That is a most insightful observation. I hadn’t thought of it before but the parallels are really quite striking. Noam Chomsky and Gerhard Schroeder really are soulmates.

This is a really interesting and true insight. Liberals are often unable to understand the importance of motives like shame and self-hatred in political and economic affairs, and so analyses of Germany and the E.U. often assume that German enthusiasm for unification is “really” a front for the (re)creation of a German-dominated Europe. But I’m convinced by Mr. Auster’s comments that German supremacy, even if it might be an actual result of further unification, is no more the goal of the German intelligentsia than Jewish “domination” was to Jewish communists.

“What do the Jewish-born, atheist Communists of the nineteenth century and the German Europhiles of today have in common?”

As an anti-EU Englishman, this really has me chuckling.

There is remarkable truth in this observation. German guilt is very very deep rooted (and with justification). I, however, resent it when historical guilt is used as a catalyst for turning all of Europe into a giant Socialist, Multiculti rust bowl.

To Peter Phillips:

You’re not the Queen’s grandson, are you? Just checking. :)

Theodore,

Given the current state of the Royal household and the antecedents of its members, I thank my good fortune and the benevolence of the almighty that I am not. Nonetheless, why do you ask?

I am a bit skeptical about German guilt being “deep-rooted,” and even more so about its being justified. As late as the 1960s, Germans did not seem to suffer much sense of guilt for what happened in the Nazi period, particularly toward people OTHER than Jews. If anything, foreign observers noted a marked tendency for older Germans to blubber about what had happened to THEM, ie the bombing and the expulsion of the Germans from the east. Moreover, the first postwar generation, that matured in the 1950s, seems to have been quite sane. It is only in the last 30-40 years that Germans who themselves bore no guilt for what happened in the 1930s and 1940s have become so nutty and self-destructive. I should say that most of those peddling the guilt trip bore no responsibility. Some of the older people of this type, notably Juergen Habermas and the historian Fritz Fischer, who tried to blame World War I on Imperial Germany, were notorious ex-Nazis who had jumped over to the far left for cover.

Well, Peter, I am a staunch Royalist and believe that traditionalists should support the House of Windsor against its leftist republican enemies, whatever the flaws of individual members of the royal family.

>Nonetheless, why do you ask?

You do know that Princess Anne’s son is also named Peter Phillips, don’t you?

Theodore,

I admire your traditionalism. However, the level of decadence and last-mannishness now reached by the Royal household means that it invites not one iota of loyalty from Englishmen such as myself.

“You do know that Princess Anne’s son is also named Peter Phillips, don’t you?”

Yes, I do. That said, I am surprised that youd think that the Royals think much about anything these days - particularly the dangerous trends that have taken root in their own country. They tend to spend a little more time on such significant matters as global warming, environmental degradation and the cause of landmines in Cambodia.

When Mr. Phillips says that the Royal family invites no loyalty from “Englishmen such as myself,” what sort of Englishmen does he mean?

Also, whatever his feelings about the Royal family, does he believe in the monarchy?

Lawrence,

When I say “Englishmen such as myself” I mean people who still believe in England, its traditions, its history - patriotic Englishmen. However, I do believe that the vast majority of such people would pledge loyalty to the Royal Family irrespective of present day conditions.

Speaking of me personally, I believe the Royal Family is a non-issue - its members a bunch of decadent no-hopers whos sole utility today appears to be to function as source of amusement for the Tabloid readers. That said, I do not believe this country will proceed to do away with the Royal family or the remnants of the Aristocracy any time soon (nor would I support such a thing).

However, I wouldnt risk my life and limb for the Royals - they do not inspire that kind of loyalty any more. Is that an unreasonable view?

What about Prince Charles’s well-known concern for the rights of farmers and hunters, and his architectural conservatism? And no one irritates the politically correct thought police more than his father Prince Philip. Looking to the future, I can’t see that there’s anything objectionable about Princes William and Harry.

I don’t expect other American right-wingers to agree with my views on monarchy, but it worries and saddens me to see British conservatives unable to muster enthusiasm for the symbol of everything they stand for.

