Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 2

In Part 1 we went over some of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices of blood sacrifice. If we understand the symbolic nature of blood, we will understand the nature of blood sacrifice. If we understand the nature of blood sacrifice, we will understand the repentance and atonement with God and our path to the East will be better illuminated thereby.

Blood is the perfect symbol for our mortal, corruptible state. Leviticus 17:11 reads, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Note that it says "the life of flesh" because before we existed here, on this earth, in our frail, mortal forms, we existed. What we lacked was bodies, what we lacked was mortality and a temporary separation from God; all of which are necessary prerequisites to atonement.

Blood is peculiar to the condition of mortality and a symbol of corruptibility. When a body is embalmed, it is drained of blood, which is replaced with a preservative. In a similar vein, (sorry, couldn't resist) Brother Joseph Smith recorded from his vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that they had bodies of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) and that in their veins was a clear substance he called "spirit". Thus, the embalming process mirrors ascension.

We should also take into consideration the traditions about being ritually unclean. According to the Law, contact with blood or dead bodies or menstruating women etc. made one ritually unclean and unable to pray or worship. (Islam takes it a step further, contact with ANY woman makes a man unclean) This can be confusing when we talk about "being washed in the Blood" but I hope to clear things up.

Blood is the simplest, most distilled symbol for the mortal condition. Life is full of stuff-possessions, distractions, vices, hobbies, vocations, ideas etc. that while appealing to our eyes, are trivial and selfish. In order to come unto God we must set aside those things. It's tricky, because living in the world means we can't entirely forsake them either. What we need is a willingness to give up whatsoever is corruptible to gain the incorruptible, to gain atonement with God.

It takes faith, real faith, to sacrifice the things of this world in hope of a better one ruled by a merciful God. It is the faith made manifest unto God and ourselves through obeying the commandments and sacrifice which qualifies us for The Atonement. Jesus said "Not every man who saith unto me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." James 2:17-18 says that faith without works (sacrifice?) is dead and that faith is shown by works (sacrifice).

The final point I wish to hit before ending part 2 is the necessity of mortality in the Great Plan to bring souls to atonement with God. Theologians have lamented the Fall of Adam for millennia but I firmly believe that being cast out of the Garden, away from God and into this corrupt state was essential so that we could gain atonement with God. Otherwise there would be no way to show faith, no need to show faith and even no way to have faith. Without the Fall, there would be no need of reliance on Him.

Thank God for Eve.

Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 1

How is mankind to be saved? What is the path back to God?-these are questions put forth, and answers returned, in every religion. Ultimately, these are questions that every man and woman must wrestle with for themselves. The idea of blood sacrifice is infused in many ancient cultures and religions. The Chaldeans of Ur sacrificed virgins, Mayan kings blood-let from their phallus and Christians, not to be out done, declare that the blood sacrifice of one man was so powerful as to redeem the world. In my own personal ponderings I have tried to put the pieces together and I wish to share some thoughts with you, in the hope the reader finds something of value in their quest to the East.

The Jews of ancient Israel were famous for two things, strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the sacrifice of lambs. (also Idolatry) The Law of Moses had a couple hundred commandments and as long as you didn't break any of them, you were saved and returned to God. More knowledgeable scholars on Jewish ritual abound but, pretty much, once a year each family sacrificed one unblemished lamb (there were lots of requirements not important at the moment) to make up for that year's transgressions of the Law of that family. Similarly, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would bring forth two goats and cast lots. One, representing the Messiah, was killed so the other (representing the Israelites) could be set free.

Now by the time we get around to the New Testament, Judaism is a religion of rules and strict adherence to the rules. In order to makes sure the rules were followed new rules were made to provide a buffer zone around the "real" rules and then another layer was added around those. This is the problem with the Law, or a rule-based theology, one violation and you are toast (in more ways than one). Many look at this kind of system and reject it because they think there is more to God than rules. They are right.

If we really look at the Law of Moses, and how it was first practiced, it is clear there is a lot more going on there than a list of rules. How was the shedding of the blood of an animal making up for disobedience?

