Sunday, September 28, 2008
Well, have you finally had enough? (Is it possible that $700 billion is not enough?!) If so, now what?
A. In the short term, one alternative for real “change we can believe in” would be for Congress, exercising its constitutional power “[t]o regulate Commerce,” to declare all “derivatives” and similar abusive “financial instruments” to be nothing more than “financial wagers”—akin to typical illegal gambling agreements—and therefore unenforceable either directly in any court of the United States or of any State, or under color of any judgment handed down by any foreign court. In addition, under its power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes . . . and Excises, to . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States,” Congress could subject the proceeds from “derivatives” and similar “financial instruments” that have been executed since (say) 1996 to a retroactive “Excise . . . uniform throughout the United States,” set at 99.99% of their transaction-values, with the proceeds to be secured in a true trust fund exclusively to compensate innocent victims of the present economic meltdown.
These would not be unconstitutional “ex post facto Law[s],” because the “ex post facto” prohibition applies only to “Law[s]” enforceable through criminal sanctions. And that many, or even all, of the “financial wagers” at issue take the ostensible form of private contracts cannot stand in the way, either. For many decisions of the Supreme Court hold that no private contract can frustrate the power of Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce.” Indeed, after what has happened as a result of these “financial instruments’” cancerous growth, Congress has a constitutional duty “[t]o regulate Commerce” in this manner. And, of course, because “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” none of the financial gamblers in the “derivatives” game can assert a right not to be taxed in whatever bracket Congress sees fit to impose.
B. In the long term, though, all this will not be enough. To forefend a recurrence of such financial abuses, America must return to constitutional fundamentals where money is concerned, by separating currency from debt. Currency cannot be debt; and debt cannot be currency. Period.
The only way to minimize irresponsible speculators’ blowing of financial bubbles is to minimize their ability to float their schemes on a rising tide of fiat currency. This requires tying the Nation’s currency to the realities of production in the free market as closely—and insulating it from political manipulations of its supply and purchasing power as much—as possible. For that reason, the only official “money” in the system must be, not simply “backed” by, but actually in the form of the most suitable commodity or commodities, the production of which requires inputs of scarce and costly capital and labor for which other uses vigorously compete. In such a system, official “money” is the commodity (fabricated in a particular form, for the purpose of easy verification of its amount and quality); and the commodity (in that special form) is “money.” And nothing else is. Period.
Throughout history, silver and gold have proven themselves the commodities best suited—and specifically under America’s Constitution are required—to be money. (Lincoln Greenbacks, a nationalized Federal Reserve System, “social credit,” and like schemes rely on nothing more than one or another form of debt-currency—and worse yet, unlike the present Federal Reserve System, which is in the hands of private bankers whose business acumen is at least proportionate to their greed, each of these other arrangements suffers from the fatal defect of consigning control completely to politicians, for whom après moi le déluge are the professional watchwords.)
Today, though, silver and gold are not America’s actual currency—Federal Reserve Notes irredeemable in precious metal are. So, to return America to sound monetary foundations, We the People must re-establish the permanent political and economic use of silver and gold as money on a large scale, and in a relatively short time. As a matter of law, government is the only permanent political-cum-economic institution in society. And, in modern life, governmental operations will inevitably have significant economic effects. Therefore, silver and gold must be, as a matter of law, the only forms of money that are permissible for use by government in its transactions—at every level, National, State, and Local. In the day-to-day operations of a free society, of course, private individuals and entities may use whatever they desire as media of exchange among themselves, assuming the economic risk. But, to maintain a free and prosperous society, in all transactions involving government only official commodity money of silver and gold may be used.
Why silver and gold? Not because these metals constitute the very best money anyone might imagine (although good arguments can be advanced in favor of that conclusion). But because the Constitution requires them as official money. And the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” here and now. True, judges misinterpret it, politicians and special-interest groups flout it, and all too many Americans neither comprehend it nor care to overcome their ignorance on that score. Nonetheless, it is far easier to correct misinterpretations, to enforce compliance, and to educate a critical mass of Americans as true constitutionalists on this subject so crucial to their economic survival than it would be to create a wholly new system from scratch through a constitutional convention—particularly one at which the likes of certain leading Senators and Representatives might be in attendance as the new “Founding Fathers (or Mothers).”