I have to side with Mr. Harvey on this. While I won’t object to Mr. Phillips’s lack of respect for the current members of the royal family if that’s the way he feels, what I find surprising, given the fact that he describes himself as an English traditionalist, is that he hasn’t expressed any respect or reverence for the monarchy itself. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

The monarchy is a transcendent aspect of the British state and society, infusing England with something that is wholly lacking in the United States. This is something I’ve experienced, not from books, but from being in England.

Lawrence,

Is the Monarchy more important than the survival of Britain in this 21st century? Would Britain cease to be Britain without the Crown? (Would Britain remain Britain with the Crown but without the British - this nation’s native stock as its dominant majority?)

I think these questions need to be thought through a little. I have reverence for tradition. But the best things Britain has given this world have not had much much to do with the Royal Family, although arguably a great deal to do with the Aristocracy which has regrettably decayed to an unimaginable extent. Imagine an entire Aristocracy imbibing the decadence of the likes of Lord Mountbatten.

What Britain needs is vigorous leadership in what is going to be a very difficult time. This is a country sitting on a time bomb that can explode at some point in the not too distant future. As Enoch Powell said, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

I believe that a great deal of evil that is likely to occur in this nation’s future is avoidable. But the greater question is, where are these leaders going to come from? Which men are going to lead this country through the crises of the coming future?

I believe these questions are of infinitely greater importance than the survival of the Royal family. Am I wrong?

Speaking of America personally, I sometimes wish we in Britain had the kind of lobbies the US has - especially with regard to Guns for example. A vigorous Gun lobby would save us from the Greenies and the Blairites willing to destroy a way of life that has made British country life unique for centuries.

Arguments similar to those of Mr. Phillips have been made by paleo and traditionalist conservatives about America, that the Constitutional order, if it wasn’t a mistake in the first place (which some of them believe it was), is defunct in any case, and any survival of our culture has to be built on a different basis.

My initial answer to Mr. Phillips’s question would be the same as my answer to those American conservatives: American conservatism has always been defined by loyalty to the Constitution; if you abandon that, you’re placing yourself outside any identifiable American tradition. In the same way, the monarchy is constitutive of Britain; if you repudiate it, in what sense can you be a British traditionalist?

But perhaps Mr. Phillips could expand further on what sort of leadership he hopes for. He seems to be hinting that a war for national survival is looming in Britain, and that the monarchy would only be a hindrance in that war.

“He seems to be hinting that a war for national survival is looming in Britain, and that the monarchy would only be a hindrance in that war.”

The Monarchy is today seeped deep into the stuff that men on the right loathe. I believe that if nationalism had a revival in Britain it would meet with opposition from the Royals - they are after all post-national in several ways already. It is common knowledge that Maggie Thatcher, the best Prime Minister Britain has had since Churchill, had serious disagreements with the Monarch.

Would the Royals stand in the way of a revival? I have no doubt that they would. They would make appeals to peace, to benevolence and tolerance (which automatically means lowering your defenses of country - because the opposition would not reciprocate. Would blood thirsty Muslims on the verge of taking this country reciprocate to calls of Peace?). This is very sad.

Is the Crown a static institution? Has it been sitting idly for centuries without change? What happened during the Civil War in England? What happened in the time of Hobbes that drove him to write “Leviathan”? Today those events are as much a part of British History as waterloo.

Out of those events emerged the thought of John Locke and later inspired the works of Montesquieu that created the modern world and propelled this tiny island nation to rule the Earth.

The Monarchy wasnt a static insulated institution by any means. It went through gut wrenching change and convulsions in its own time. Is it going to remain static and insulated for ever? Nothing remains insulated for ever.

Change is at our doorstep and we have to respond to it now. Empty platitudes wont do.

Lastly, about the Constituion and the United States:

What is it that makes Britain unique? Concepts of Justice, of the Rule of Law, the origins of Modern Science in the writings of Francis Bacon, the courage of Winston Churchill, the roots of Anglo-Saxon systems of Government. Would Britain be Britain without these things?

Britain would remain Britain if it could retain all that. And it would have nothing in common with the Britain of old if it lost all that. That is the crisis of the future. This might sound alarmist today but a Dutchman who talked this way twenty years ago would have been dismissed as a scare monger. He wouldnt be now.