A Christian Political Mythology

Being back at Quincy for a few days, I thought a blog post might be in order...

A while back I was reading a blog post and got to thinking about how we, as Christians, view the world. Is this life a place of exile or a pilgrim land, through which we merely pass? If we are merely passing through, we would do well to ignore the world, even hide from it, and focus on the end goal, our return (reditus or nostos) to the Lord. On the other hand, if this present life is a gift from the Lord, then it should not only be noticed, but cherished. How we understand the Christian response to politics is largely colored by our understanding of our present state. (I have recently been reading Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy, which has perhaps fueled my interest in legitimacy, law, subversion and such questions.) So what exactly is our present state? I have been trying to piece together a few archetypal insights into what you might call a Christian political mythology. Here it is:


Once upon on time there was a great and glorious kingdom, ruled by an ancient and wise King. Though His dominions were vast and rich, one day He decided to create a new land for His kingdom. Yes, create. Somewhere in the distant seas He decided to raise an island. He drew up plans, dispatches the greatest engineers and landscapers in the kingdom and a lavish island world was made. Legend had it that some of the most spectacular wonders of this land were the product not of His servants' hands, but of the King's own mental powers.

On this island He chose to settle some of His leading citizens. But in spite of choosing only the finest of settlers, and in spite of the lavish world He had created for them, the island settlers revolted against the King. And so, He decreed, their island home would no longer be a place of privilege, but of exile.

As the years passed, the distant King became increasingly relegated to the stories of legend. There were rumors among the islanders that at some distant time His armies had come and smashed the greatest wonders of their island home. But many of them doubted that these stories were true. They began to doubt that there were other lands, a splendid capital city with streets of gold, or a great and benevolent King Who ruled there. Some of the islanders even began to doubt that there were such things as greatness or benevolence.

But then a very curious thing happened: the King returned to His island. At least, that is what certain small gatherings of people began to claim. First they whispered it in the dark, but soon some were shouting it in the streets. He had returned, showing Himself to those of His subjects who were still faithful. He assured them that greatness and benevolence and love were indeed real, and He was the embodiment of them all.

But then something as curious as the King's return occurred (or so the story was told). He left. The King left the island once again. He had ordered those willing to listen to live as His faithful subjects and then He had left. But not without promising to return again (and this time, He said, there would be no confusion: He would come in power and might with all the royal armies). Moreover, He promised that those who remained faithful citizens of the kingdom, who proved themselves in the midst of this rebellious land, would be taken with Him back to His capital city, where they would rule with Him.

But what, the faithful asked, were they to do in the meantime? Should they seize control of the island, making war on their fellow islanders? Many doubted that had been the King's intention. Indeed, from time to time secret messages would be smuggled back and forth between the King, on the mainland, and His faithful subjects on the island. Though He exhorted them to love one another and remain faithful to Him, He never spelled out exactly how the island should be governed. While a handful of the islanders proclaimed themselves to be in open rebellion against the King, most simply doubted His existence. Some even stated publicly that they wished there was a King beyond the seas, but - alas - they were convinced there was none.

Some of the small number of open rebels, denouncing the tyranny of the King, demanded a government of the people, a democracy. The vast majority, doubting there ever had been a King, did not see themselves as rebels, but nevertheless thought this a good idea. Could they too, the faithful wondered, enter into such a government? Or would it be treason, a betrayal of their beloved King? Some said they should have no dealings with rebels. Other insisted that by sitting in council with the doubters, perhaps the faithful could win them over. And, after all, the King had left no governor to rule the island in His stead. Was it really treasonous to form a democracy, which might try to govern according to His will, in His absence? Some insisted the faithful should band together in one corner of the island, where they might live according to the King's laws, abandoning the rest of the island to the rebels. Other thought the King would want them to extend His reign across the whole of the land.


This, it seems to me, is the basic place of the Christian: we live in a world which was once a gift, became an exile, but has been transformed into a rite of passage, a preparation for some great reward and responsibility to come. How do we, Christians, live in the midst of a secular world? Do we abandon the political realm to the secularists? Do we try to seize government to impose virtue upon the unbelieving? Can we compromise with those do not share our moral views?

