]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE SHAPE OF EVENTS [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
(Our Revolution) (11/6/1989)
by Otto Scott
Addressed to the 15th Annual Meeting of the Committee for
Monetary Research & Education (1987)
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 93401DORM]
Recently The Wall Street Journal editorialized about the
contemporary confrontation be tween Congress and the Executive Branch.
Observing that the President is elected by all the people and is the
only official Constitutionally authorized to conduct foreign policy,
the Journal described the confrontation as whether or not the
President violated the 1947 National Security Act or the Boland
Amendment attached to an appropriations bill in 1983.
In the course of this description, the Journal wondered whether the
results of the last Presidential election will be overturned in favor
of the foreign policy of Clayborn Pell. Senator Pell, you will recall,
is against resistance to Communism. later in the editorial, the
Journal wondered how we can arrive at a consensus between what it
called tithe wholly incompatible view of the world and U.S. security
by such politicians as Senators Pell, Kerry, Mikulski and Dodd? So
long as this minority exercises a veto within its own party,' the
Journal continued, "the tension will persist."
Unfortunately this presentation, as clear as it is, does not do
justice to the situation. For what is underway adds up to more than a
strvggle between two political parties holding the same basic beliefs.
It adds up to another stage in what is, and has been, a revolutionary
process.
Some may dispute this, because Dan Rather has not appeared on the
5a O'Clock News to inform the nation that a revolution is underway.
Neither has any sirnilar announcement been made by any other
television commentators, professors, experts, specialists or
politicians. But revolutions do not announce themselves prematurely:
that would be to alert the opposition. Tlley arrive urheralded,
without warning. But they do arrive -at the end of certain phases that
have now been repeated often enough to be defined.
The final stage in all revolutions is an assault against the
Executive. This has taken various forms.
In France in the 1790s, during the great prototypical secular
revolution of modern times, the assault against the Executive was
mounted from inside the legislature. That final stage began when the
Estates General were transformed into a General Assembly -a more
radical body. The legislators in the Assembly launched a series of
"inquiries" -- miniature trials, so to speak -- against the Crown, the
Nobility, the Clergy and, ultimately, even centrist members of the
Assembly itself. These proceedings were noisily supported by claques
in the Assembly gallery, by partisans parading in the streets, by
demonstrators and rioters, and by a radical press. This revolutionary
chorus created the impression that all France was on the rim of a
volcano.
As the left -- the Jacobins -- expanded their influence within the
Assembly, they rewrote the Constitution, obtained its ratification and
held elections in which they triumphed. Then their "Rinquiries" took on
a new and sinister significance. The Courts of France, which had
assisted the revolution to reduce the powers of the Crown, were
reduced to impotence, together with all the other institutions of the
ancien refflme. By then the guillotine was in operation, Iouis XVI
and his Queen were sent to their deaths; an entire class was murdered.
I cite this great precedent in part to draw your attention to the
time span involved. For it was only three years after the Estates
General were first convened, until the time of the guillotine. That's
not very long.
The Russian example is closer in terms of time. As you know, the
Czar abdicated in March, 1917. The Provisional Government that
replaced the Czar had no specific chief executive. It consisted
largely of a legislature that was, at first, headed by monarchists.
They looked for a new Czar, but the man they chose refused to serve.
Being liberals, they also invited the Social Democrats to serve with
them in the Duma. And in true leftist fashion, the Social Democrats
took control, and issued a call for all leftists to join in creating a
new government. Their slogan was one still in vogue among the
credulous: "No enemies on the Left."
Their call reached Trotsky in New York and Stalin in exile and
lenin in Zurich. It also reached the ears of the German General Staff,
which provided a SO million gold marks to lenin & Company. The
Bolsheviks then proceeded to buy 47 newspapers -- and guns. This flood
of money in the midst of shortages also enabled the Bolsheviks to hire
an army. In October, 1917, the Bolsheviks seized the Duma by force,
sent the Social Democrats into flight or into prison, and launched the
Red Terror -- which has not yet ceased. Once again the time span in
significant. From the time the Czar abdicated until the October coup
d'etat was about eight months. Eight months!
The final stage of the German Revolution reveals a similar pattern.