What would the necessary reform legislation provide, and to what end?
First, it would open the mints to “free coinage” of constitutional, legal-tender silver and gold coinage. In deference to modern technology, it would also allow for the use of private electronic silver and gold currencies that consist of fixed amounts of bullion (pure metal) held in secure storage within the United States, provided that the bullion is guaranteed to be convertible for the holders on demand into official silver and gold coins. This would cause a huge flow of silver and gold into the United States, to be coined into official money, along with the creation of new “silver and gold banks” operating on the principle of bailment, not fractional reserves.
Second, the statute would provide for a gradual “denationalization” of the Federal Reserve System’s currency, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), over some reasonable period of time (say, one year). On a fixed schedule, FRNs would be stripped of their character as “legal tender” (except with respect to contracts expressly made payable in them) and as “obligations of the United States,” and would cease to be “redeem[able] in lawful money” (or anything else) by the Treasury. In addition, all “gold certificates” the Treasury provides to the Federal Reserve, and the authority to do so, would be cancelled—thus negating Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5117 and 5119(a). Anyone who doubts that this can be done legally, as it were “just like that,” should consult Section 30 of the original Federal Reserve Act, in which “[t]he right [of Congress] to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.” Act of 23 December 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, 275.
Third, the finances of government at every level would be moved onto the silver and gold standard, by steadily increasing the percentage of taxes paid in, and of payouts to creditors, in the precious metals. Once those finances were entirely on a full specie basis, it would be a criminal offense for any public official to receive or pay out any currency other than silver and gold, except in the case of previously existing contracts made in undifferentiated “dollars,” which may be paid in FRNs (if any such still circulated), or in the silver value of such contracts at the time they were made (if FRNs no longer circulated). (On the latter point, the reader should review how private contracts made in defunct Confederate “dollars” were revalued after the Civil War.)
Fourth, the new legislation would declare: (i) that “sovereign immunity” does not exist with respect to any governmental contract payable in money, so that payment in silver and gold will always be enforceable—thus negating Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(b, c); and (ii) that any seizure by any public official of silver and gold from the people along the lines of the 1933-1934 raid by the Roosevelt Administration has always been, was specifically in 1933-1934, and is now unconstitutional.
All this, of course, is a very simplified overview of a process that is necessarily complicated by the requirement that the new money must be introduced at a pace sufficiently slow and steady that the free market can make the necessary adjustments in its structure of prices in order to minimize disruptions in production and distribution of vital goods and services as businesses shift from the old currency to the new. Patently clear, though, is that none of this will ever happen, or even have a chance of happening, until sound money, honest banking, and responsible financial markets become widely recognized as crucial components of constitutional “homeland security.” And that will never happen unless and until Americans are organized in “the Militia of the several States” throughout the country. And that will never happen unless one State revitalizes her Militia as an example and encouragement to the rest. And that will never happen unless enough Americans wake up, get up, and make it happen. And when will that happen?
Revitalizing state militias appears to be something Dr. Vieira recommends strongly. See his previous essays:
Ron Paul and the Militia, Part 1, 2
True vs. False Militia and Why the Difference Matters, Part 1, 2, 3
(More articles at the Constitutional Militia.)
Not surprisingly, he sees a connection between militias and the Second Amendment:
"THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES" GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (in 8 parts)
Is The D.C. Gun Case Off Target? (parts 2 and 3)
Also of interest: Ron Paul and Competing Currencies, in which he advocates that the states set up independent currencies.
Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira
Fiat Empire (Google Video)
Clifford J. Wirth, Peak oil preparation
Educating family, loved ones, and friends about Peak Oil and its impacts is a formidable challenge. Families that have a common understanding of Peak Oil problems can provide mutual support and group problem-solving, and they are more likely enjoy life and survive the Peak Oil catastrophe.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The blog also links to the website for the concert tour by the seminary choir from the Blessed Theodore Romzha Theological Academy in Uzhorod, Ukraine--it appears that all of the appearances are on the East coast.