Insofar as the world is in rebellion against God, we are subversives in such a world. But we are also restorationists, traditionalists, loyalists trying to defend the monarchy of Christ the King. We are revolutionaries, insofar as we are called to change the world. But we are also pilgrims, ever called to remember that something greater lies beyond this world, and in our future.

These, it seems to me, are the conundra of Christian political philosophy. Relating them in a single story does not solve them but it does, I hope, at least bring the questions into slightly sharper focus, by bringing them into relation with one another.

An Odd sight

Last.fm is a really interesting music site that tracks one's listening habits and graphs them for the world to see. It is an interesting social way to stay in touch with music and find new artists. However as iTunes becomes a more full featured eco system things like television shows and movies have started showing up in my last.fm catalogue. I was a little surprised to log in and see that one of my recently added "artists" was Mrs. Cindy McCain. As it turns out both conventions created podcasts of the speaches that were available via iTunes. Now it is possible to broadcast one's political aptitude right along side an eclectic and sophisticated musical taste.

Ah the confluence of thechnologies.

Foreign Policy Has a Sex Appeal

Why sex and foreign policy aren’t as different as you might think

By Colin Parks

Would you believe that having sex can provide you with a better guide to effective foreign policy than any political theory out there? In fact, if our policy makers spent more time nurturing their sex lives, they could find themselves more attuned to the most effective tools of statecraft. This should come as no surprise and I’ll tell you why.

In order to have sex, you have three options. You can buy it, i.e. prostitution; you can take it by force, i.e. rape; or you can seduce it, i.e. the art of romance. Buying sex is usually only a temporary fix and an expensive one at that; most prostitutes don’t offer blue-light specials. Furthermore, it might not be the most desirable experience unless a dingy motel room, cheap champagne, and the incessant glow of neon lights is your idea of a romantic getaway. Forcing sex might be desirable for some but for most it simply isn’t worth the likely consequences, i.e. spending the rest of your life behind bars in an orange jump suit contemplating escape with a spoon and a bed spring.

How then, do you use seduction to get sex? You first need to possess certain elements of attraction such as good looks, an appealing personality, and some sort of alluring feature that compels your intended companion to get a little frisky with you; generally a few sprays of cologne will turn the trick. Second, you need to have a strategy; sex on first contact isn’t usually the rule but rather the exception. You need to take the time to get to know your companion, i.e. enduring a few awkward dates, engaging in conversation more enlightening than the weather, and actually noticing little things like eye color and the type of shoes your companion is wearing; observing bust size doesn’t qualify! Finally, you have to set the mood; a few candles and some sultry music will do. A little tender, loving, care can go a long way so don’t be afraid to sharpen your massage skills. What’s more, when the deed is done, you can’t just fall asleep or abruptly leave. It pays to cuddle and stay around for breakfast. While it might take a bit longer and require more finesse, if executed skillfully seduction can result in quality, long lasting, and meaningful sex, without the messy consequences of prostitution or rape.

So why is sex similar to foreign policy? If it isn’t already apparent, nations have three options when deciding how to achieve a particular foreign policy objective. Like sex, they can buy it, i.e. with bribery or economic sanctions; they can take it, i.e. with military force; or they can seduce it, i.e. creating an allure via soft power. The first two options are hard power methods frequently used to coerce or compel an adversary to succumb to your will, tangible instruments that clearly indicate a nation’s desire to alter behavior or gain the advantage in a given scenario. However, these options can have dire consequences. Economic sanctions, bribery, and war can be costly, extremely risky, and lacking in quality assurance. Moreover, military force and the careless use of economic sanctions can produce damaging ripple effects that can be difficult to suppress. One only needs to look at the situation in Iraq to ascertain that the friction and uncertainty of war can create more problems than solutions, and the case of Cuba to realize that buying your objectives doesn’t necessarily work.

The seduction of soft power attempts to alleviate some of the pains associated with the misuse of hard power by using public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy to persuade an adversary rather than coerce it. This implies confidence in one’s ideals and principles, and a willingness and ability to export them. For the United States, this means accentuating our most appealing qualities such as democracy, the rule of law, plurality, and freedom. It also means tapping into the alluring features of culture such as music and art. These elements can potentially convince an adversary to view the U.S. in a more positive light; a nation that finds us attractive is more likely to emulate our behavior and subsequently comply with our demands. Like a seductress, however, the purveyor of soft power must be patient and willing to invest in a little TLC.