When Jesus of Nazareth knelt in the garden at Gethsemane to repent for the sins of the world scripture tells us he sweat great drops of blood. This scene played out again on the Cross, as his life blood was drained away. Part God and part man, he led an innocent life. He alone among all of mankind had no need of repentance, of atonement-for He was a God. Yet somehow, this ultimate act, this supreme blood sacrifice, gave him power over death and the power to wash away the sins of all mankind through His blood.

The point I wish to highlight is that sin, breaking the rules, is made ok by blood sacrifice. Atonement, becoming one with God, is accomplished by the sacrificial shedding of blood. Why?

Historiography

Upon reading the title my reader(s) entered one of two categories: either someone who knows what Historiography is or someone who is reading the entry. Since anyone reading obviously doesn't know what historiography is I'll explain. Historiography is the most boring topic on earth. I am not making that up. Historians, you know, the kind of people who get excited reading about the inner squabbling of Dutch merchant guilds in 17th century Amsterdam find historiography boring. Historiography is the study of the study of History. You heard that right, its the history of people writing history. In the Dr. Seuss book "Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are." he tries to imagine the worst possible fates that could befall someone, Dr. Seuss accurately describes historiography in action in the part about the Bee Watch Watch Watcher Watcher. In fact, I am starting a rumor that the entire inspiration for that book was Dr. Seuss learning what historiography is. Pass it on, its highly possible.

Why then do historians write them? Why is a paper considered worthless garbage if it doesn't start with one? Because its important. Our perceptions change with time and it can be helpful to learn how people in the past thought about the past. One quick example before I get on to my topic, I remember when I was five my parents taking me to see the annual reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. Now we celebrate that battle as perhaps the most important event in our history. But the first commemoration on the anniversary wasn't until the 1820s. A politician running for office drug out the last surviving veterans to honor them for their deeds. One cynical observer at the time remarked that even if there were no survivors the candidate would have exhumed the bodies from the graveyard so he could publicly honor them.

I know macro-historiography sounds boring enough to kill but in the spirit of full disclosure I feel I need to go there. The how and why of writing history has shifted dramatically since the first historians invented the concept. There is such a thing as Academic History that we teach in our universities and that I was trained in. What I write on the blog is not academic history style and I admit that. For one, I write in narrative format as opposed to the more neutral academic tone. I don't usually get into the details of historical disputes (you should thank me because that's historiography.) Technically history is supposed to be an unbiased quest for historical truth but that's just not how it is. Actually I think the biggest kritik of academic style is that its pretentious in claiming to get to the actual truth when we openly admit that our writing will always be a bit biased. Since the mid-19th century History as a discipline has been trying to get itself classed as a social science and the fact that it by nature can't be observed dispassionately or lend itself to repeatable experiments using the scientific method are a few of the many reasons it isn't.

Livy was a very important Roman Historian who was a friend of Julius Caesar. He wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a 142 volume history of Rome that covered its first 745 years. The fact that his work was used heavily as a source by Edward Gibbon, one of the fathers of modern history, in his six volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is even more impressive when you consider that out of 142 volumes only 35 survive intact. However, were Livy writing today he wouldn't be able to get his articles published by any self respecting academic journal. That's because Livy spells out at the very beginning that he is writing history in order to provide moral instruction to what he sees as a morally decaying Rome. He tells a lot of myths about the early days of Rome which he may or may not have made up. If you want to see what I am talking about check out my post on Jacques-Louis David, who painted lots of paintings to give moral lessons using stories from Livy.

That's pretty much what I do except I go one step further and try to relate it to today's politics. I use a conversational tone to reach laymen bored with other history writing so history is more accessible. Perhaps its best to describe what I do as more using History instead of writing History.

A Clear and Present Danger From the South: Part 1

I want to talk about a mostly forgotten footnote of history for a minute. On the Blog I don't torture my reader(s) with history gratuitously; there is always a point I am trying to make. I don't think I will get to it today hence naming this blog part 1.

In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.

In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.

There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.

In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.

Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."

Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.

But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.