THE GREATEST CATHOLIC PRESIDENT – PART II
More on Gabriel Garcia Moreno--CE, Andrew Cusack, Fisheaters
Peter V. N. Henderson, Gabriel Garcia Moreno and Conservative State Formation in the Andes
His old blog has apparently been shut down, after access had been restricted for a while.
Williams and Clark Expedition
MySpace
Bluegrass Journal: Williams & Clark Expedition kicks off spring in high gear
Bluegrass Blog
Williams and Clark Expedition - Fly Away Home
Williams and Clark Expedition - The Old Kentucky Road
Williams and Clark Expedition - I Know Love
Rhonda Vincent videos
I Will See You Again by Rhonda Vincent and the Rage
Little Maggie by Rhonda Vincent and the Rage
Rhonda Vincent GBGF 2008 08 21 2142 "Orange Blossom Special" 02:53
Rhonda Vincent GBGF 2008 08 21 2123 "Don't Lie" 02: ...
Rhonda Vincent GBGF 2008 08 21 2134 "All American BG Girl"
Rhonda Vincent GBGF 2008 08 21 2145 "YDLGIYDLYN" 03:53
Photos: German army
A German Bundeswehr army soldier of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) sits atop a Dingo armoured vehicle as he monitors the area during a mission south of Kunduz, September 27, 2008. (Reuters)
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) monitor an area during a mission near Kunduz September 26, 2008. (Reuters)
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) patrol during a mission in Toloqan, west of Kunduz, September 25, 2008. Germany has come under pressure from its NATO allies to boost troops levels and transfer soldiers from the north to the more dangerous south of the country to help fight a fierce insurgency by Taliban militants. (Reuters)
The gunner of a German Bundeswehr army CH-53 helicopter of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mans his weapon after landing from a flight from Feyzabad to Kunduz, north of Kabul, September 24, 2008. (Reuters)
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) stand next to their vehicle during a mission southeast of Feyzabad, north of Kabul, September 22, 2008. (Reuters)
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and part of a Mobile Observation and Liaison Team (MOLT) patrol during a mission in a village about 25 km (16 miles) southeast of Feyzabad, north of Kabul, September 22, 2008.
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) take a rest during a joint patrol with Afghan National army soldiers in the mountains near Feyzabad, north of Kabul, September 21, 2008. (Reuters)
Soldier of the German Bundeswehr Army patrol the hills near Faizabad in northern Afghanistan on September 21, 2008. The German Bundeswehr Army has 3,300 troops serving under NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command in northern Afghanistan which is relatively calm compared to the more volatile south and east where British, Canadian and US troops have borne the brunt of Taliban attacks. (AFP/Getty)
German Bundeswehr army soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) monitor the area on a mountain during a sweep mission with an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team on the outskirts of Feyzabad, north of Kabul September 20, 2008. (Reuters)
German General Rainer Glatz, left, checks the time with German colonel Rainer Buske as they inspect with ISAF soldiers of the German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) the outskirts of Kunduz, northern Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008.
German General Rainer Glatz inspects with ISAF soldiers of the German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) a position overlooking parts of Kunduz, northern Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008.
German Bundeswehr army gunner of the ISAF Quick Reaction Force (QRF) holds his weapon from atop a Fuchs APC on his way to a night drill in the Marmal mountains near Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, September 16, 2008.
A German Bundeswehr army soldier of ISAF forces holds his weapon during a CIMIC (Civil Military Cooperation) mission in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, Sptember 14, 2008.
