The Banality of Evil

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, yesterday morning I read an article where Bishop Tutu proclaimed, “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. . . . I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven.  No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.”

AM:  (an American seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  I may have read the same article. Tutu was speaking in connection with the United Nations’ global campaign to advance gay rights.

IM:  Yes, and I also came across a headline, “‘Pope Francis Apologies to LGBT Youth at World Youth Day Event:’ My Prayer for the Church.”  The headline, which was imagined, and its corresponding article were written by a Catholic priest.

AM:  I think what is disappointing about the LGBT issue is that there are many who disagree with the morality of LGBT behaviors, yet still have love and compassion for those who engage in such behaviors.  Labeling these people as homophobic is disingenuous and pejorative.  But, by using such terms, there is a deliberate effort to change the values we internalize.  We talked about this in our last discussion on the end of truth. There seems to be a contest between secular and religious faith systems.

IM:  Ironically, I recently learned that an Air Force Chaplain assigned to Joint Based Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) has been censored for posting an article entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes:  Chaplains Gave All in World War II.”  Within five hours of receiving a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the base commander had the essay taken down. Remember, MRFF is headed up by Mikey Weinstein. 

AM:  What was it in the essay that offended readers?

IM:  The essay’s theme was about faith.  Before it is completely censored, here is the original essay that I was able to recover from Fox News:

Chaplain’s Corner: No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II”

By Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes

Many have heard the familiar phrase, “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

Where did this come from?

Research I verified in an interview with former World War II prisoner of war Roy Bodine (my friend) indicates the phrase has been credited to Father William Cummings.

As the story goes, Father Cummings was a civilian missionary Catholic priest in the Philippines.

The phrase was coined during the Japanese attack at Corregidor.

During the siege, Cummings had noticed non-Catholics were attending his services.

Some he knew were not Catholic, some were not religious and some were even known atheists.

Life-and-death experiences prompt a reality check.

Even the strongest of beliefs can change, and, I may add, can go both ways – people can be drawn to or away from “faith.”

With the pending surrender of allied forces to the Japanese, Cummings uttered the famous phrase “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

In one of my many discussions with Roy, he distinctly remembered a period on the “Hell Ships” – these were ships the Japanese used to bring POWs from the Philippines back to Japan.

They were unmarked and thus ‘fair game’ for attacks from the allies from the air and sea.

Of the 3,000-plus POWs listed on the ships, only 180 survived the journey.

“When our own planes were attacking us,” Roy said, “I remember Father Cummings calming us down by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and offering up prayers on our behalf.

For a brief moment I did not hear the yells and screams of dying men as our boat was attacked by our own men.”

He went on to say, “There was a peaceful quiet during the attack that I cannot explain nor have experienced since.”

Later on during the trip to Japan, Cummings, after giving his food to others who needed it more, succumbed to his own need and died of starvation.

Everyone expresses some form of faith every day, whether it is religious or secular.

Some express faith by believing when they get up in the morning they will arrive at work in one piece, thankful they have been given another opportunity to enjoy the majesty of the day; or express relief the doctor’s results were negative.

The real question is, “Is it important to have faith in ‘faith’ itself or is it more important to ask, ‘What is the object of my faith?’”

Roy never affirmed or expressed whether his faith was rooted in religion or not, but for a moment in time on the “Hell Ships,” he believed in Cummings’ faith.

What is the root or object of your faith?

Is it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss; peace or chaos; joy or sorrow; success or failure?

Is it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss; peace or chaos; joy or sorrow; success or failure?

What is ‘faith’ to you?

AM:  The essay is brilliantly written.  The chaplain gave interested readers encouragement to reflect upon the source of their faith, whether religious or secular.

IM:  Yet, here are accusations from the Foundation’s letter to the JBER base commander:

·        Referring to the term “atheists” the letter claimed the essay included a “bigoted, religious supremacist phrase which defiles the dignity of service members.”

