By rewarding migrants who mocked our laws

Stressing the illegality of much of the invasion is avoidance of reality and confrontation.  The Senate offered to solve the problem of illegality by the simple expedient of making all immigration legal.  That would take care of objections that the illegals were mocking the law.  Modern immigration policy is a program of racist colonialism aimed at white America, originally as a form of bio-political warfare but now just pure genocidal racism.  The leftist coalition that drives this program no longer cares about political results, they are cultural suicide bombers fixated on destroying their hated enemies, even if it means the death of everything they claim to believe in, thus the bizarre spectacle of support for the mass immigration of Muslims, most of whom make Jerry Falwell look like a gay Unitarian.

Zmirak;

Einstein said that insanity could be defined as doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time.

Good luck with that vote for McCain. I won’t be joining you in that particular looney bin.

Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis.

Dear John,
You may need to hold back on the frothy drink a little. You say “- By rewarding migrants who mocked our laws with one of the most valued commodities on earth—U.S. citizenship—we will guarantee an increased flow of new illegals” yet the idea that US citizenship is held in utmost regard may be a thing of the past.I think it is a delusional and, or, self regarding (perhaps ignorant) view to imagine certain peoples from the rest of the world are conniving to get into the US. Europe, UK, Scandanavia, Canada, Australia & New Zealand are all places that people desire, and risk their lives, to emigrate to. The truth may be that the US at this stage of its existence may in fact be an empire at the precipice of decline . Its dependence on oil and its extravagance in spending its wealth on external ( perhaps superfluous) meddling in external affairs may be its unneccessary and unfortunate unravelling. Its success (in a so called democratic, capitalist society), though perhaps in the long run its greatest weakness, has been its ability to maintain within a great deal of economic and cultural losers the belief that they, and their country, are superior to whatever else is going on in the wider world. Rampant nationalism, isolationist education and ever present external fears and threats may be what has maintained this.
Dont be surprised that one day they may be rushing for the Canadian borders, amongst others.
Regards
Tony

Nergol,

You beat me to it.

I was going to say the exact same thing.

Voting, it has been proven, gets you no where but communism (if you don’t believe the USofA is “communist”, ask yourself: what would Vladimir Lenin do today?  Why, he would run for Congress!)

The counter-Revolution needs to be anti-democratic, anti-republican.  It is time to start an all out war against democracy, republicanism, and all of these other modern “Western” ideas.

Why cant people understand that Capitalism means exploitation?

Illegal aliens are given jobs because they are sources of cheap labor. I hear people complain about this issue yet they elect people that work against their interests because most conservatives follow a corporate ideology of maximum profit at minimum cost. This ideology requires laborers willing to work for peanuts in Mexico, China, Hong Kong and Tom Delays, “Mr Conservative”, Mariannas sweatshops, his ‘petri dish of Capitalism’ as he called it. Capitalism is basically exploitation. It requires Americans, whose buying power dwindles, to buy crap made in Malaysia.

The last thing you should do is give into despair and vote for McCain in the vain hopes that anything will get done on the abortion issue.  The only way to save lives in this thing is to vote for a candidate like Ron Paul who has a spotless record on life.  This is a war for the unborn that we are in and you can’t compromise the war for a single battle.  Going to McCain is like breaking ranks in the face of the opposition and making a deal with the devil.  We have to rally around the flag, life in this case, and show both parties that there is only one way to get our votes.

In (what I interpret as) the same spirit as John Zmirak wrote, here is a song which I love very much, by a real American patriot whom I admire very much. 

And I continue to hope that an authentic kind of American conservative movement will continue to develop, in the spirit of this (very ANTIWAR, cf http://www.antiwar.com) very patriotic American song, performed by a real American whose roots (both carnal and spiritual) in America go back to the 1600s, with deeper roots in America than most “White” Americans have:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8580jiEtPc

Mr. Zmirak,

In your point number one, above, you state....

“American troops will remain in Iraq in the vain attempt to install a Western, pluralist democracy.”

Please excuse me if i’m mistaken as to your meaning but should that statement be prefaced with “the reason du jour will be that...” or “the mainstream media will contend that ....”?

....or (perish the thought!) did you mean exactly what you wrote!?!?!?!