Notes from our History Part 2: Risking Enslavement

The Colonists described the status quo and their position in it as "Risking Enslavement." Before you roll your eyes at the colonists for being melodramatic remember this: many of them were slave owners, or, by a different name, engine of wealth owners. Engine of wealth owners made their living by driving their engines of wealth as efficiently as possible and not by making them happy.

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.

The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.

Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.

The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.


What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.

This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.

Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth

"No taxation without representation!" This little gem from elementary school is a product of the sad reality that usually we overgeneralize history for the mass market to the point of inaccuracy. From this statement the logical conclusion is that the colonists were pissed off about the monetary ramifications of new taxes; which makes them look both greedy, and, since the taxes were not that high, unreasonable.

The colonists themselves used the term "Engines of Wealth" to describe how they thought the Crown was starting to view them. Since both Parliament and the King largely ignored their opinion and just passed new taxes they came to the conclusion that they were seen only as workers who needed to produce money for the Crown. The difference between a citizen and an engine of wealth is huge. One is served by the government and the other serves the government. One needs freedom and the other needs more taxes.

What this means for us today:
Where this starts to apply is when we consider the results when the Government over-commits to social programs and has to fight to stay in the black by desperately taxing everything that moves with a motion tax and everything that doesn't with a parking ticket. It's a known fact that the British National Healthcare System (NHS) is horribly broke and needs new sources of income. See the above two examples, they are a few of many.

Next time the long term consequences of the engine of wealth mentality.

Notes from our History, the mini-series.

America is undergoing a huge transformation. There is no denying this but what the end result will be remains unclear. I can't even say if its going to the right or to the left at this point. Clearly the Democrats in power have switched from the old American Democrat platform to the Social Democrat platform that dominates Europe today. The Social Democrat ideology is to bring sweeping social programs to the populace through legislative reform, (As opposed to its cousins Communism and National Socialism which seek to bring sweeping social change through violent revolution.) As a result we are seeing for the first time mass grassroots mobilization of the normally passive Conservative movement. In the coming years we may see a backlash against the (Social) Democrats so severe as to send America careening to the right. It's just too soon to tell.

In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.

From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.

Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 3

The colonists revolted when their fears of virtual enslavement came true in Boston in 1774 and 1775. Ironically, the efforts of the Crown to isolate the radicals in Boston from the rest of the colonies and quash rebellious sentiment had the direct effect of uniting the squabbling colonies and igniting the War. Let’s review the main reasons the American subjects felt they were being enslaved.

First, they lost the right to have a say in government. Their petitions for redress of grievances were simply ignored by Parliament and the King. This made it possible for the Government to be abusive and left no way for the colonists to try to fix the situation but violence; hence the Boston Tea Party.

Second, the Government striped several rights in response to the Boston Tea Party via the Intolerable Acts. Essentially the Crown put an end to democracy in Massachusetts with the Massachusetts Government Act. With the Administration of Justice Act they destroyed the rule of law by giving royal officials de facto immunity in all the colonies. The Boston Port Act stopped commerce in Massachusetts and threatened to create a man-made famine in the colony due to its reliance on the Port of Boston for food shipments. The Quartering Act was used as a punitive measure against the population at large, (the French pioneered this tactic against the Huguenots in the 17th century.)

Third, the Government tried to disarm the populace. Men between the ages of 17 and about 45 were required by law to serve in the militia. With their democracy and rights as Englishmen trampled all over by the Crown the colonists started stockpiling munitions in the town of Concord. Disarming a populace is one of the most important criteria to enslaving it-just ask Apartheid South Africa for one.