As usual, historians bicker over the initiating date. One school
chooses Bismarck and his adoption of Socialistic programs which were
continued until world war I. Another school dates the beginning with
the post world war I period after the Kaiser abdicated and a new
Social Democratic government took office under a new Constitution. For
the sake of brevity, let's start with the Twenties. The Social
Democrats, as usual, governed with self-righteous rhetoric and a fine
Constitution -- which they proceeded to ignore. They ruled largely by
emergency decrees. But although they intervened in the economy, they
did not use overt force. That arrived with the Nazis, whose efficiency
made the Bolsheviks seem crude. Hitler was made Chancellor on January
30, 1933. A month later, on February 28, 1933, he was granted life and
death power over everyone in Germany. His Terror started, therefore,
in four weeks.
More examples could be cited, but the point is clear. These great
revolutions achieved their final triumphs by obtaining control of the
legislature.
Obviously, I am talking only about the final stage. A very
important question is, "What were the preceding stages in these rises
to power?" Irherent in the answer to that question lies at least part
of the reason why so many Americans appear so confused before so
repetitive a phenomenon.
Our historians and commentators have told us, over and again, that
revolutions are the result of long-standing injustice and poverty.
They have described revolutions as inevitable, and they argue that in
many respects revolutions are pathways to progress. At this moment
they are encouraging revolution in South Africa, as a means of
improving that society.
But when revolution appeared in France, that nation was the richest
in the world. France had the largest land mass and the greatest number
of people in all Europe. England had a population of five million, the
United States had 3 million -- and France had 25 million. Its
industries were the largest, it had the greatest number of wealthy and
middle class persons; its language was preferred for diplomacy, art,
letters and science; it had more intellectuals than any other nation,
more novels, more theater -- and more license. Behavior under Iouis
XVI was unbridled. Paris, Marseilles and other French cities harbored
sex clubs, cults, occult fashions, homosexual costume balls, wild
theater and newspapers that combined pornography and radical politics.
Adultery in the middle and upper classes was the mode and not a whim;
the laws against insulting the Crown or blaspheming Christianity were
dead letters. Poverty was at the lowest level in French history,
though it existed.
How did revolution occur in so rich a society? we can argue about
Why, but How is a matter of record. The government of France rose
under the Sun King, Iouis XIV, and then fell in terms of stability,
because the Sun King drained the Treasury with his wars and his
extravagances. His successor listened to John law, whose paper money
experiment ruined thousands of prosperous families. Then more
extravagances under ~uis XV. Finally, when lLouis XVI arrived, France
had lost its North American colony and spent its last reserves helping
the Americans against Britain. Saddled with an enormous deficit, the
French government could no longer pay the interest on its bonds. The
banks of Switzerland and Amsterdam closed against Paris.
In that extremity, the financial experts told the King that there
was only one solution: raise taxes. That was why the Estates General
were summoned (in the name of Tax Reform), and where most historians
date the start of the French Revolution.
let's add some social and intellectual factors. Economics cannot be
separated from the body politic or the social context in which
commerce and government function. There is nothing abstract about
real life; it does not exist in sections. At about the same time that
the long reign of Iouis XIV succeeded in boring all France, Voltaire
launched his satires; his ridicules of the Christian religion, French
manners and morals, French history and tradition: the French culture.
Voltaire's success not only inspired an army of imitators; it launched
a decades-long fashion. Eventually the fashion spawned Rousseau, who
argued that Man is good, and Society is bad. If anyone did anything
wrong, it was the fault of the System.
There would not have been a revolution in France if its
intellectuals had not turned against French history, traditions,
leaders and institutions. It was that onslaught which portrayed
French patriotism as foolish, backward and reactionary.
Solzhenitsyn said, "To destroy a people, you must first sever their
roots." He was talking about a nation's memory: it's history. The
French intellectuals came to accept Voltaire's description of their
history as a record of criminality. As their self-respect waned,
French morals loosened. Slander became another term for journalism.
The underground press combined pornography and radicalism. It
invented scurrilous lies about prominent persons. Marie Antoinette was
actually running a soup kitchen in Paris when a newspaper reported her
as having said, "Let them eat cake." When I was a boy, American school
teachers were still teaching that fable as a fact.
Without the alienation of the intellectuals, there could not have
been a revolution. This was equally true in Russia. For at least
seventy years the Russian intelligentsia argued against the Czar, the
Church, the institutions and the culture of Russia. Dostoyevsky saw
where this would lead even more clearly than Edmund Burke had analyzed
the French Revolution, for Dostoyevsl:y recognized spiritual values.
Men who abandon God are capable of every evil, for to such men, evil
loses its taint -and its guilt.