I thought everybody knew this already - that the pentagon didn’t spend billions of dollars on huge, permanent bases only to quickly vacate them, they always meant to stay in Iraq for a very long time.

Install a western pluralist democracy? HA!

Bring pizza hut and playboy is more like it.

patrick

Start by accepting the truth.

The next President will not be anyone we like.

OK

So we have to fight a rearward action. And for that
we need to

a) prioritize

b) build alliances.

There are things more worth fighting than others. Find
the ones you won’t compromise to, and use the others
as bargaining chips. Things that whatever damage they
might inflict there will be time to fix later, or thing
whose harmfulness is not so apparent, and you might
be wrong.

As for alliances, you might find that people in the
liberal side of the aisle have issues in common. Use
those to get help in other issues that they might
be willing to use as bargaining chips.

Think like a trader, not like an ideologue. Think that
there are people that have things you might need, and
that you may hold things that they need, and trade.

Cool it down with the rethoric. It does not help
to negotiate. Realize that you are not in a position of
strenght so do not antagonize people needlessly.

What’s that old saying?
“When the going gets tough...”
Why all the despair?
The fight is on and it’s only
the 3rd round.
If we go down this easily you
can forget any future rear action
because that battle takes twice
the stomach.
Stick with Paul to the END. He
will NOT let us down like the
others who throw in the towel
before the fight is called.
If he loses the bid for the
Presidency he is STILL in Congress
and I expect will NOT relent.
We are building more, faster than
I have ever seen in my lifetime
and now is NOT the time to despair.
Look UP for you redemtion draweth NIGH!
Go, Ron. GO!

John,
It seems you have not worked out the implications of Libertarianism.  If you want a small, limited government, that by definition means people are left to do their own thing.  This applies even when those people do things you do not like.  If you want to influence others in a free society, that influence has to happen through persuasion, not force—a far more difficult approach, but also far more effective when performed successfully.  Whatever central control there is happens at state level, just as the Founders intended and as Ron Paul now advocates.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.  If you advocate libertarianism, you cannot in the next breath start making detailed requirements on how others sould behave.  Controlling people will inevitably require a large bureaucracy, and that produces a political system contrary to Libertarianism and its freedoms.  The book “Liberal Fascism” got this right, but unfortunately (though understandably, considering the author’s background) it did not work out the implications of government-building all the way to the neoconservatives. 

The astonishing and totally unexpected support Ron Paul found on the net—i.e., among just those highly educated men between 18 and 50, who often are the harbingers of future trends—shows there is remarkable potential for this traditional, libertarian, small-government, non-interventionist foreign policy conservatism.  The most effective approach would be to start building up this community, just as Taki seemed to suggest in his endorsement of Paul.  In fact, TakiMag could become a home for this community, because to my knowledge they currently do not have a forum where they could meet.

What is the solution for
the illegal immigration issue?
Liberty.
The abortion issue?
Liberty.
The economy?
Liberty.
Health care?
Liberty.
Socical Justice?
Liberty.
Education?
Liberty.

That message will never die with or
without a third party vote.
When it all comes crashing down, and
it will, the message will remain and
we will still have our Constitution
to rebuild with.
The public debt may ruin the commonwealth
but will and can never ruin America.
Go,Ron. GO!

“It is time to start an all out war against democracy, republicanism, and all of these other modern “Western” ideas.”

...And replace them with what, genius?

<<And replace them with what, genius?>>

NOTHING!

Sally wrote,

The first object is to maintain a kind of managed chaos in and around Iraq in order to accomplish other goals in Southwest Asia. That is, the US government is working against any kind of “Western, pluralist democracy” in Iraq, and actively supports on-going chaos on the ground, not stability

And to this I say thank you.  Finally someone who gets it.  I always have to laugh when I hear the neo-cons described as some kind of cosmic bunglers.  The scenario that you describe above was what Bush meant when he declared mission accomplished.  He was addressing his neo-con masters not the American People.  That doesn’t mean that it is not folly.  It certainly is, but it it an intended folly.

