I have never been very interested in the “soft sciences” of sociology or psychology, but I have been interested in their distant cousin, economics. Transactions—financial and otherwise, and commerce, bring people together and ultimately form the basis of our growing societies. Unquestionably feelings of love and loyalty have a very important place in our lives as does the need for self-preservation of life, property, and personal security, Just read our Great Declaration for the greatest explanation ever written down about why governments exist and the rules by which we should govern ourselves and the limits that governments should respect when the exert influences over us that are beyond our nature.
A study that I would like to give time too someday would be to explore the motivations of people when they make political decisions, why they choose a particular course of action that may or may not have anything to do with a particular political or religious philosophy that they may subscribe to. A case study of such a situation that I would like to look into more deeply, is what happened to the general population of France during the German Occupation of World War II. I listened to a lecture yesterday about the occupation from the granddaughter of a French resistance fighter who was finally captured and sent to a concentration camp.
Almost immediately after Hitler’s Nazi forces declared control over France, there were “appeasers” and “resisters”. France has always been and remains today a country with many political factions, but at the time of Nazi control these factions did not line up against the forces of evil “En Masse” or consistently based on a political party allegiance or ideology. Communists lined up with conservatives, libertines lined up with Marxists, aristocrats lined up with shipyard workers, farmers, and fishermen—on both sides. The sides seemed to have been chosen based on what each individual saw as either the need to survive or the need to exert individuality and liberty. The confusion and complete destruction of the French Army by The German Reich as it advanced across France to Paris was devastating psychologically and created a “corporate state of confusion” best described below:
Michael Curtis writes in Verdict on Vichy: Power and Prejudice in the Vichy France Regime, “The Vichy (The Proxy German Government in France—jml) regime seemed to have early popular support, while the Resistance was at first limited. If there had been a public referendum, the French people, in a state of confusion after the military defeat, concerned with material interests, and distressed by the German occupation of the north of the country, might well have approved of Vichy. At one extreme there was great brutality, especially by the violently anti-Semitic paramilitary Milice, while on the other hand the number of protestors and heroic resistors against Vichy and the Nazis grew larger throughout the war.”
The last sentence above in my humble opinion just isn’t true. The population of France prior to World War II was 40 million people. During the first two years of Vichy rule, only 2% of the people were active in the “resistance”. As the allies advanced after “D Day” that number increased to 4%—so at most 1.6 million people supported the resistance against the collaborators. These numbers are tough to analyze because many people were transported to concentration camps eastward during that time and are not counted in the numbers of resistors
Marshall Putin was a World War I war hero and general, and he was an “appeaser” and “collaborator”. Charles De Gaul was a war hero and the leader of the resistance. Both fought against Franco’s Spanish Fascism fearing his possible alliance with Hitler. They were at one time friends and political colleagues. They became bitter political enemies. One a gallant freedom fighter and leader of the resistance. The other an appeaser and collaborator—in my mind and to most people in France today—a traitor to his people. His name is never mentioned in schools according to the lady who gave the lecture. Was he doing what was best for himself or what was best for his country? Motives almost always remain unknown, but always are studied to the nth degree. For me the non-psychologist, actions are what should be the sole way we evaluate history and current day politicians.
Here is my concern. At some point in time political philosophy and religion and faith that are the bases of a virtuous political philosophy, somehow disappear in the hearts of some people and in others a spark is turned into a great blaze and there is an epiphany that becomes a call to action. Again, this happens only to a few, and the great majority become collaborators believing that by “having a seat at the table” or by just laying low they will be better able to protect themselves and their families, they can survive till a better day. But with fascism, socialism, Marxism and progressivism a better day never comes. Command economies must be based on coercive power and a subjugated people will never be able to exercise the great gifts of “free will” and liberty.
We see in our own lives this form of “collaboration” and appeasement exerting an influence over people who have not the courage to stand against it or the ability to recognize it. Think about the appeasement and collaboration that are being foisted upon the people in our country. Think about the faux demands of political correctness and “fake news”. Think about the slow road toward, limiting our free speech, and the calls for gun controls. Think about the great lie that abortion is natural—and if one is a Christian—especially an Evangelical or Catholic, it is not a sin. Think about the marginalization of religious speech and writings. Remember some of the first of “the supporters of the “collaboration” were church fathers and even Bishops-I mean bishops, who were antisemitic. However. in the same country on the side of the resistance were other Church Fathers—Bishops, who fought and supported the resistance many losing their own lives in Nazi concentration camps. Apparently Biblical and Natural Law theory spoke differently to different people. Maybe the will and need to survive were processed differently or took on a different set of priorities when applied to a people confronted with fascism? Or maybe some people, maybe many. are willing to forsake their commitment to a virtuous life in order to survive under an occupation?
Another point that is hard to fathom is how do major corporations look at their own responsibilities to their workers and customers. Many businesses in France during the occupation supplied arms and weapons to their occupiers that were subsequently used against the very people that made them. Commerce, trade, controlling the means of production and distribution and controlling supply and demand are the role of a market—not a government. But many corporate fathers followed their elitist aristocratic bureaucratic brethren and turned their backs on their own people. I ask is that happening today with US companies using foreign labor and markets, while forgetting about the interests of American workers and companies?
Each individual needs to decide about being a “resister” or collaborator” and it really has less to do with a political philosophy than it does with personal courage and virtue. Are you willing to take something from your government for “free” that really comes from the labor of another fellow citizen, or if you are a politician are you willing to “redistribute the wealth” of another person in order to attain political power, or if you are a local mayor are you willing to take a campaign contribution from a developer who is going to change the neighborhood of citizens that have voted for you for years? Collaboration or resistance confronts us all the time. The little decisions turn into big decisions. I can look at my fellow citizens today and pretty much tell which side of the equation they will side on. Let’s vote “resisters” into office and not “collaborators”.
I am tired of people who are trying to “just get along”. I am tired of people who only want to “collaborate”. I am tired of people who won’t fight for themselves, their families and their neighbors because it is just too easy to just get along.
Donald Trump is not an “Appeaser” or a “Collaborator”. In this day and age that should be reason enough to vote for him, otherwise we could end up being a Vichy-America being run by elitist aristocrats who won’t stand up to the evils of our day. The forces of GLOBALISM and one world government need to be confronted. The only person running for President willing to confront the evils of Progressive-Marxism is Donald Trump. His flaws may be many, but his spirit is great. He is not a collaborator and that is precisely what the deep state fears the most.