·        The letter goes on to say, “I do not have faith. Several of the 42 clients currently assigned to JBER who requested the MRFF intercede in this instance do not have faith, and they still proudly defend their country in uniform. Lt. Col. Reyes has both violated that fundamental level of respect and current Air Force regulation. As the current commander of JBER, as the officer appointed to care for the 42 service members who have reached out to us, it is your duty to see to it that this behavior is corrected. Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately reprimanded, and his 'No atheists in foxholes' article must be removed from the post website.”

Old Gadfly:  What is the definition of faith?

IM:  Let me look it up on my Smart phone . . . According to Dictionary. Reference.com,  there are five definitions in this order:  (1)  confidence or trust in a person or thing; (2)  belief that is not based on proof; (3) belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion; (4) belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.; and (5) a system of religious belief.

Old Gadfly:  I have three points to make based on these definitions.  First, a close reading of Reyes’s essay clearly reveals that he pays respect to all five definitions.  Second, notice that in the definition of faith, God and religion are listed after two other definitions.  Secularism is a form of religion.  Obama clearly wants 99% of Americans to have faith in him and his hope and change agenda.  Recall our discussion on Prog: The god of Progressivism.  Finally, the bulk of what we understand as science is based on the second definition.  For example, physics is a scientific domain.  Most of physics is based on units of time.  Can you prove time?  Of course not.  Time is considered a priori knowledge.  We infer the phenomenon of time based on abduction, a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.  Yet, we have faith in the system of science that requires time for a meaningful understanding of the world in which we live.

AM:  So, do you think Weinstein has faith?

Old Gadfly:  Unless, we deliberately redefine what “faith” means, of course Weinstein has faith.  Unfortunately, his faith is similar to Al Sharpton’s.

AM:  Wow . . . how did Sharpton enter the picture?

Old Gadfly:  What we see playing out in Weinstein and Sharpton campaigns is opportunism, whether it is for power or greed.  Consider Sharpton’s behavior—that is, the so called Reverend Sharpton.  Without apparent racism, he has no role.  He would be like a doctor without sick people.  Is Sharpton’s behavior that different from the African tribal chief’s behavior during the era of transatlantic slave trade?  Tribal chiefs exploited the well-being of their own people to profit from the Dutch who needed cheap labor.[1]  Why would not the Reverend Sharpton be interested in eliminating the apparent causes for the adversities of blacks in America:  violence and poverty most of all?  He is an angry, irritated, and irascible man—routinely complaining, accusing, condemning.  He agitates and organizes the Saul Alinsky way.  Alinsky, another angry, irritated, and irascible man, dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer. 

IM:  Weinstein also seems opportunistic in exploiting the Zeitgeist of humanistic secularism.  This might explain why he had no interest in criticizing the openly gay Acting Secretary of the Air Force who proselytized gay behavior in Afghanistan.  It appears that proselytizing secular faith values by senior government leaders is allowed.  To add insult to injury, “hate speech” against Christian faith values is acceptable and encouraged. 

Old Gadfly:  Hannah Arendt’s account of the Eichmann trial in the 1960s captures the essence of what our discussion is about.  The subtitle of Arendt’s book about this account included the expression, the “banality of evil.”  Last year, we talked about this concept in IM’s dream involving “dry, parched lips.”  IM, see if you can find definitions for these words, banal and evil.

IM:  Dictionary.Reference.com defines banal as “devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite.”  Hackneyed means “made commonplace or trite; stale; banal.”  Trite means “lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition.”  Now, let’s see how evil is defined.  Three of the five definitions are of particular relevance to our discussion:    (1) morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked (e.g. evil deeds; and evil life); (2) harmful; injurious (e.g., evil laws); and (5) marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc. (e.g., he is known for his evil disposition).