Soldiers of the German Bundeswehr Army prepare to go on night patrol near Kundus in northern Afghanistan September 11, 2008. The German Army serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are under frequent attack from the Taliban in the region. (AFP/Getty)
Soldiers of the German Bundeswehr Army are on a joint night patrol with Afghani police near Kundus in northern Afghanistan September 12, 2008. The German Army serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are under frequent attack from the Taliban in the region. (AFP/Getty)
German ISAF soldiers of the Quick Reaction Force regional command north (QRF) aim their weapons during a drill in the Marmal mountains near the German ISAF headquarters in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, July 1, 2008. A German Bundeswehr army unit of combat troops to northern Afghanistan that is part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force replaced a Norwegian unit on July 1. (Reuters)
German ISAF soldiers of the Quick Reaction Force regional command north (QRF) fire their weapons during a drill near the German ISAF headquarters in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, July 1, 2008. A German Bundeswehr army unit of combat troops to northern Afghanistan that is part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force replaced a Norwegian unit on July 1. (Reuters)
German ISAF soldiers attend handover of command ceremony for the Quick Reaction Force regional command north at the German ISAF headquarters in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, June 30, 2008. A German Bundeswehr army unit of combat troops to northern Afghanistan that is part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force will replace a Norwegian unit on July 1. (Reuters)
A German ISAF soldier poses in front of a 'Marder' armoured personnel carrier during a media tour at the German ISAF headquarters in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, June 30, 2008. A German Bundeswehr army unit of combat troops to northern Afghanistan that is part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force will replace a Norwegian unit on July 1. (Reuters)
German ISAF soldiers smile during a mortar drill at a media tour at the German ISAF headquarters in Masar-i-Sharif, north of Kabul, June 30, 2008. A German Bundeswehr army unit of combat troops to northern Afghanistan that is part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force will replace a Norwegian unit on July 1. (Reuters)
A Member of the German Quick Reaction Force of the German armed forces Bundeswehr poses during a media show in Augustdorf March 17, 2008. (Reuters)
Two German soldiers stand guard besides a wreath laid down during a commemoration ceremony for German member of the resistance Count Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, 15 November 2007 at a memorial site in Berlin. Von Stauffenberg would have been 100 in 2007. Born into an aristocratic family, von Stauffenberg was an army officer during the war but grew disillusioned with the Nazis. Von Stauffenberg planted a briefcase bomb during a staff meeting with Hitler on 20 July 1944. Though the bomb went off, Hitler was not killed. Von Stauffenberg escaped the blast but was captured and executed the same day. (AFP/Getty)
(L-R) German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, Heimeran Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, Berthold Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (both sons of Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg) and German Armed Forces Inspector Wolfgang Schneiderhan attend a commemoration ceremony for German member of the resistance Count Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, 15 November 2007 at a memorial site in Berlin. Von Stauffenberg would have been 100 in 2007. Born into an aristocratic family, von Stauffenberg was an army officer during the war but grew disillusioned with the Nazis. Von Stauffenberg planted a briefcase bomb during a staff meeting with Hitler on 20 July 1944. Though the bomb went off, Hitler was not killed. Von Stauffenberg escaped the blast but was captured and executed the same day. (AFP/Getty)
Members of a German honour guard of the armed forces Bundeswehr take part in an army torchlight parade to pay tribute on the 100th birthday of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, in his birthplace Jettingen-Scheppach, November 14, 2007. Stauffenberg was a German army officer and one of the leading figures of the failed Plot in July 20, 1944 to kill German dictator Adolf Hitler. (Reuters)
A final shot at Lost in Austen
I skimmed through the final episode, since I couldn't really sit through the whole thing.
The scriptwriter, Guy Andrews, seems to be no friend of Austen, the Austen who is a Christian and a virtue ethicist in her own right. Would it be correct to say that the creators and producers think that Jane Austen is just another writer of romance novels, albeit one who was purely a creature of her time and living under those constraints? I haven't seen any indication of a better understanding of Austen.
There are those who were diverted by it, while others have been critical based on purely artistic criteria, but my grounds for disagreement go much deeper than the obvious twists supplied by the fanfic. It has just been an opportunity to show up the Regency period and create a fantasy in which a contemporary woman can win the heart of Darcy (the miniseries has to be marketable, after all). In the clash between Regency [or should we say Austen's] mores and contemporary liberal prejudices, the latter triumph. The all-invisible hand of the scribe-god has determined that it is Amanda Price who is called to return to be with Darcy, not Elizabeth Bennet, who is not welcome to return (the door to the passage opens for Amanda, not Elizabeth). At the end Elizabeth Bennet apparently decides to return to the future, where she finds life more satisfactory for an 'independent' woman. (Independence being a modern liberal illusion embraced by people of both sexes.)