I’m not sure who are the “we” you are referring to in your post. The fact is that according to most opinion polls, self-described “conservatives” support the war in Iraq and Bush’s foreign policy by very large majorities. So I and others who oppose the war are clearly a tiny minority on the political right (see the vote for Paul). In fact, my guess is that the war against Islamo-Fascism will replace the Cold War as the “glue” that will hold the Republican “coalition” together for another generation or two. Now...the majority of “conservatives” oppose McCain’s immigration policies. But President McCain will make a deal with the Democratic majority in Congress over the issue. And the same applies to Supreme Court nominees. So...the only difference between a President McCain and a President Obama is probably that Obama will probably make an effort to end the war in Iraq.

Mr Hadar’s remarks bring up an important point: there’s no such thing as a large “conservative” movement in America.  There is no Conservative Party; the average American Republican is about as “conservative” as the Orleanists and Republicans of the 3rd French Republic.

Face it, fellow conservatives here at takimag.com, we live in a Permanent Revolution, and conservatism has never been the dominant political ideology, and never will.  If you are a conservative in America, it is a small club, and we will never have any real representation in the government, as long as that government relies on the power of the ballot box.

willb

I am curious to what you define as Liberty

Let me go through your list:

What is the solution for
the illegal immigration issue?
Liberty.

Liberty for inmigrants to come and go thourh the
border without stopping at checkpoints?
Liberty to hire anyone you want wihout asking for
citizenship papers?

The abortion issue?
Liberty.

Liberty to abort your child or not as you wish?

The economy?
Liberty.

Liberty to bring in cheap shoddy goods from China?
Liberty to outsource jobs to the Third World?

Health care?
Liberty.

Liberty to treat anyone without a license? Liberty
to buy and sell drugs without prescriptions of any
kind?

Socical Justice?
Liberty.

Define first what is Social Justice. You might find
disquistions that it does not exist. And then, that
Justice itself does not exist.

Education?
Liberty

Liberty for Muslim parents to send children to a madrassa?
Liberty for Hispanic parents to teach childrne in
Spanish only?

See what happens when you substitute slogans for thought.

The solution to abortion?
Liberty

Liberty to abort or not as you wish?

Pat Buchanan should run for president this year, sharing the ticket with Ron Paul. Paul has raised lots of money and can raise lots more. He is also organizing precinct captains in every electoral district in the country. Thus, a structure is in place. Plus, Pat and Ron are compatible on most issues.

You may say third party candidacies are doomed to fail. But if the choice this year is between two pro-war candidates (Clinton and McCain), and if conservative and center-right voters find McCain and Clinton anathema (and most do), a ticket of Ron and Pat or Pat and Ron could attract massive support. And think what fun they could have educating the nation about the follies of empire and indebtedness and the practice of rubbishing your own currency. They could do it largely through heavy advertising in key media markets, as a conventional campaign of barnstorming around the country would no doubt be subjected to the same media blackout that has hobbled Paul’s campaign to date.

A Paul/Buchanan or Buchanan/Paul campaign could represent a historical turning point for the nation and the last best hope of the Republic’s survival

If Obama is the democrats nominee, vote for him, he’ll likely end the debacle in Iraq rather quickly. So if that is your number one concern, Obama is your man. As for me, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, if he has a chance versus Obama or Clinton. With all his substantial baggage, he is the lesser of all evils. Not just the Supreme Court but the lower courts as well, McCain the president will do better than McCain the Senator. None of this is pleasing, but there will be a new president for four years. And McCain may well be a one term president owing to his age and health issues.

It seems that AndresCapp and Nergol are the only ones who realize how dire the situation is.  And furthermore, that continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils every four years is not the way to foment change. Let’s all just sit on our hands and continue to have faith in a system that is not only failing but is blatantly betraying our interests.  With that kind of attitude it won’t be long before websites like this one or any other forum of free speech will be stamped out of existence.

Adriana,

let us Tory conservatives indeed build alliances, and build them with
1) ecologists, John Ball representing us;
2. libertarians, Justin Raimondo representing us;
3 the peace party, Justin Raimondo representing us;
4 Christian Democrats and pro-lifers, John Zmirak representing us;
5. Carlists and Legitimists, Boyd Cathey representing us [kiss and make up with him];
6. The League of the South, Vermont Secessionists, and other Jeffersonians, guess who representing us;
7.disillusioned Whigs;
8. even pre-1808ers (a.k.a “Blacks) if Hillary gets the nomination;
9. gun rights advocates.
10. and Far East Asians, whose Confusian values might dovetail with ours.