You can see these concerns clearly in the Bill of Rights. Right to redress grievances with the Government is in the 1st Amendment along with the right to assemble. The Government quartering troops in houses in a time of peace is prohibited under the 3rd Amendment. Right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment and to show its importance to the founders I have a quote from one of them

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the
peoples' liberty's teeth" - George Washington

What all of this has to do with a plaster elephant, I am sure you are wondering, is that it is important to remember why, exactly why, our forefathers uprose, what tyranny was to them. The over quoted “no taxation without representation”-which is on the DC license plates-doesn’t do a very good job of telling the story. It was not for abstract philosophical principals that the founders threw off the Crown but over a long series of abuses and ignited by specific actions to snuff out freedom in America in 1774 and 1775

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 2

As the second of my three part series on the American Revolution we will pick up where we left off at the Boston Tea Party. December 16, 1773 the Sons of Liberty thinly disguised as indians stormed the tea baring ships Dartmouth, Beaver and Eleanour and dumped 90,000 pounds of tea in 342 caskets worth £10,000 ($1.87 million in 2007 USD) into Boston Harbor. Already seeing Boston as the home of a few malcontents responsible for the trouble this act led the Crown to take harsh action to isolate the revolt. Believing they could contain the radicals and make an example of them the instituted what was known as the Intolerable Acts. They were as follows:

The Boston Port Act: Port of Boston closed until both the Crown and the East India Company had been repaid for the lost tea.

The Massachusetts Government Act: Made most positions in the Government of the Colony appointees of the Crown or Governor and limited Town meetings to once a year.

The Administration of Justice Act: Allowed the Governor of Massachusetts to move the trials of royal officials he felt would not get a fair trail to other colonies or to Great Britain.

The Quartering Act: Applied to all colonies and allowed the Governor to quarter British troops in homes.

These harsh punishments on the entire colony for the actions of a few radicals alienated the population and galvanised pan-colonial unity. All across the colonies people came together to send aid as they realized that on the whims of the Crown they too could have their democracy abolished, their livelihoods ruined and be occupied in their homes (Boston, population 18,000 had 4,000 redcoats living in people's homes, hence the 3rd Amendment.)

Already they had lost the ability to redress grievances with the Government and taken a first step towards enslavement. Now, with their local democracy gone, the right to assemble gone, their source of income and food supply shut down and agents of the government forcibly living in their homes the people of Boston had gone from risking enslavement to actual enslavement. They had only one right left, one means of maintaining freedom and on the early morning of the 19th of April 1775.

At Lexington and later Concord local militia clashed with British regulars as they tried to seize militia weapons and ammunition and arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams. When the government sought to finally crush the liberty of the colonists they tried to seize their weapons and that, was the last straw. Petitions, non-importation/consumption agreements and rioting finally bloomed into rebellion when the colonists were down to their last option being threatened.

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 1

Paris, 1812, Napoleon erected a plaster statue of elephant over the site of Bastile so people would forget the events there on the 14th of July 1789 and keep risk of revolution against his own tyranny low. Originally it was to be plated in bronze and be quite elaborate but because of budget reasons and Napoleon's defeat and surrender in the War of the Sixth Coalition it was left as only plaster.



















We just finished going over the American Revolution in my History 390r class in some detail and would like to share a brief overview in three Parts of the events that led up to the War and, more importantly, why. First I'll talk about the Tea Act, then the Boston Tea Party. Second will be the Intolerable Acts followed by the fighting at Lexington and Concord, MA. Finally I will summarise the why of the revolution, we must not be fooled by a plaster elephant.

The Tea Act of 1773, unlike so many other acts of Parliament that raised the ire of the colonists was not a tax and was not intended to raise money. In fact, it provided significantly cheaper tea to the colonists. The reason behind it was the East India Company, a royally sanctioned monopoly, was in deep trouble financially and had lots of low quality tea rotting in warehouses in England. Colonists were already forbidden to import from non-British sources so forbidding them to import tea from anyone but the East India Company seemed simple enough. Now the colonists would have cheap tea in abundance and would be paying the Townshend Duties on the tea, making good subjects out of the rebellious colonists in the process.

This was repugnant to the Patriots for several reasons. First, it was directly undermining the attempts at non-importation and non-consumption of English goods agreements that they had been trying to put in place to deal with the British Government, since they were ignored when they sent letters to Parliament and the Crown. Which leads me to the next point, no one consulted the colonists as to how they felt about the idea, the Tea Act was simply a fiat as far as the colonies were concerned. Third, it was really bad, rotting tea they couldn’t sell in England, America was simply a dumping ground for what wasn’t good enough for real Englishmen. Fourth, they were being used simply as an engine of wealth for the East India Company.

