exertion of economic pressures of mounting intensity, to require resettlement that was not done for the coal miners (they were shielded from reality by a combination of state and union aid)--any more than it is now being done for marginal farmers; so that we are face-to-face with an acute emergency for which there is admittedly no thinkable alternative to immediate relief--if necessary (though it is not) by the federal government; otherwise, by the surrounding communities, or the state of Kentucky. But having made arrangements for relief, what then? Will the grandsons of the Harlan coal miners be mining coal, to be sold to the government at a pegged price, all this to spare today's coal miners the ordeal of looking for other occupations?”

The failure to employ this seemingly “antiquarian and callous” broadmindedness, grossly lacking in present Western leadership, produces consequences predictable and tragic.

“Deal highhandedly as he (Galbraith) would have us do with the mechanisms of the marketplace, and the mechanisms will bind. Preempt the surplus of the people, and surpluses will dwindle. Direct politically the economic activity of a nation, and the economy will lose its capacity for that infinite responsiveness to individual tastes that gives concrete expression to the individual will in material matters. Centralize the political function, and you will lose touch with reality, for the reality is an intimate and individual relationship between individuals and those among whom they live; and the abstractions of widescreen social draftsmen will not substitute for it. Stifle the economic sovereignty of the individual by spending his dollars for him, and you stifle his freedom. Socialize the individual's surplus and you socialize his spirit and creativeness; you cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

We would add that the consequences of liberalism are equally dismal for national security. As this essay was written in 1994, however, American interests, and Mr. Buckley’s, were at the time primarily economic.

But Mr. Buckley leaves us here as always, not wanting, but wiser, for he provides direction to his shipmen, keeping us on course in ever turbulent seas.

“What then is the indicated course of action? It is to maintain and wherever possible enhance the freedom of the individual to acquire property and dispose of that property in ways that he decides on. To deal with unemployment by eliminating monopoly unionism, featherbedding, and inflexibilities in the labor market, and be prepared, where residual unemployment persists, to cope with it locally, placing the political and humanitarian responsibility on the lowest feasible political unit. … Let the two localities experiment with different solutions, and let the natural desire of the individual for more goods, and better education, and more leisure, find satisfaction in individual encounters with the marketplace, in the growth of private schools, in the myriad economic and charitable activities which, because they took root in the individual imagination and impulse, take organic form, And then let us see whether we are better off than we would be living by decisions made between nine and five in Washington office rooms, where the oligarchs of the Affluent Society sit, allocating complaints and solutions to communities represented by pins on the map.”

And, as ever, he inspires; lancing the bureaucratic knight of Do-Nothing with the Shakespearean verve of his mighty pen!

“I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not?

It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free.”

To carry on without such a master of language and thought is a daunting prospect to be sure. But we must. Indeed it is the value of Mr. Buckley's life and words that they have made us all wiser, and stronger, and better able to carry out what is right and necessary for the free world to remain thus.

We shall miss you my friend, my Captain. But we are so much wealthier for having known you, and for the words you have graciously condescended to leave behind amongst we mere mortals. Honor points the path of duty, and our path is all the clearer for the light you have given. Well done Bill Buckley. Rest well my friend.

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S. Heritage Foundation President Edwin J Feulner Jr.’s magnificent forward to The Conservative Framework and Modern Realities is a fitting tribute to Mr. Buckley and an excellent read in its own right!

The Case of the United Kingdom (and friends?)

"Our loyal, brave people... should know the truth. They should know that there has been a gross neglect and deficiency in our defences… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938

A remarkable document has been produced by our good friends at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the leading forum in the United Kingdom for national and international Defence and Security, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. So pointed and soaring are its words and concepts we are surprised we did not author it ourselves. In fact we did, in so many words. But as many seem apt to regard the word of high ranking British officials weightier than that of a 108 year old blogging parrot, we shall defer, for their clout and experience more than warrant it. We advise, in particular, our American cousins to consider this essay’s observations carefully, as you are less than a year away from deciding whether to follow Britain further down the path of surrender under President Obama/Clinton, or continuing the fight under President McCain.

“Security is the primary function of the state,” declares the RUSI essay Risk, Threat, and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, “for without it, there can be no state, and no rule of law.”

Sixty years ago, such plain logic was so engrained in the minds of Western man that it scarcely required penning. Today, in the era of post-Leftist-enlightenment, it is “controversial” as the state no longer sees its rightful role as security guard, but as doting nanny charged with tending the every whim and desire of spoiled and feckless children. This dereliction of duty has not only rendered Britain disarmed militarily, but has inspired the contempt of the British people and drastically eroded their faith in their system of government. Thus the sad case of the United Kingdom. She is a soldier, thrust onto the battlefield, with neither the weaponry nor the will to fight. And, in Western democracies, while security is indeed the primary function of the state, keeping faith that theirs is a state worth securing is the primary function of the people. Neither function is being duly tended. And this, the RUSI report warns, is potentially lethal.

“The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.”

This statement encapsulates what makes this RUSI report so remarkable to us. British defence officials have made plain their objection to governmental mismanagement and under-funding of the military before. But never can we recall this level of officialdom publicly decrying the erosion of the national character and the perils inherent therein. We and others throughout the blogosphere have been screaming this point for years. Now that it is echoed by Privy Councillors, Vice Admirals, Generals, and Field Marshals will any one listen?

“The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defence and security are ultimately met,” they rightly remind us.
And diminishment of that flow is inversely proportional to increase in vulnerability. “Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

This is a crisis we can scarcely afford, particularly in our present circumstances.

“The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. … The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan.”

The report lists other risks as well, none of which the authors feel, Britain is particularly well suited to address at present. These include the vanishing Royal Navy, the emerging superpowers of China and India, the politics of climate, the re-emergence or Russia, and Britain’s messy love triangle with Washington and Brussels.

A bleak assessment to be sure. But equally certain is that there is hope. We need look no further than our own history.

“History and experience have been neglected in favour of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defence and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links between the British people, their government, and Britain’s security and defence forces, than for many years.

What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.

We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government."

Various strategies are proposed for accomplishing this. One of particular interest is the formation of a Cabinet Committee not dissimilar to The United States’ Department of Homeland Security. This committee would “draw together all the threads of government relating to defence and security whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns.”

This would come as welcome news to those left to fight Britain’s Street Jihad on their own, with no government assistance, only harassment.

Lastly the authors advocate that Britain reclaim her sovereignty from failing multilateral institutions (if you’re thinking the United Nations, The European Union , and NATO you’re tracking nicely) and place her trust in more proven alliances.

“What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.”

Ladies and gentlemen – the Anglosphere.

“Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world – manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource.”

The echoes of Sir Winston are unmistakable. However, the Britain of his day differs from that of today in that his contemporaries – with a bit of prodding - knew who they were and from whence they came. Such self-knowledge is essential, the report points out, if alliances are to be of any real consequence.

“In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.”

As dismal a portrait this report paints of Britain in her current state, it brings great joy to our heart that such has been compiled and put forth by those who have done it. The nexus of the Queen’s Privy Councillor and Lionheart, of the people and their proud history, of Britain and her true allies is the point at which our “supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour,” begins, that we might, “arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

The power is ours to use if we choose. For as the contributors to this essay declare “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.” The question for Britain and all free nations is - after nearly forty-five years of demonizing our histories, mocking our principles, and transferring our responsibilities onto government - do we care?

Cheers,

Charlie

UPDATE:

*Lionheart identifies the RUSI essay “the most important report of this generation.”
*Brits at Their Best offers –as always – outstanding insight and commentary on the RUSI essay.