As it was stated in the first episode, everyone longs to escape--and while Elizabeth escapes to the modern world for a "better life," Amanda escapes into her fantasy world to get the romance she's always wanted with her hero Mr. Darcy, not because she wants to conform her life to something she thinks is better. What else attracts this fanfic Darcy to Amanda, other than her very modernity [and lack of traditional refinement]?
And proud but stupid Darcy finally makes a smart choice in choosing to propose to Amanda. Is there much of a moral conversion on his part? It appears not, if we look at how he behaves towards Elizabeth afterwards. It's worse than the expectation that the other will change for the sake of love--we get the tired belief of the contemporary romantic, that to love is to 'accept' someone and all his flaws, and not demand change for the sake of goodness, because love and union with another not based on goodness but how the other makes you feel.
More could be written, but I don't think I'll waste any more of my time.
Friday, September 26, 2008
No Jennifer Ehle
Like mother, like daughter?
"Uh, I hope not." How can one not think badly of parents of child stars who have troubled lives? (And her mother seems to be taking to the life of glamor rather well.) When I read the news that the publication of a book by Britney Spears' mom about parenting had been delayed, shortly after the news that her sister was pregnant, I couldn't believe that a publisher actually thought she was qualified to write such a book, or that she had any credibility left that would make the book sell.
Publishers in America.
Someone should pass this slogan around in academia: "I never thought my vanity justified the cutting down of hundreds of trees."
It's too bad that the children are exposed to the programming offered by Disney and Nickelodeon and the networks--are these actually more poisonous than letting them watch soups and dramas? Grow them in narcissism and false self-esteem (pride) first, before enticing them to sin.
ABC News: Ali Lohan: On a 'Train Wreck' to Fame?
Ali Lohan Tribute
I learned that the other Miss B., the 3rd grade teacher from last year, got a job with another school district, to the northeast--I hope she's getting better pay. She seems to be a good teacher. The mother of one of her students from last year saw her at Target(?) or at the school, which is up the road. I think her new school district is a little bit better off than her old one, even though they both have schools in the same city. That part of the city is a little bit better off.
Not sure what is going on with Mrs. S'. class... but it was nice to see the 1st graders again...
Zenit: Fr. Cantalamessa's Gospel Commentary for 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Prostitutes Will Enter the Kingdom Before You
Gospel Commentary for 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time
By Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap
ROME, SEPT. 26, 2008 (Zenit.org).- "Jesus said to the chief priests and elders of the people: ‘What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, "Son, go out and work in the vineyard today." He said in reply, "I will not," but afterward changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, "Yes, sir," but did not go. Which of the two did his father's will?' They answered, ‘The first.'"
The son who says "yes" and does "no" represents those who knew God and followed his law to a certain extent but did not accept Christ, who was "the fulfillment of the law." The son who says "no" and does "yes" represents those who once lived outside the law and will of God, but then, with Christ, thought again and welcomed the Gospel.
From this Jesus draws the following conclusion before the chief priests and elders: "Truly, I say to you, even the publicans and prostitutes will enter the Kingdom of God before you."
No saying of Christ has been more manipulated than this. Some have ended up creating a kind of evangelical aura about prostitutes, idealizing them and opposing them to those with good reputations, who are all regarded without distinction as hypocritical scribes and Pharisees. Literature is full of "good" prostitutes. Just think of Verdi's "La Traviata" or the meek Sonya of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment"!
But this is a terrible misunderstanding. Jesus is talking about a limited case, as it were. "Even" the prostitutes, he wants to say, are going to enter the Kingdom of God before you. Prostitution is seen in all its seriousness and taken as a term of comparison to point out the gravity of the sin of those who stubbornly reject the truth.
We do not see that, moreover, idealizing the category of prostitute, we also idealize that of publican, which is a category that always accompanies it in the Gospel. The publicans, who were employees of the Roman tax collection agencies, participated in the unjust practices of these agencies. If Jesus links prostitutes and publicans together, he does not do this without a reason; they have both made money the most important thing in life.