So maybe the hippie mantra “Make Love, Not War!” has a point. If we take the time to seduce our target and tap into the softer side of foreign policy, we have a greater chance of securing our foreign policy objectives in a manner that ensures lasting relationships. Like a good lover, the U.S. must be willing to sustain its soft power initiatives over time by not abandoning these initiatives when the deed is done and sticking around for a little cuddle time.



Colin Parks is a graduate student at The Institute of World Politics in Washington where he studies the elements of statecraft in national security and foreign affairs. He can be contacted at parks@iwp.edu,

The Vatican Through an Ambassador's Eye

The Vatican Through an Ambassador's Eye

Accompanying the U.S. Envoy to the Holy See

By Elizabeth Lev

ROME, MARCH 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Art historians secretly dream of going back in time to see artistic masterpieces in their original environment, rather than as museum pieces. In their wildest flights of fancy, they fantasize about being part of that world.

Last Friday, this art historian lived that dream when I accompanied my mother, Mary Ann Glendon, as she presented her credentials to Benedict XVI as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See.

As we donned our black mantillas at the embassy residence, we were already entering into a different criterion of beauty and worth. Covered head to toe in long skirts and jackets, all I saw were the radiantly happy faces of my mother, sisters and daughters.

Click here to read more.

Britain Kow Tows to China

The Daily Mail released a scathing article about the British Olympic committee's decision to gag its athletes at the Beijing Olympics. They write:

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's appalling human rights record – or face being banned from traveling to Beijing.

The move – which raises the specter of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest....

From the moment they sign up, the competitors – likely to include the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe – will be effectively gagged from commenting on China's politics, human rights abuses or illegal occupation of Tibet.

Prince Charles has already let it be known that he will not be going to China, even if he is invited by Games organizers.

His views on the Communist dictatorship are well known, after this newspaper revealed how he described China's leaders as “appalling old waxworks” in a journal written after he attended the handover of Hong Kong. The Prince is also a long-time supporter of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader....

The [British Olympic Association] took the decision even though other countries – including the United States, Canada, Finland, and Australia – have pledged that their athletes would be free to speak about any issue concerning China.

To date, only New Zealand and Belgium have banned their athletes from giving political opinions while competing at the Games....

However, human rights campaigner Lord David Alton condemned the move as “making a mockery” of the right to free speech.

The controversial decision to award the Olympics to Beijing means this year's Games have the potential to be the most politically charged since 1936.

Adolf Hitler used the Munich Games that year to glorify his Nazi regime, although his claims of Aryan superiority were undermined by black American athlete Jesse Owens winning four gold medals.

More recently, there was a mass boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan....

Former Olympic rowing champion Matthew Pinsent has already criticized the Chinese authorities over the training methods used on children, which he regarded as tantamount to abuse. Young gymnasts told him they were repeatedly beaten during training sessions....

Lord Alton said: “It is extraordinary to bar athletes from expressing an opinion about China's human-rights record. About the only justification for participating in the Beijing Games is that it offers an opportunity to encourage more awareness about human rights.

“Imposing compulsory vows of silence is an affront to our athletes, and in China it will be viewed as acquiescence.

“Each year 8,000 executions take place in China, political and religious opinion is repressed, journalists are jailed and the internet and overseas broadcasts are heavily censored.

“For our athletes to be told that they may not make any comment makes a mockery of our own country's belief in free speech.”

Who's more Pro-Life?

My vitriol towards a particular Texas congressman's presidential bid is probably well known. However, after overhearing an absurd conversation while at work today, I feel the need to post a little bit of information. The National Right to Life organization puts together a file of how every member of Congress voted on key life issues, ranging from abortion to euthanasia to stem cell research. You can quibble with some of their selections, no doubt, but the gist of it is pretty sound.

Now John McCain scored 31 happy green check marks for pro-life votes and 11 unhappy red x's for anti-life votes. That's about what you'd expect, from what you hear in the media. The guy's pro-life on the most salient issues, but not "perfect" on some of the details.