Old Gadfly:  I wanted us to take the time to define some key words because they apply to what we see happening in the stories involving Bishop Tutu, the Catholic priest, the attack on the JBER chaplain, and the Acting Secretary of the Air Force.  Amos Elon provided a penetrating introduction to Hannah Arendt’s book, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil.  Here is a key observation:

In The Origins of Totalitarianism [Arendt] held on to a Kantian notion of radical evil, the evil that, under the Nazis, corrupted the basis of moral law, exploded legal categories, and defied human judgment.  In Eichmann in Jerusalem, and in the bitter controversies about it that followed, she insisted that only good had depth.  Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet—and this is its horror!—it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world.  Evil comes from a failure to think.  It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there.  That is the banality of evil.[2]  

Old Gadfly:  Think about the banality of evil in the stories we just discussed.  Tutu assigns privilege to a class of people, even expressing a judgment that he acknowledges might be contrary to the God in which he purports to serve.  He even uses the emotionally-charged word, “homophobia,” to diminish and disrespect the views of the non-privileged class.

AM:  Gadfly, let me interrupt you just for a quick observation.  Hayek, in his foreword to the 1956 American paperback edition to The Road to Serfdom astutely observed that true liberals tend to describe themselves as conservatives, and that there is great danger in this misunderstanding.[3]  He said, “A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of the government for the protection of privilege.”[4]  Those who fight for the privileged, whether they represent crony capitalism, labor unions, claims for reproductive rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage rights, illegal immigrant rights, minority rights, and so forth, claim to be liberal.  Progressive is probably a more precise label.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, AM.  It clearly sharpens our analysis and understanding of the issues we're discussing.  Let’s continue.  The Catholic priest admits to being gay.  He wants to be Catholic and gay.  This is like Lucifer, who chose evil in defiance of God’s will, yet would still want to remain God’s greatest angel.  The attack on the JBER chaplain is exactly what we talked about in our last discussion about the end of truth.  The chaplain’s essay was actually very thoughtful.  Angry, irritated, and irascible people like Weinstein and Sharpton cannot allow thoughtful “examination of the premises and principles from which [evil] originates.”  Finally, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force faced no apparent pushback for secular proselytizing—his behavior is sanctioned by the religious tenets of progressivism.

AM:  Doesn’t Obama come across as angry, irritated, and irascible?

IM:  Absolutely.  In my mind, Obama’s evil disposition started with his opposition to waterboarding and NSA surveillance under the Bush Administration.  He called waterboarding torture and the NSA surveillance an encroachment upon domestic civil liberties.  Now, he speaks of “phony scandals,” trying to diminish a “thoughtful” examination of serious issues that threaten our viability as a Constitutional Republic:  the circumstances surrounding Benghazi; the IRS suppression of the Tea Party and other nonprogressive groups during national elections; Department of Justice incompetence in the Fast and Furious case, its bullying of journalists and various state players, and so forth.  If I were to write a 21^st Century American version of Orwell’s Animal Farm, it would look like today’s American progressive politics.

AM:  Yet, for a man who wanted to establish a superior moral foundation before becoming President, Obama took credit for the battlefield execution of bin Laden in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and had no moral reservation about the assassination of American citizens through drone attacks.  And, in terms of civil liberties, he insisted upon a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that gives him the authority to arrest American citizens and to detain them indefinitely without legal representation.  Combine all this with the looming impact of Obamacare and we have examples of the definitions of evil.

Old Gadfly:  Remember, banality involves a characteristic of triteness:  “lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition.”  Obama is already into his fifth year of blaming others for the economic situation and others for denying privilege to protected classes, while repetitiously boasting of stimulus policies that are improving the economy with no evidence to support such a claim.  Obama and those who thoughtlessly follow him are the very essence of the banality of evil.

IM:  When will the remaining “good” Americans wake up and speak out against the evil that is spreading like a fungus?