The above played into the sentiment that, in their own words, they were “risking enslavement” from the Crown. Funny words coming from slave owners but what they were getting at wasn’t being chained up to pick cotton but something more complicated. Slaves are merely engines of wealth to their owners, you don’t argue about vacation days with your slaves, you use them to best maximize profit. Feedback and appeal had already been cut off by the Crown, a first sign of slavery. Next the Government spent its time thinking how best to exploit the colonies and wouldn’t even take complaints! They responded like slaves would, first trying to degrade their value as engines of wealth by these non-importation and non-consumption agreements. Now they were being slapped in the face on several fronts and combine this, the Sons of Liberty, alcohol and Indian garb and you get-The Boston Tea Party.

The Oath

This ancient tale comes to us from mid-7th Century BC Rome. Rome was at war with her neighbor Alba Longa and eventually the outcome was agreed to be decided in the “old” way. The Horatii, a set of male triplets from Rome and the Curiatii, male triplets of the same age from Alba Longa, would duel while both Armies watched. Jacques David’s key masterpiece The Oath of the Horatii captures the Horatii as they leave their home and family for the battle.

As the 6 men fought in full view of their nations we can only imagine how every blow was watched by a thousand eyes, victory or enslavement hinging upon its landing. As all three Curiatii were wounded Romans cheered and the Alba Longans mourned but then one of the Horatii fell dead! Then another fell and the last of the Horatii fled across the field back to Roman lines with the Curiatii in hot pursuit. The Romans cried in horror at the cowardice of the last of the brothers as his light doomed them all. Looking over his shoulder the last Horatii suddenly wheeled around, for wounded the Curiatii pursued at different speeds. Now separated the Horatii was able to cut down all three Curiatii one at a time; Rome was victorious!

A victory parade made its way to the home of the Horatii with the bodies of the two fallen Horatii and the last at the front. Upon seeing one of her brothers alive the sister of the Horatii broke down in tears because it meant that her lover, one of the Curiatii, was dead. In a fit of rage her brother killed her for greaving more for the enemy dead than her own fallen brothers. Initally condemned to die, the City could not bring its self to execute its savior of the previous day.

Adolf Legalité

In 1923 Germany was in the throes of the volatile post-Great War period. In an attempt to keep up with war reparation payments to the victorious allies imposed in 1921 Germany hyper-inflated it’s Mark. Before the reparations it was four Marks to the US Dollar but by 1922 it was 400 Marks to the USD. In the Late summer of 1923 when the Mark was about 1,000,000,000 to the USD a former army corporal and head of the National Socialist Party Adolf Hitler announced he would hold a series of mass meetings in the City of Munich’s large beer halls starting on the 27 of September. Able to call up 15,000 of his loyal SA Stormtroopers Hitler was a force to be reckoned with; as a result Bavarian Prime Minister Eugene Knilling declared a state of emergency.

Following the example of Mussolini’s successful March on Rome, Hitler planned on bring in his SA and taking the leaders of Bavaria at gun point and forcing them to recognize Hitler, with Great War hero General von Ludendorff at his side, as their leader. Once in control of Bavaria the Nazis would move on the rest of the country. On November 8th, 1923 Hitler, Göring with his SA and others burst into a beer hall the local leaders were speaking at with guns drawn and shouts of “The National Revolution has begun!”

Over the next 24 hours the uprising unraveled culminating with Hitler, Ludendorff and Göring at the head of a column of SA numbering 2000 men. They ran right into a roadblock of 100 soldiers and police. In the ensuing skirmish 4 police and 16 Nazis were killed and Göring was severely wounded in the groin. While Ludendorff pressed forward under fire Hitler fled leading the Great War General to brand Hitler a coward.

It was while serving his five year prison sentence that Hitler and Rudolf Hess wrote Mein Kampf. Also during his imprisonment Hitler rethought his ideas on violent revolution. The sehr ordenlech German people were not comfortable with the rules being broken and reacted badly to it. So once Hitler got out of jail his rise to power was characterized by doing everything strictly legal. Hitler was so committed to exact legality that he became known as “Adolf the Legal One” or Adolf Legalité.