What's interesting is that Ron Paul's record is not so different: 51 happy green checks and 16 unhappy red x's. (The disparity in totals is a result of votes which the congressmen either missed or in which they were ineligible to participate.) So in fact Ron Paul has voted against life more often than John McCain, and both of them have a ratio of about 3:1, pro-life to anti-life.

Detailed research might show that one member of congress missed more key votes in one direction than the other; it could be that one or both knew that the pro-life camp would carry the day and so they didn't mind missing certain counts. I don't know, but if you're bored you're welcome to look into the matter.

However, I think the basic point has been made. Dr. Ron Paul, deliverer of babies and champion of certain pro-life and conservative factions, is in fact not significantly different from John McCain when it comes to voting.

Muslim scholars decry terrorism

It's this sort of thing that will win the War on Terror in the long run:

An influential group of Muslim theologians in India have denounced terrorism, saying it is completely against the teachings of Islam.

Click here to read the article.

Thinking About Writing it Down

As Americans, we tend to think of constitutions as things written on yellow paper and kept in bomb-proof vaults for all to see. Well, that's not the case in Britain. The British constitution is a collection of customs and odd laws here and there. But that may change.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw is looking at the possibility of drafting a single, written constitution. The BBC reports:

He said the move would encapsulate in one document a citizen's rights, their responsibilities and an outline of how the different arms of government work.

He told the BBC the process could take 20 years and depend on a referendum.

In a speech in the US later he will say most UK people "struggle to put a finger on where their rights are".

Unions Aim to Subvert Democracy

This is an alarmist headline. It also happens to be true, which is why the alarm should be raised.

The United Food and Commercial Workers are trying to force unionization on the employees of the Bashas' grocery chain; meanwhile, a second union is trying to work its way into the Milum Textile Service in downtown Phoenix.

The Phoenix New Times reports that there is a lot more going on than just a little political lobbying:

At the heart of both conflicts is the unions' goal of forcing management into labor agreements without giving employees the chance to vote in a secret-ballot election....

Officials at Bashas' and Milum Textile say they want secret-ballot elections overseen by the National Labor Relations Board to decide whether their workers are unionized. If more than half of their employees vote to unionize, the companies would have to work with respective unions to set wages, benefits, and workplace rules for affiliated employees.

The unions have a different plan. They want to do an end-run around such elections, which long have been the usual route to organizing workers. They want the matter decided through what's known as the "card-check" system....

Under the card-check system, union advocates gather workers' signatures on union-approval cards over time. If they eventually get more than half of a company's workers to sign up, the union can legally represent the firm's employees without an election — as long as the employer agrees to acknowledge the card-check system.

Neither Bashas' nor Milum will acknowledge the system.

What's particularly galling about this "card-check system" is that the union will know who hasn't voted for them yet; no one's identity is kept secret.

In other words, the unions would like to overturn one of the key components of the democratic system: the secret ballot. Ancient Athens and Rome employed the secret ballot for many important decisions, but apparently the unions would rather take their cues from the totalitarians whose Marxist ideology still permeates so much of the American labor movement.

And just in case it wasn't enough for them to try to do away with secret balloting, they're busy bribing people to plant stories in the media:

Tolentino Lazaro, a 64-year-old janitor, said he used to see cats in the building occasionally, but not anymore. The place can get dirty, he admitted, but he said he never saw rats.

Lazaro's said his problem was that he didn't like how Bashas' treated him after he was injured on the job. He said the company paid him less because he was on light duty for a few months.

When Lazaro was finished telling his story to New Times, Sanchez [a UFCW official] fished a $5 bill out of his wallet and started to hand it to Lazaro.

"No, no!" Giglio [another UFCW official] told Sanchez. "You're not supposed to pay him in front of the reporter."

And in case you were wondering, the United States House voted in favor of doing away with the secret ballot for union elections; only the Senate stopped them. In the lower chamber, every single Democrat voted to abolish secret balloting.

Quincy Demands Apology for Racist Comment

Yesterday presidential candidate Barack Obama made a very racist comment implying that Caucasian-Americans cannot dance.