BUT, absolutely NONE of these groups will even pick up the phone to talk to us Tory conservatives UNLESS we break any and all, real or putative, alliances with i.)Fascists,
ii.) fascists and other racialist nationalists,
iii.) ethnic nationalists (including those supporting another favorite country’s foreign policy, be in in the Near East or in Europe);
iv.) Clerical Fascists and clerical fascists (who seem to be in retreat on this website),
v.) (lately noticed) Anti-Papists, Cromwellians, and die-hard Orangemen (though Paisley is making peace, to his credit),
vii assorted Judeophobes,
viiii.) and others like them. (including neo-pagans)
And 1-10 above would be right not to talk to us.

And that means also not giving them a forum on Tory Conservative websites for them to preach their trash.

Over at LewRockwell.com, there’s talk of a Paul/Napolitano 3rd party ticket.  Would that be a wise idea, or would it just guarantee a Dimmykrat victory?

To Don:Now that’s a campaign slogan: “Vote for McCain—He is really Old and Sick.” Btw, it’s not only “Iraq” but the chances of more wars as well as McCain’s Big Government/National Greatness agenda. And how do you know that McCain the president will do better than McCain the Senator.” At the end of the day, political parties are not families or religions. They are tools aimed at advancing certain policies based on certain ideologies.

Sid,

No, not Paul/Napolitano, but rather Buchanan/Paul or Paul/Buchanan.  This ticket would sweep the country. 

Anthony

Adriana,
Unintentionally you provided a case study of the point I wanted to make to John Zmirak:  on the one hand, you claim to advocate liberty, yet on the other hand there is an intense desire to control everything based on the (for you, self evident) assumption that people cannot survive if there is not a wise, benevolent authority to supervise them.  You have to face the fact that this attitude is inherently incompatible with a free society.

More troubling still, underlying the attitude that people have to be controlled, there is a massive contempt of the intelligence of other humans:  they are assumed to be incompetent, stupid morons incapable of taking care of themselves—for example, you obviously find it unthinkable that people could choose good education for their children or high-quality health care and effective medicines for themselves.  You might want to consider doing some introspection on this hidden contempt, because, among other things, it is starkly anti-democratic.  (From my own experience, I have found this unstated—indeed, unconscious-- contempt of others to be extremely common in Scandinavia.)

<<let us Tory conservatives indeed build alliances, and build them with...>>

Mr Cundiff, fine and good, but the problem is that you still have maybe only 15% of the population, and that just doesn’t mean anything in a [mass] democracy.

85 to 90% of Americans are flat-out [non-card carrying] Communists; they support [at least some] abortions (for example, at a KofC meeting the other night, on of my fellow Knights said it was good the Church allowed for abortions for rape and incest...), even when they’re “anti-war” they still support [some sort of] war(s), “fiscal conservatives” support tax increases (for the “rich"), a bevy of public works projects, and many many many more purely Communist/Authoritarian positions.

The only answer is to reject society and “head for the hills”; isolate yourself and your family from this society as much as possible and let the McCains and Clintons of the world kill one another.

@Kari

Yes, there is a contradiction inherent in
libertarian Catholics (By the way, Catholics
bow to an absolute monarch, who is said to be
always right on the stuff that really matters, and
are expected to obey blindly - hardly the stuff of
which Libertarians are made).

One day John Zmirak will have to decide what is more
important, his pro-Life position, or his Libertarian
principles.

You cannot defend the unborn unless you are willing to
coerce pregnant women into not aborting. Not unless you
want to outlaw those who carry out the procedures.

And you cannot forbid same-sex marriage unless you are
willing to deny men and women the right to choose who
to spedn their life with in a situation recognized by
law.

Something has to give.

I found the list wb wrote particularly idiotic for hte
first two items (the others are more open to interpretation)
In the case of inmigration, Liberty means that anyone
who wants to come to the US to work can do so, and
anyone who wants to work can apply for any job without
being hassled for it. In the case of abortion, Liberty
means the freedom to abort.

As Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters, and it
would be very troubling to find Liberty in the role of
the Devil.

“And that means also not giving them a forum on Tory Conservative websites for them to preach their trash.”