Old Gadfly:  How many Americans are fully aware of the tyranny of the 20^th Century?  The numbers are rapidly shrinking.  How would the growing majority be sensitive to the tyranny that is unfolding before them?  Copernican drones lack the capacity to think for themselves, let alone think for others.  History is replete with this kind of behavior. 

IM:  The wisdom literature of the Bible’s Old Testament captured a great deal of this behavior.  One of my favorites is Proverbs 26:11.

 

AM:  I remember that one:  fools return to folly.

 

Old Gadfly:  And they don’t even know it.

 

AM:  Do you mean that they are fools or that they are returning to folly?

 

Old Gadfly:  Yes.

---

[1] James A. Rawley (with Stephen Behrendt), The Transatlantic Slave Trade:  A History, (rev. ed.), (Lincoln, NE:  The University of Nebraska Press, 2009).

[2] Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 2006 [originally published 1963), pp. xiii-xiv.

[3] Old Gadfly is grateful to his fellow critical thinker who pointed out Hayek’s privilege distinction during a breakfast meeting earlier this week.

[4] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (the definitive ed.), (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007), pp. 45-46.

The End of Truth

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, while the public remains preoccupied with the outcome of the relatively trivial Zimmerman trial, I’d like to get your view . . .

AM:  (an American seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Wait a minute.  Why do you say trivial?

IM:  The trial was about whether Zimmerman was guilty of some degree of murder or worthy of acquittal for self-defense.

AM:  In my view, the trial is far more than a case of homicide.

Old Gadfly:  I agree, AM.  But, why do you say it is more than homicide?

AM:  Homicide involves one victim.  What we have here is far worse, and it is a manifestation of our last discussion on the god of progressivism.

IM:  Wow, AM.  How so?

AM:  Think about it.  Initially, based on compelling evidence and a good picture of the circumstances, there was no reason to press charges.  Key players in the criminal investigation were replaced by others, based on political pressure.  Obama elected to interject the full weight and power of his position when he declared “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”  Was it coincidental that the white sheriff, who did not charge Zimmerman with any crime, was replaced by a black city manager with a black sheriff, who immediately charged Zimmerman?  Ironically, Zimmerman’s parents were white and Hispanic.  Yet, he’s been judged in the court room of public opinion as a white man.  Obama had a white mother and a black father. While there is some doubt about the father, whether from Kenya (as in Barack Sr.) or from Chicago (as in the Marxist and childhood mentor Frank Davis), he was black.  Thus, Obama, who symbolizes all the oppressed of our nation, is treated as a black man.  These distinctions are important because they relate back to our discussion on club mentality.  In this case, if you’re black, then you are in the club; if not, then you’re not in the club.  In today’s politically correct culture, to criticize a black (unless you’re a wealthy athlete like Tiger Woods or a political conservative) for whatever reason is tantamount to racism.  If you want confirmation, ask Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson.  But to criticize a white man because he’s white is not.  HBO’s comedians exploit this dynamic with no constraint.  It is politically correct bigotry. 

IM:  Obviously, Zimmerman’s not-guilty verdict remains unacceptable because the Justice Department is now considering the pursuit of a federal charge for a civil rights crime. 

AM:  Do you remember the two white reporters attacked by a mob of black men in Virginia shortly after the Zimmerman-Martin incident?  While I had to dig to find anything on it, I did find a short news clip.  Nowhere in the clip are the words white or black used.  I also discovered another local news clip of an incident involving two black teens assaulting a 50-year old white man . . . this act occurred soon after, and in the vicinity of, the Zimmerman-Martin incident.  None of this made it to the national media.  

IM:  Does our discussing these matters so openly make you feel like we’re committing blasphemy?

AM:  I keep looking around to see if we’re offending someone.

IM:  I thought it to be peculiar, but not surprising, when the trial judge struck from the record testimony from the investigating detective.  Here’s an excerpt from USA Today:

Tuesday began with Judge Debra Nelson agreeing to strike from the record Serino's testimony from the previous day in which he said he found Zimmerman's account of his fight with Trayvon Martin credible.