When asked if he thought Bill Clinton was America's "first black president," Mr. Obama answered: "I would have to investigate more Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was in fact a brother."



Some of us hoped that America had moved beyond this sort of racial stereotyping, but apparently not. In any case, the Quincy House blog is calling upon Barack Obama to apologize for his comments, which were deeply hurtful to members of the Caucasian-American community.


*** This post has not been vetted by all members of the Quincy House and may not represent the views of all House residents. ***

A new figure: Part III

While studying the works of an obscure Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci (pictured left), for my History of Political Warfare exam, I was struck by his picture. The resemblance with a soon-to-be housemate is, well, striking. Is it possible that Gramsci did not die in 1937, as suspected, but is in fact still among us, posing as one Santiago Ramos (pictured right)? Decide for yourself.

75 Years! Time to Celebrate

"You make wine to cheer human hearts, olive oil to make faces shine, and bread to strengthen human hearts." Psalm 104:15


Today, December the 5th 2007 is the beginning of the 75th year that the absurdity of prohibition was repealed in the United States.

Here at the Quincy House we are raising a glass to those courageous lawmakers who realized that the heavy hand of the state was causing more harm than good.

This is a cause for celebration, however, even now the vestiges of that dark time still live with us. The freedoms that our forefathers, Jefferson, Washington and countless others fought for are still not fully attainable to the average American. If my patriotic fervor led me to emulate our first president and distill a batch of rye whiskey, the over reaching federal powers would definitely not smile.

So raise a glass.

Boycotting the Beijing Games

I'm boycotting the Beijing Olympics. No, I have not been invited to participate, nor was I ever really planning on attending.

Normally I'm kind of opposed to boycotts. In the modern economy, revenue streams can be very complicated and corporations are often wholly- or partially-owned subsidiaries of some other company. The goals of many boycotts are ambiguous and the message intended to be sent and the means by which it will be sent are often unclear. Furthermore, the time span for most boycotts is vague: if the boycott's goals are not achieved in a timely manner, will it drag on indefinitely?

To address such questions, I figured I'd post a small manifesto for my Beijing Olympic boycott:

What is to be boycotted?

Coverage of the Games, in print or on television, including the opening and closing ceremonies. Any merchandise is also out.

How long will the boycott last?

The length of the Games, 8-24 August 2008.

What is the goal of the boycott?

I am under no illusion that the infinitesimal amount of money the Chinese regime will lose due to my boycott will go noticed. Nor am I under the illusion that millions will flock to my side, creating a mass movement that will in some way harm the regime. (Though I must confess that, if this happened, I would not be opposed.)

Instead, this boycott is aimed at educating fellow Americans about the evils of the Chinese regime. Inevitably there will be get-togethers to watch the opening ceremony; I plan on being in the next room telling folks why I'm not watching the TV. The list of reasons is so extensive I struggle to find the right place to start:


* The Chinese regime has supported the military junta in Burma for years; had the Chinese wanted to stop the suppression of monastically-lead pro-democracy demonstrations this year, it could have. It didn't.

*The Chinese regime conducting ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, intentionally conducting nuclear tests upwind of population centers of Turkic Uyghur populations, releasing violent criminals into Xinjiang to help kill of the Uyghurs, and settling large numbers of heavily-armed ethnic Han Chinese to drive them out.

*The Chinese regime is destroying Tibetan culture, to such an extent that the Dahli Lama has threatened not to reincarnate himself in Chinese-controlled Tibet, so oppressive is the environment.

*The Chinese regime and its various state-owned industries stealing American commercial secrets left and right. This is not free trade, this is industrial espionage, intellectual piracy. Under the guise of winning jobs for their own people, the Chinese regime demands that most products sold in China be made in China; this allows them to copy any and every design for products made there. (And have no doubts, they are copying with a vengeance.)

*The Chinese regime routinely hacks American networks, trying to steal military and political secrets from the government and contractors.

*The Chinese regime is busy subverting South Pacific island nations, as it tries to out-maneuver Taiwan for diplomatic influence in the region. This subversion has included - but is not limited to - support for the coup in Fiji.