The “conservatives” were a minority of ideologues within the GOP until Southern racialists pissed off with LBJ’s embrace of the Civil Rights Movement defected from the Democratic Party. “Conservatism” in America dies the day it ceases to be perceived as “the white man’s party” in the South.

Ron Paul garnered 3% of the vote in the Alabama Republican Primary. In 2004, a proposed state amendment to strike segregationist language out of the Alabama state constitution was defeated in the general election.

Racism isn’t a “conservative” philosophy.

One can hate the “N-worders” (I’d use the actual “N-word”, but the last time I did the post was pulled) for their decrepit culture, but if you hate them because they’re simply “N-worders”, there’s nothing conservative about that.

As a Catholic and a “conservative”, if I were a racist, I would have to hate my former bishop, His Excellency Wilton Daniel Gregory.

That just doesn’t make any sense.

Adriana,
Do keep in mind that there are several different types of Christianity, and their authoritarianism varies.  For Protestants, the act of Luther standing in front of the Emperor and refusing obedience to both the Emperor and the Pope used to have massive symbolical value.  (My specialty is 17th century English Protestants, who beheaded their King.)

Possibly even more important than his assertion of individual rights was Luther’s idea of translating Bible to the vernacular.  Underlying this idea was an incredible—and to many contemporaries utterly incomprehensible and indefensible—trust in the wisdom of the average human.  Throughout the 16th century, Protestants were attacked by the accusation:  if you give the Bible to people and tell them to follow their consciences, they will come up with all kinds of weird and violent religions—and there was abundant evidence about the truth of this accusation.  Yet, Protestants stuck to their guns. 

I’m not sure from where the respect toward other’s intelligence came from.  However, it seems we are talking about the same, mostly unconscious, self-evident assumption about whether people can take care of themelves, or whether they need to be protected for their own good, which can still be seen today (your earlier post), and which has a powerful influence on people’s political views.  Among other effects, this attitude makes true libertarianism impossible.  This is the reason why the assumption about people’s incompetence has to be pointed out and dealth with in debates about Libertarianism. 

Note that most of Luther’s ideas can be found in medieval Catholicism—a continuity that is not surprising, since Luther was a Catholic Professor of theology.  English Protestants, for example, repeatedly praised Gerson as one of their forefathers.  When it comes to religious morality, it may not be wrong to see Protestantism as simply the strictest branch of medieval Catholicism.

Has Mr. Zmirak identified himself as a libertarian somewhere?

@Kari

I mentioned **Catholics** in my post, and Mr.
Zmirak is certainly one, so Martin Luther is not
germane to the discussion - as we say in Argentina
‘He has no candle to carry in this burial service”
(No tiene vela en este entierro).

Anyway, for what I understand, for Luther and Calvin,
freedom meant the freedom to agree with Luther and
Calvin. If you did not agree, well, ask Michael
Servet about that.

I never said I was a “conservative.” Conservatives are people who would rather have 1 billion non-whites settle in Europe and North America than be accused of “racism.”

By the way, in the case of abortion, it is not
whether people can take care of themselves, but
whether or not they will care for a helpless
human being in their custody.

The problem is not so much that human beings might
be incompetent, as that they may be wicked and do
wicked things… as the wise Burke said, that since
freedom means the ability to do as one’s pleases, it
is wise to know that pleases them before you congratulate
them on it.

As far as I can tell, to keep people from doing wicked
things, freedom tends not to be to effective.

@Dear Sid:

It sounds like a good program (though I cannot
promise to make nice to Dr. Cathey… I’ll settle
for ignoring him, if that’s OK with you).

You might want to bring in Hispanics - there are
plenty of good Catholics there.

Also there are plenty in the Left who are like
the Greens, Conservatives who do not know it. Many
are motivated by compassion, and indignation at
injustices suffered by another. It would be a shame
to lose them because they think that there is only one
place they can go with their thirst for righteousness.

McCain will surprise people as to how conservative he will preside. Especially with his appointments to all the federal benches. Allowing Obama or Clinton to have four years of judicial appointments is unacceptable, IMHO. And you all should know this. Anyway, if Iraq, and any war, is your number one concern, Obama is your man. Why not support him then? He is more anti-war than even Ron Paul. Obama never served, Paul extols the fact that he did serve, where the uniform.