Citing case law, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said his own witness should not have told the jury that he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Nelson agreed that the jury should decide whether Zimmerman is telling the truth, and that a police officer's testimony about truthfulness would be given improper weight by the jury. She told jurors to disregard the statement.

Old Gadfly:  Political correctness stems from a created truth, not discovered truth.  Watching ABC News 20/20 the evening of the not guilty verdict, I heard a recap that talked about how Zimmerman “stalked” and shot Martin, but there was no interest in examining why Martin was “beating” Zimmerman, nor any mention of a broken nose or lacerations from a head being bashed onto concrete.  Political correctness is insidious and it operates at the emotional level.  To demonstrate, take a good look at this image I found on the Internet:

There are some key symbols in this image.  On a positive note, I see a message where the “dream” for which King fought ultimately manifested itself on the day a black man was inaugurated President of the United States of America.  In this picture, the American flag symbolizes the American dream. 

There is a sinister message as well.  Notice this “American dream” symbol separates King from Obama.  This implies another very powerful message.  Do you see what I’m suggesting?

IM:  Yes.  King is in the background and Obama is in the foreground. King fought for individual liberty.  He argued for people to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Obama argues for collective liberty based on a progressive ideology of hope and change:  hope to overcome the evils of class warfare; and change to establish the institutions needed for the collective liberty of socialism.  While King fought for justice.  Obama fights for social justice.  King wanted all people to win.  Obama picks winner and losers. 

AM:  Another implication regarding the concept of character is that Obama and his lieutenants manipulate characterizations for the purpose of diminishing targeted people.  A massive effort to “characterize” Romney is a vivid example.  Recall that following the first Presidential debate in August, Obama complained that what people saw with their own eyes was not the “real Romney.”  Obama’s Saul Alinsky training is his primary strength—agitate and organize the masses.  Make the masses hate those who “appear to threaten” their security.  Then, convince them with hope so that if they follow the community organizer, good changes will take place.  It worked for V. I. Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chávez, among the more notable charismatic and power-hungry leaders.  But, as we know from history, the masses paid a severe price and endured great suffering.

Old Gadfly:  The dynamics we are witnessing have been recorded and analyzed earlier in our lifetimes.  Hayek wrote about them in his book, The Road to Serfdom.[1]  He opened Chapter 11, “The End of Truth” with this quote from E. H. Carr:  “It is significant that the nationalization of thought has proceeded everywhere pari passu with the nationalization of industry.”[2]

IM:  How does the nationalization of thought and industry relate to the Zimmerman case?

Old Gadfly:  You’ll see the connection shortly.  In totalitarian administrations, centralized control of industry was critical because industries represented centers of power.  Centers of power have significant influence on individual behavior.  Do you see any signs of attempts to nationalize industry in America?

AM:  Absolutely.  First, while subtle, the General Motors issue was a step in that direction.  Creditors with equity in the company were given a nickel on the dollar.  But the union won massive tax payer subsidization of a bankrupted pension program and a seat on the board of directors.  Obamacare is another blatant example.  Recent maneuvering clearly indicates a push to maximize the number of individuals in statewide, federally controlled exchanges to force centralized control of healthcare.  Once healthcare is socialized, other industries will follow suit.  There are efforts already underway with energy.

IM:  That’s eerie.  The rallying symbol for collective liberty in Orwell’s Animal Farm was a windmill!

AM:  As it happened in Animal Farm, there is now a concerted effort to suppress opposing thought.  Last month, we discussed similar efforts regarding the Tea Party and other conservative groups in the IRS scandal.  Why is it that only Fox News is speaking out about it? 