In our time we face many threats to our wealth, peace of mind, freedom and our very lives. Marching under foreign flag and wearing stormtroopers’ uniform, goose stepping in jack boots, evil is easy to see and defeat. While we must always watch for Hitler’s SA marching towards us there is another kind of evil we must fear and watch for most: The Fifth Column rallying around our flag!

They say all the right things; all they want is our best interest. They say they love everything we love; they will fight for our children. “Rally with me to our flag that our Nation might persevere!” they cry; but listen to them, look at their words and deeds of old and their private words with friends. All great nations that have fallen have fallen from the rot inside; evil was not at the doorstep but at the hearth!
In 1923 German soldiers saw evil marching on them and opened fire, smashing the evil that threatened their nation. Yet in 1933 Hitler was able to size full control of the government that had gunned down his followers less than ten years before. He used Germany’s own laws to destroy the very laws he was using.

We must always be vigilant that our own system is not used against us to destroy us and enslave us. We must always ask not how we would use a law, but how our worst enemy would use it. Be careful in who we let close to the halls of power, do not make hasty judgment in cave in a moment of passion to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

A Tale of Two Wars

I’d like to take a minute to look at the rise of the Nazis. I am going to try to look at what spawned their breeding ground in 1920s and ‘30s Germany. Please do not mistake that I like Nazism in the slightest. Visiting former concentration camps when I was young are among the more traumatic memories of my childhood.

By the end of World War One, Germany was completely ruined by their huge casualties, by shortages of everything and by the Treaty of Versailles which made Germany take full responsibility for the war and make huge repatriations to the Allies as well as a neutered military. In an attempt to get out of these payments the Germans tried to hyperinflate the Mark, making German money worthless so the victors would not want payments of worthless German Marks. This not only failed when the payments were demanded in other forms such as raw steel and other goods but also crushed what little was left of the German economy. Tales of the inflation are legendary, workers at factories were paid in the middle of the day and used small bags so they could throw it to their families to go buy bread before the money was worthless later in the day. German bills had their values crossed out and new ones written by the mint because buy the time they were done printing it the bill was worth less than toilet paper. Children made kites out of old bills rather than using them to buy paper. By the late 1920s the country was tearing itself apart. There was fighting and revolts in the streets, armed paramilitary gangs of unemployed veterans roamed the countryside and economic disaster.

Into this maelstrom stepped Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist Workers Party. He had it all, a plan to rebuild the country by huge government projects such as the autobahn, a plan to rebuild the Army, an explanation for how they fell and it not being the fault of the German people by using the Jews as a scapegoat and most importantly, hope. Out of national crisis Hitler resurrected Germany and because of his message the German people voted to give him full control of the government in 1933. Hitler promised to take them down the path to becoming the greatest country on earth………well, we all know how that worked out.

After World War Two ended the victorious Allies did not make the same mistake twice. Under the Marshall Plan vast economic aid was sent to Europe to restore productive economies to war-torn nations. US troops were stationed in Germany to protect them from the Soviets and there are still US troops there. Because the US was able to win the peace Germany became a peaceful and prosperous country.

In 1990 Iraq invaded its southern neighbor Kuwait prompting international outrage. In February 1991 the US led coalition launched Operation Desert Storm, the ground invasion of Iraq. The ground war lasted 100 hours before the Iraqi Army, at the start of the war the 4th largest in the world, collapsed. After imposing aircraft no fly zones the US pulled out with Saddam still in power. One big reason was Iraqs neighbor Iran, a US hating country and state sponsor of terror. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard created Hezbollah the notorious terror group in Lebanon. Iraq and Iran had just bled each other white during the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war. Taking out Saddam would leave a power vacuum and set Iran up to dominate the region. Also, taking out Saddam would force the US to stay in Iraq to form the new democratic government (a feat all its own in an Arab country), build a stable economy, train the new Army and keep an eye on Iran. It made much better sense to leave him there to balance out Iran and not get bogged down in another Vietnam-style quagmire. We also figured Saddam would soon be toppled by his own people as rebels uprose across the country to oust the Bath Party. During the peace treaty negations the terms of the no fly zones was being worked out General Schwarzkopf made the mistake of telling the Iraqis they could still fly armed helicopters. This unfortunate remark spelled doom for the large uprising taking place against Saddam and thousands of anti-Saddam Iraqis. As US forces helplessly watched from bases in Iraq Saddam's helicopter gunships crushed the rebellion. A rebel commander, after his request for support fighting the Republican Guard was turned down by the US 1st Cavalry Division shook hands and departed back to the fighting with “We are all dead men.” When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 all the anti-Saddam/pro-US Iraqis were long dead and buried in mass graves. Any survivors were understandably bitter and cynical, making occupation and reconstruction much more difficult.