That’s ‘wear’ the uniform.

Catholics bow to an absolute monarch, who is said to be always right on the stuff that really matters, and are expected to obey blindly

Excellent point. Monarchs are elected and gentleman like Dr. Cathey, Mr. Zmirak, Mr. Cundiff, Mr. Capp and my own self are blindly obedient.

I ‘spose I must be consoled by the idea blind obedience is preferable to clear-sighted rejection of the Church Jesus established.

NOW is the time for Catholic paleo-cons to face the reality that there is no place for Christ the King and His social reign in the American Republic.

We Catholics can take one word from Mr. Zmirak:  Sabotage.

But this sabotage should be taken in the sense closer to the methods of the wild Catholic monks of Spain during the Napoleonic Wars than what is meant by Mr. Zmirak.

Adriana,
You are absolutely right in saying that the idea of individuals having rights against their superiors did not pop up full blown.  Luther regarded himself justified in defying the Emperor and the Pope, but he had great difficulties when people started saying that their consciences required them to disobey Luther.  In 17th-century England, however, you begin to see this logical implication being worked out.  The realization that Christian morality gives people the right—and not only right, but duty—to disobey even me seems to have been closely connected to the toleration that developed in England in the second half of the century. 

As to dealing with people who are intentionally evil, Christianity has a wealth of experience on this subject.  Catholic confessors operated right in the middel of the violent, impulsive, irrational late medieval society described so eloquenty by Huizinga in the famous first chapter of his “The Waning of the Middle Ages.” It seems to me that the emphasis given on the sinfulness of pride, envy, anger and greed stemmed from the “research” confessors had done on the depth-psychological sources of this violence.  Discussions of the sin of hatred, in particular, show a very impressive understanding of the psychology of cycles of revenge.

The “Christian psychotherapists” offered a highly counterintuitive solution to the problem of evil:  instead of responding with violence (that only starts a cycle of revenge), respond with humility, meekness, turning the other cheeck and love.  These ideas used to be the core of Christ’s teaching, and, even though they seem utterly illogical, they appear to have worked.  By late 17th century, Western Europe’s formerly pervasive violence was largely gone.

As to Liam’s observation that there is no place to Christ’s teachings in the American Republic, don’t forget that about 80% of Americans are nominally Christian and about 40-50% are actively so.  The problem is that many of these people seem to have forgotten what their ancestors regarded as the core of Christ’s teaching.  (For an example of what I have in mind: Thomas A Kempis’s “The Imitation of Christ” was the second most popular book in 16th century Europe, after the Bible.  Compare Kempis’s Christianity with moden dispensationalist Protestantism.)

@Kari

There is also a proud Catholic traditon of resistance
to tyrannical authority. “Tyrannicide” was defended by
Thomas Aquinas, and was taken up by the Jesuits later
on.

Actually, the Reformation was a step backwards as they
removed the one bulkwark against the personal tyranny of
the princes, or later the impersonal one of the State.
Too many reformers put themselves under the protection
of the local prince, and basically paid for it by saying
that the prince was always right. Thus came the Doctrine
of the Divine Right of Kings, a doctrine which was never
part of Catholic teaching.  Thus we see Luther enjoining
his followers to **always** obey the Prince, a teaching
which Hitler later found most useful, and we see the
Anglican Church, founded on the granting the King of
England a divorce he had no right to.

In the meantime in Spain there was a proud tradition of
holding up the King and the powerful to moral standards.

I leave you with a couple of poems, both recited during
popular plays of the time of Lope de Vega, Cervantes,
and Calderon de la Barca.

“Aquello que manda el rey/si va contra lo que Dios manda/
ni tiene fuerza de ley/ni es rey quien asi se desmanda”

That which the King commands/if it goes against God’s
law/is not legally binding/ and who ever so commands in
no King”

and

“Al rey la hacienda y la vida/ pero no el honor/ porque
el honor es patrimonio del alma/ y el alma, solo de Dios.”