*The Chinese regime has armed the Taliban, thereby threatening the lives of Afghans, Americans and their other allies, and delaying democracy and development in that nation.

*The Chinese regime suppresses democracy at home, heavily censors the internet (including this website), makes use of slave labor, oppressing the Catholic Church, poisons its own rivers and engages in more abuses than I have time to type.

*Oh, yes. And the Chinese regime has displaced 1.5 million of its own people to build the Olympic Park in Beijing. And you thought use of eminent domain was out of control here...

Welcome

If you haven't been keeping up with the house, we recently said farewell to our Canadian house member Mr. F. J. Roderick. We were all sad to see him go. In his place we have added a new house mate to the distinguished ranks of Quincy.
Mr. EB joins quincy from the far off land of Ohio. For more info on him check out his entry in our about page. You can also read his brand new blog (just don't let it cut into your regularly scheduled quincy blog reading time).

Between Pride and Prejudice: The Problem of History

In its latest Weekend Edition the Financial Times ran an article on a catchy song that has become popular amongst Afrikaners, "De la Rey," by Bok van Blerk.



The song has been the source of much controversy. The title character is Koos de la Rey, an Afrikaner guerrilla general from the Anglo-Boer Wars. Some claim the song promotes racist nationalism and plays to a crowd that desires a return to apartheid, and there is no doubt that these elements have indeed embraced the song. (The translation of the lyrics below was first found by Google on the Stormfront White Nationalist Community website.) Others, among them Bok van Blerk himself, claim that's going too far.

We wanted to sing a song about history and the general, to be proud. De la Rey did not want to go to war. He stood up for the right things, for freedom.... The song wasn't written for [a political] reason.... I wanted to create something for people to be proud of. It's like 'Flower of Scotland.' There's a warm feeling inside and it's got that feel to it. My generation of Afrikaners wants to be proud of who we are and were we come from, and our language.

While the United States does not exactly face the same questions of race, culture and politics found in South Africa, the same themes are in the air here, as seen by recent debates about immigration, affirmative action and English as the official language. Is this dangerous nationalism or innocent cultural pride?


De la Rey
by Bok van Bleck

On a mountain in the night
we lie in the darkness and wait
In the mud and blood
I lie cold,
grain bag and rain cling to me.
And my house and my farm,
burned to ashes
so that they could catch us
But those flames and that fire
burn now deep, deep within me.

Chorus:
De la Rey, De la Rey,
will you come to lead the Boers?
De la Rey, De la Rey
General, General, as one man
we'll fall in around you
General De la Rey

And the Khakis [Brits] that laugh
-- [just] a handful of us
against their whole great might --
With the cliffs to our backs,
they think it's all over
But the heart of the Boer lies deeper and wider,
that they'll still find [out]

At a gallop he comes,
the Lion of the West Transvaal

Chorus

Because my wife and my child,
lie in a Hell-camp and perish
And the Khakis' vengeance
is poured over
a nation that will rise up again

Chorus

De la Rey, De la Rey,
will you come for the Boers?


Note: The flag seen in the video which might at first glance be mistaken for the American flag is in fact the flag of the Orange Free State.

Remembering the July 20 Plot

Sixty three years ago today the Catholic aristocrat Col. Claus von Stauffenberg placed a bomb under Hitler's table at his isolated headquarters in Prussia. Though
Stauffenberg’s bomb did not succeeded in killing the Führer, it left his right arm partly paralyzed, burned his right leg and damaged both eardrums. “He would never fully recover from the physical and mental shocks,” one author wrote. To the armchair historian of World War II, Stauffenberg's failed assassination attempt is common knowledge.

Far less well known is that a large conspiracy stood behind Stauffenberg; their planned coup began to unfold in spite of the assassination attempt's failure, until they were brutally put down by the SS. That the Third Reich was in turmoil was not widely known to the Allies or the German people.

Stauffenberg’s bomb was not an isolated incident. In the hours after its explosion, orders were being issued from the conspirators’ Berlin headquarters. Paris, Vienna, Prague, Belgrade, and other parts of Germany and of German-occupied countries were in ferment. When Hitler received word that order had not been restored to Berlin he gave the SS authority to shoot on sight, demanding the situation be brought under control; thousands would be rounded up, tortured and killed to that end.