Many Americans can’t understand why we are still in Iraq. Encouraged by politicians many think we can simply leave Iraq. After all, would leaving them pose an immediate threat to America? History is clear on the matter, gutting a nation and leaving them in ruin only leads to even worse enemies taking over and more, many more, Americans in black body bags.

A return to MAD?

During the Cold War MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction was how the US and USSR avoided destroying the planet and obliterating humanity. Basically it worked by having so many nuclear weapons scattered with different delivery systems (ie. bomber aircraft, ICBMs, missle subs) that the other side could not hope to deliver a first strike without massive retaliation. MAD used three "legs" to deliver nuclear weapons: Bombers, InterContinental Ballistic Missles, and Missle Submarines. Throughout the Cold War the US kept bomber aircraft flying just off the USSRs borders 24/7 awaiting orders to nuke the Soviets. The crews understood that most likely by the time they got the orders to strike large mushroom clouds would be appearing over the largest cities in the US. In remote parts of Wyoming, Nebraska and South Dakota large underground silos housed ICBM missles to be launched at the President's command. Finally, probably the best of the three legs of MAD was missle submarines. During their constant patrols not even their own naval command knew of their location. That was MAD, and at the end of the day neither the USSR or the US wanted to end the world.

After the fall of the USSR the US kept its MAD systems in place although they did stop the expensive 24/7 nuke armed flights off the now former USSR. While the US may have slain the Dragon they have found the jungle full of poisonous snakes. On September 11, 2001, a date that will live in infamy, 19 men with box cutters delivered a devistating bite on America. Now the question that must be asked is if determind terrorists can wreck so much devistation with box cutters what could they do with a nuclear bomb? In the post cold war era we now face the possibility of small states not being controled like they were in the past and going rouge, potentially with nuclear weapons. Terrorists can strike if they ever get the weapons and not fear nuclear retaliation because who would we target? Rouge states with little or no concern for even their own people might actually use nukes if they had them but could also just supply them to a terrorist group upsetting the MAD balance.

The latest invasion of Georgia by Russia and other minor military actions by the Russians are clearly aimed at restoring their place as a world player. By reigniting competion between Russia and the US they would regain the national pride they lost with the colapse of the USSR. The USSR took great care to protect and hide their nuclear arsenal so vital to their survival. But with the fall of the USSR many of those weapons are now being guarded by soldiers on low wages and who don't even get paid every month. As many of the former soviet republics flock to NATO, Russia will need new satalite countries. Russia has a long history of controling their smaller satalites with an iron fist; just look at Hungry in 1956, Czechoslovacia in 1968 or Georgia in 2008.

Russia has bought many of the untapped oil fields in Iran and it is possible that a deapening of tentions with the US could drive Iran to closer a allience with Russia. While this allience of two of America's worst threats is not good; Iran is ruled by an Islamic theocracy and has been throwing out a lot of serious threats of late. If Iran became a prominate satalite of Russia the Russians might be able to rein in Iran. If Iran was a satalite of Russia the Russians would not allow them to run amuck since that could easily lead to conflict with the US. If Iran ever went through with their threats to anhilate Israel the Iranians would drag Russia along into war with the US and NATO.

MAD is a very dangerous policy to live by, but it beats dying under a mushroom cloud by a long shot.