It would be tragic if such passages from the Gospel made Christians less attentive to combating the degrading phenomenon of prostitution, which today has assumed alarming proportions in our cities. Jesus had too much respect for women to not suffer beforehand for that which she will become when she is reduced to this state. What he appreciates in the prostitute is not her way of life, but her capacity to change and to put her ability to love in the service of the good. Mary Magdalene, who converted and followed Jesus all the way to the cross, is an example of this (supposing that she was a prostitute).
What Jesus intends to teach with his words here he clearly says at the end: The publicans and prostitutes converted with John the Baptist's preaching; the chief priests and the elders did not. The Gospel, therefore, does not direct us to moralistic campaigns against prostitutes, but neither does it allow us to joke about it, as if it were nothing.
In the new form under which prostitution presents itself today, we see that it is now able to make a person a significant amount of money and do so without involving them in the terrible dangers to which the poor women of previous times, who were condemned to the streets, were subjected. This form consists in selling one's body safely through cameras. What a woman does when she loans herself to pornography and certain excessive forms of advertisement is to sell her body to the eyes if not to contact. This is certainly prostitution, and it is worse than traditional prostitution, because it is publicly imposed and does not respect people's freedom and sentiments.
But having denounced these things as we must, we would betray the spirit of the Gospel if we did not also speak of the hope that these words of Christ offer to women, who, on account of various circumstances (often out of desperation), have found themselves on the street, for the most part victims of unscrupulous exploitation. The Gospel is "gospel," that is, "glad tidings," news of ransom, of hope, even for prostitutes. Indeed, perhaps it is for them first of all. This is how Jesus wanted it.
[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]
* * *
Father Raniero Cantalamessa is the Pontifical Household preacher. The readings for this Sunday are Ezekiel 18:25-28; Philippians 2:1-11; Matthew 21:28-32.
New trailer for Valkyrie
official website
Will it be as good as Downfall for those who like looking at costumes (or Germany military uniforms)? But what of the story and the acting? I still think that the movie will not satisfy Catholics who wish to see von Stauffenberg's faith shown as being central to his life, or his motivation. And I don't think the movie will capture the spirit of the German aristocracy.
A photo of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. German Resistance Memorial biography.
In Honor of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg by Jørn K. Baltzersen
The beginning of the movie puts one in the mood for another movie about the North Africa campaign--apparently Steven Pressfield's Killing Rommel is being turned into a movie.
Killing Rommel by Steve Pressfield
William Lind's latest, On War #275: Van Creveld Writes Another Big Book, is a review of Martin Creveld's latest book, The Culture of War.
Creveld’s second example is today’s German military, the Bundeswehr. Germany’s politicians have demanded the Bundeswehr be stripped of all German military traditions, not just those of the Nazi period. Creveld notes thatAt first, only the years 1933-1945 were exorcised. From 1968 on, however, there was a growing tendency to extend the shadows until they covered previous periods. Not only the Panzer leader Heinz Guderian, not only the desert fox Erwin Rommel, but Hans von Seekt, Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff, Alfred von Schieffen, and Helmut von Moltke disappeared. From heroes who had served their country, they were turned into “militarist,” “reactionary,” and “imperialist” villains; in today’s casernes, it is in vain that one looks for their names or their portraits…
In comparison with similar institutions in other countries, German military academies, staff colleges, and other educational institutions have an empty, bare, functional, and soulless appearance. The relics of the “wars of liberation” apart, almost the only items on display pertain to the Bundeswehr’s own history. However, since the Bundeswehr has never gone to war, the ability of those items to excite and inspire is limited…
Given the terrible historical background, all this is perfectly understandable. On the other hand, it is indisputable that an armed force, if its members are to fight and die for their country, must have a culture of war…
One does not have to be a “militarist” or a right-wing extremist to note the peculiar smell that prevails throughout the Bundeswehr. That smell is made up of impersonal bureaucratic procedures, political correctness, and the obsequiousness that results when people worry lest speaking up will lead to bad consequences.