German Social Democrats came to power in the Twenties, after the
German defeat. They had no affection for the vanquished Kaiser and the
traditions of Germany -- quite the contrary. Newspapers, art and the
theater assaulted German traditions in wholesale fashion. The artist
George Grosz portrayed Germans as swine. later, as a refugee in the
United States, he changed his style. Some of his admirers were
surprised. "You don `t understand," he told them. He had learned that
hate begets hate.
Understanding, on any level, is difficult to achieve. Here in the
United States we have a population that combines personal commitment
with intellectual detachment, and even disbelief. we have people who
work hard, but refuse to think; refuse to add things up. There is a
widespread conviction that nothing has a larger meaning.
In the face of a continuing trashing of this nation by its
intellectuals, such an attitude is more than myopic: it is
intellectually perverse. Every pre-revolutionary symptom of Paris in
the 1780s and leningrad in 1910 and Berlin in the Twenties is among us
today: the foreign agents; the mysteriously funded, unsettling
publications; the cults and the homosexual clubs; the demonstrations
and riots; the disorders, the demagogues; the international intrigues
and the helpless bourgeoisie; the bankrupt Government and Utopians
talking about a new Constitution, while the left mounts an assault on
the Executive from the bastion of the legislature.
All that separates us from Paris, 1789, and Berlin, 1930, is a
financial debacle. Does anyone doubt that it is coming? If so, I
have yet to meet that person. In the period from 1977 to 1981 the
United States lost half its steel production, more than half its non-
ferrous metal production, a fifth of its automobile production, more
than half its machine tool production, and a tripling of its imports
from $120 billion to $380 billion a year. And that was six years ago.
Since then the pace of our deindustrialization has quickened.
Meanwhile the Fed continues to pump paper money into the economy as
though the laws of currency degradation have been abolished. we have a
huge deficit, and have become the world's largest debtor nation at a
time when nations who are in debt to us are in the process of
organizing international defaults.
Now the revolution has reached Congress. Congressional demagogues
coordinate their arguments with the radical left in the media, in
universities and with "social activist" groups. In the space of a
single year this chorus pushed our Government into making an enemy of
South Africa, although we are dependent on that nation for essential
minerals without which our industries and military cannot survive.
Despite warnings from the Office of Strategic Resources, both the
President and Congress have chosen to place severe sanctions against
that strategically important nation. Not to expect retaliation from
South Africa would, in my opinion, amount to relying upon people whom
we have injured not to injure us. So far as I know, only this nation
is that unworldly or masochistic.
When we combine a looming industrial crisis with a financial
crisis, we anticipate the worst situation in our history. For when the
Great Depression arrived, we had no huge international enemy openly
dedicated to our downfall. Some have predicted that mobs will surge
through the streets. But they do that today. Fleets of hired buses
converge on the Capitol; entire hotels are rented; thousands of meals
supplied from unidentified sources to promote the revolution. But once
the revolution succeeds, a great fear will descend, for the Revolution
will be armed against disorder.
There are several plausible points at which we can date the onset
of our Revolution. we can begin with the rise of authoritarian
Socialists among our intellectuals in the 1870s; or we can start with
the rise of anarchists, rioters and bomb-throwers in the years before
world war I; or we can start with the wartime dictatorship of ~oodrow
~ilson when men like Eugene Debs were thrown into prison for speaking
against the war; or we can start with the pro-Communist writers and
journalists of the Twenties and Thirties; or we can start with the
expansion of Governmental authority under the New Deal; or we can
start with the post world war II rush to lock up the nation by various
agencies and bureaucrats. No matter where we start, it will add up to
the fact that the American Government today is nothing like the one
founded in Philadelphia, nor is it headed by men who believe in those
early principles.
The Income Tax made it legal to treat citizens unequally, and now
groups are treated unequally in Court. The various regulations over
every aspect of human activity have created a licensing jungle that
leaves virtually no function unregulated. Bank and medical records are
no longer private. Anything that requires the use of money must be
recorded. A move is underway to create a cashless society -- because
cash makes men free -- and freedom is out of fashion.
we have seen the rise of regulatory agencies that combine the three
functions of Government that the Founding Fathers sought to keep
forever separate. These agencies make rules chessboard has been in the
meantime camed out of one room into another...or perhaps the ship it
is in sails all the while...S
I submit that the ship we are all in has sailed far in the last
year, and carried us all into deeper and darker waters, while we have
remained -- like the chessmen -- on the same squares.