Meanwhile, each Military District commander throughout Germany was told to open a sealed envelope in his safe labeled Walküre (Valkyrie), the special orders for operating against internal disturbances; these orders, carefully written by the conspirators over the preceding months, established martial law and reveled the location of the Gestapo’s secret headquarters and the likely hiding places of top Nazis. In addition, reports of Hitler’s death and an alleged SS attack upon the Wehrmacht were sent out. Strategic points were ordered occupied and SS leaders arrested.

However, the reserve troops that were suppose to secure Berlin were late in coming; by 7:00pm, when the conspirators decided they needed to seize the radio station so Gen. Beck could make a statement, they still did not have enough reliable troops to do so. When Major Remer, commander of a unit of the crack Grossdeutschland division, was ordered to occupy the Reich Chancellery and arrest a number of SS officers, he questioned the source of the orders and, after a series of telephone calls, ended up speaking with Hitler himself, who gave him authority to “shoot as many people as he liked” and ordered him to clean out the Replacement Army. Remer immediately began stopping military units coming into Berlin, ordering back from whence they came.

The popular Col. Gen. Heinz Guderian, who had been a tacit supporter of the conspiracy, also began ordering troops out of the city, when he saw that the putsch had failed. In one case a tank battalion returned to its barracks in the town of Crampnitz, only to find that the SS had gotten there first, burning the barracks and massacring the soldiers still there. The SS had fewer inhibitions than the army.

By 9:00pm the Nazis had regained control of Berlin. Gen. Beck was forced to take his own life. Col. Stauffenberg and several other leading conspirators were summarily executed. By 11:00pm the staff at Stauffenberg’s office were arrested, their lives spared by the Gestapo in order to interrogate them and find out the names of other conspirators.

Allen W. Dulles, the first English-language historian of the July 20 plot wrote this:

There was an anti-Nazi underground working in Germany, despite the general impression to the contrary. It developed out of heterogeneous groups that finally achieved a working unity and reached into the vitals of the army and the government services. Professional men, church and labor leaders, and high commanding officers on various fronts participated. Even Field Marshals [Erwin] Rommel and [Günther] von Kluge finally had a share, but this was late in the day, when they saw that military victory had eluded them. But there were others of a very different moral fiber, both civilian and military, who were not opportunists and who had fought Hitlerism for many years.... It is easy to criticize the German underground for its delays, disunities, vacillations, and ultimate failure. But in a police state such as Hitler and Himmler organized it is not likely that men will do much better than a Beck, a Goerdeler, a Moltke, a Leuschner or a Stauffenberg.

Are the Democrats Really Interested in Ending the War?

Amidst Wednesday’s coverage of the Senate’s late-night debate on a piece of Democratic legislation to withdraw US forces from Iraq, the BBC reported this tidbit:

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says most Republicans who are unhappy with the current course in Iraq favour less direct measures to influence policy and were hoping to vote on these in the next few days. However, our correspondent says, it appears that, for the moment, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not want to allow them to do so. He has directed the Senate to move on to discussion of legislation unrelated to the Iraq war.

And why is this? If Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats (including all of the party’s leading presidential hopefuls) were really interested in bringing home the troops – and not just making political hay out of the war’s growing unpopularity at home – they’d be exploring other options with moderate Republicans. But they’re not. Why? Because it wouldn’t be dramatic enough and it would rob the Democrats of the ‘us versus them’ victory they’re looking for.

I say it’s high time the Democrats stop playing around with the lives of American servicemen for political gain, the very thing – ironically – they accuse the GOP of having done.

Mugabe critic sued for adultery

A prominent critic of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, is being sued for alleged adultery. The lawsuit has been filed by the husband of a woman who worked as a secretary in the archbishop's office. Lawyers for Archbishop Ncube called the allegations an orchestrated attempt to discredit him.

The archbishop, who denies the allegations, has openly denounced Mr Mugabe as a "megalomaniac". Earlier this month in an interview with the BBC, he argued that a case could be made for the overthrow of the president. He has said the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe has reached "life-threatening proportions", and that regional political intervention was now needed. [More]

Thank you, Uncle Sam...