Old Gadfly:  Certainly the silence from other media venues is not unprecedented. You both are old enough to remember Nikita Khruschev, who followed Stalin as the totalitarian leader of the Soviet Union.  Years ago, in the 80s, I read an interesting article authored by the noted leadership scholar, Warren Bennis, who described an event where Khruschev spoke to reporters at the American Press Club.  The reporters asked questions on note cards passed to a moderator.  The first written question was: ''Today you talked about the hideous rule of your predecessor, Stalin. You were one of his closest aides and colleagues during those years. What were you doing all that time?'' Khruschev's face grew red. ''Who asked that?'' he roared.  No one answered. ''Who asked that?'' he insisted. Again, silence. ''That's what I was doing,'' Mr. Khruschev said.[3] 

IM:  There are too many reporters being silent as the current Administration blatantly bullies opponents of its progressive agenda.

AM:  And they may be getting away with it as the American population of Copernican drones appears to be growing in numbers.  Jay Leno regularly demonstrates this with Jaywalk interviews.

Old Gadfly:  Sometimes people do not see danger, even when it is presenting sufficient signals, because they have been emotionally programmed through political correctness not to see it. 

Now, let’s get back to the connection between the Zimmerman-Martin incident, and Carr’s observation about nationalized thought and industry.  Here is direct quote of the first paragraph in Chapter 11 of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom: 

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants.  If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.[4] 

IM:  The connection makes sense.  The nationalization of thought, in this case to spontaneously react to racism, appears to dominate the public narrative. 

AM:  Unfortunately, a real threat to our security-- the radical ideology that attracts mostly young men to terrorism--is being stifled even among those we count on to defeat this threat.  What are your thoughts about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mrtin Dempsey’s criticism and punishment of Army Lieutenant Colonel Dooley, who was on assignment by the Army to teach a course on radical Islam at the Armed Forces Staff College?

Old Gadfly:  General Dempsey’s action is a great disappointment.  He is a silent Khruschev nearly 30 years later.  There are many Americans, to include Dempsey, who could be authentic and effective leaders—they simply must not be silent when they see threats to the truth.  Dempsey and others like him would be well-served to follow the advice of James Webb, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, marine, Vietnam veteran, Secretary of the Navy, U.S. Senator, and author.  Following the Navy’s “Tailhook” scandal in 1992, Webb claimed:

A vacuum has emerged where the Navy used to have a spine. It was evident in the Tailhook investigation, termed a cover-up by the Pentagon inspector general, that should have been resolved quickly and without sweeping damnation. It is evident today, as the Navy is being maligned and diminished before our eyes.

Where are the senior admirals? 

We measure the greatness of institutions by their resilience and tenacity under stress. These traits are manifested through leaders who were imbued, as they made their way up the promotional ladder, with a solemn duty to preserve sacrosanct ideals and pass them on to succeeding generations. A true leader knows that this obligation transcends his own importance, and must outlast his individual tour of duty. 

In the military the seemingly arcane concepts of tradition, loyalty, discipline and moral courage have carried the services through cyclical turbulence in peace and war. Their continuance is far more important than the survival of any one leader. It is the function of the military's top officers to articulate that importance to the civilian political process. And an officer who allows a weakening of these ideals in exchange for self-preservation is no leader at all.[5]

AM:  Until we have leaders with a spine and the willingness to fight for the ideals our American flag symbolizes, our nation faces a similar vacuum and the end of truth.

IM:  Recalling our last discussion on the god of progressivism in light of today’s conversation brings to my mind John 14:6.

Old Gadfly:  You really connected the dots with that one, IM!  Thank you for not being silent.  I look forward to our next conversation.    

---

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007 [originally published 1944)

[2] E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939:  An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, (London:  Macmillan, 1940), p. 172.

[3] Warren E. Bennis, “The Dilemma at the Top; Followers Make Good Leaders Good,” The New York Times, December 31, 1989.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/31/business/the-dilemma-at-the-top-followers-make-good-leaders-good.html

[4] Hayek, p. 171.

[5] James Webb, “Witch Hunt in the Navy,” The New York Times, October 6, 1992.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/06/opinion/witch-hunt-in-the-navy.html