In reality, however, our Ship of State is moving toward a
denouement. And in that event, it would be well to bear in mind the
words of James Anthony Froude, the famous English historian, who said,
"Government by surge is possible only in period when the convictions
of men have ceased to be vital to them. As long as there is a minoriry
that would rather die than continue in a lie, there is a further court
of appeal from which there is no reference. When ten men are so
earnest on one side that the will sooner be killed than give way, and
twenry men are earnest enough on the other side to cast their votes
for it, but will not risk their skins, the ten will give the law to
the twenty."
It should be clear from these observations that the present
generation holds the future of the United States in its hands. What
we do today determines tomorrow -- if God wills. Tolstoi, in his War
and peace, described how the battle of Borodino, which determined
Napoleon's defeat in Russia, was decided by the fact that one battery,
unaware of the Russian order to retreat, kept firing. The French, in
the confusion, mistook that unceasing cannonade as a sign their
offensive had failed, and themselves retreated. But the battery never
knew what it had done, nor did any other branch of the Russian army.
Resistance to revolution, in the same sense, cannot be predicated upon
public recognition: it must simply be implacable.
There have been, however, revolutions halted by individual action
that we can cite. For the revolutionaries, despite their boasts, do
not always win. The revolutionary tide is not "inevitable."
In world war I the German General Staff set up several efforts to
win the war by subverting the governments of Russia, France and
Britain. we know that their support of lenin proved successful -- and
the price that Germany later paid to the Frankenstein it helped into
life. But the German general staff also funded revolution in Ireland
in 1916 (for revolutions cost money), and gave money to Sir Roger
Casement and other Irish rebels. The Easter Rebellion, as it was
called, failed -- but not without loss of life and an exacerbation of
ill-will between England and Ireland.
The most ambitious effort at subversion was made by Germany against
France. There, German money and propaganda not only created mutinous
cadres inside the French Army, but planted traitors inside the French
Chamber of Deputies. These posed as ardent lovers of peace, and sought
to weaken the French military effort and fighting spirit in every way.
They were assisted by pro-German newspapers that promoted defeatism
and surrender, and a gaggle of intellectuals of varying degrees of
sincerity. General Petain quelled the Army mutiny by stern and secret
measures, and Clemenceau, then in his 70s, rose inside the Chamber of
Deputies to hurl the charge of treason -- and made it stick. These two
elderly men, one considered mediocre and the other at the end of his
career, saved France from revolution at a moment of deep and terrible
crisis.
Other occasions come to mind. In Spain, the revolution forced the
abdication of the King in 1931. A republic was declared, and several
elections were won by the left. Finally the left gained control of
the Spanish Cortes, and the Government. It then consolidated its
revolution by ordering all large family owned estates broken up. Then,
because the revolution was against religion and against freedom of
thought or faith, it ordered all religious orders dissolved. But the
revolution does not rely only upon decrees; it uses Terror. The
Spanish Government under the control of revolutionaries launched a
wave of murders of priests and nuns, and the physical destruction of
churches, convents and monasteries. At that, the Spaniards rose in
rebellion, defeated the Communists and set off a wave of leftist
denunciations that endures to this day. But the revolution in Spain
was rolled back.
The revolution today mourns over Chile, moved by AIlende into the
Communist camp, but recovered by Chileans too well aware of the Gulag
maintained by revolutionary "idealists".
But the worldwide revolutionary tide continues to flow. It does
more than lap at our shores: it has seeped into our Congress, as it
long ago entered our media, our universities and even our mainiline
churches.
It cannot be stanched or deflected by pretending that it does not
exist. An unrecognized revolution can, as in France, Russia, Germany
and elsewhere, carry us all beyond the point of peaceful return if we
remain uncomprehending and passive. we need the moral courage and
insight of Clemenceau; the physical spirit of the Spaniards in the
Thirties; the perceptions of the Chileans.
Revolutions cannot be halted by incomprehension. But to know the
plans of the enemy is to have a great advantage. To arouse the nation
to those plans in not impossible; all America is uneasily aware that
something is wrong. What is needed are voices to rally counter-
revolutionary resistance. The defense of our tripartite Government
from Congressional efforts to reduce the President to the status of a
Civil Servant (answerable to Congressional inquiries that usurp the
proper functions of the Courts) is a defense against the final stage of
revolution.
For make no mistake about it: the process underway in Congress is
revolutionary in nature. we have men in America as hungry for supreme
power, as ruthless and determined, as any in in the world. But we also
have the largest number of educated, skilled citizens of any nation in
all history. Once aware of the true danger, we Americans can end what
the revolutionaries among us are already calling Our Revolution.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page