“To the King is due our lives and our goods/ but not
our honor/ because honor belongs to the soul/ and the
soul, only to God”

Adriana,
Couldn’t agree with you more.  The origins of the religious right to disobey can be found in Catholicism (as can just about all the rest of Protestantism), and Lutherans later retracted the right to disobey a political ruler.  Indeed, the “Quius Regio, Eius Religio” rule made the Price the head of religion, thus removing the possibility that Protestantism in Germany could have justified opposition to a political ruler.  The King, not the indvidual, decided what God’s law meant, and thus the King could not break God’s law.  In this sense, the modified Lutheranism did pave the way to Hitler.

In England Protestantism developed differently.  The King was nominally the head of the Church, but dissent that took a far more cautious view of earthly authorities was accepted.  The dissenters very much maintained the view that, if you followed the King’s command and committed a sin, then in the last judgment you would get double punishment: the first for the sin, and the second for prefering King’s command to that of God.  Most importantly, in the Dissenting tradition the individual, not the King, decided what God’s law meant.  In this world-view (which followed Luther’s original thinking), the King could give an order which it was a sin to obey. 

More generally, a look at the most strictly Christian countries of Europe produces an intriguing result:  Calvinist Szwitzerland, Calvinist Netherlands, Puritan England and the Puritan American colonies.  All of these countries share a series of traits that are very rare in history:  A period of fanaticism that in England and the Netherlands culminated in a civil war, followed by several centuries of toleration and respect for individual rights and freedoms, representative political systems, very impressive economic and political success, equally impressive technological and scientific creativity, and domestic peace—American civil war is the exception to this last rule.  Is the correlation of these traits with the most ascetically Christian parts of Europe just a coincidence, or might there be a causality?  Could it be that Weber was onto something?

@Kari

Forgive me my cynicism (or realism), but I think
that the explanation has less to do with the
doctrines themselves as with their circumsntances.

As you said, there was bitter bloody civil war in
those countries before a climate of toleration
developed. I suspect that it was the lesson of civil
war that hammered that lesson home. In England,
for example, the Puritans revolted against Charles
I because he was too High Church, a secret Catholic,
even. So they cut off his head and then England could
enjoy the Cromwellian dictatorship, with the Parliament
thrown out by Cromwell’s soldiers and theaters closed
because going to the theater was “sinful”

After Cromwell died, Charles II came back, and he did
not want to go on his travels again, and the Parliament
did not want to put itself into the power of a
military tinpot tyrant, so they learned to live with
each other - the rest if History

(By the way, Cromwell was invoked by a certian number
of the English Left. Brendan Behan tells how when
a number of the IRA went to Spain to fight for the
Republic, they wanted to incorporate them to the
English brigade, named “Cromwell”. Well, that did not
go well, as Behan said, it was like having Jews join
a “Himmler” battallion...)

@Dear Sid:

I regret that I cannot look kindly on Dr. Cathey.
I should not have googled on “Caggiano” but I did
and what I found confimred what a nasty piece of
goods he was, a real son-of-bitch.

That Dr. Cathey wants to solidarize with that
criminal, indirectly responsible for the sufferings
of my family means that there can never be more than
a chilled courtesy between us. Be content with that.

Adriana,
A look at the writings of Englishmen suggests it was not just the trial and error learning from the civil war, but a fascinating built-in paradox in their religion that produced the peace and toleration:  strict Protestantism required fanatical obedience to religious virtues.  Yet, the second most important virtue (after love of God) was humility.  Now, what kind of a personality ensues when somebody tries to be fanatically humble?

The effect of this paradox was strengthened by the sin of hypocrisy.  Discussions of this sin offered innumerable easy-to-use tests to determine whether a person was truly humble—many of the test relied on observations of body language, and were thus almost impossible to fool.

It took a while for this powerful built-in paradox in strict Christianity to work itself out, but with time the willingness to question, doubt and criticize oneself that form the core of humility did have a large-scale effect.  (Interestingly, modern Christians are beginning to call these formerly virtuous personality traits “self-hating”.)

Also, do not forget the other virtues, such as loving your enemies, not revenging wrongs and turning the other cheeck.  All of these can be seen in the second half of the 17th century:  the number of executions at the restoration was very small—not even all people who had signed the death warrant of Charles I were executed.  At the restoration, the King was allowed to escape.  The formerly common bitter hatred that required humiliation and destruction of opponents is no longer there.