Chancellor in Crisis." “Federal Chancellor Despairs.” Such is the tenor of articles discussing the political situation in the Federal Republic. What has become of Willy Brandt? There have always been anecdotes about the chancellors. Adenauer in particular received his share. But the humor of bitterness and gloating has not been witnessed in these parts since the days of Adolf Hitler. Obviously, the two men are not to be compared. What is comparable is the need for psychic relief in political humor.

The existence—and persistence—of the State of Israel continues to be a stumbling block, if not a scandal, for many Christian religious leaders. What is most remarkable and distressing is that the inability to understand the rationale of Zionism and the State of Israel is more prevalent among many Protestant “liberals” in theology, who might have been expected to have less dogmatic problems, than among Protestant “conservatives.” As for the Roman Catholic Church, the longstanding opposition of the papacy to Jewish aspirations and rights in the Holy Land and in Jerusalem has long been a staple of Catholic foreign policy, both because of ancient theological prejudices and contemporary political considerations.

Has Machiavelli been translated into Arabic?" From this question, Servan- Schreiber goes on to cite the ways in which the oil embargo exposed Western European vulnerability and “isolated the only power which, in this hellish game, is to be feared, namely, America.” Combined with this, the October war in the Middle East brought new supremacy to Soviet arms and “upset the ratio of forces.” The effect is that “all the industrial countries have been grabbed by their jugular vein.” Servan-Schreiber cites the French analyst, Jean Fourastié, who claims: “A new phase of economic history, of the cultural history, of ideologies and political strategies declared itself in October, 1973. It started with a blockade … there remains only force.” The consequence may be the rule of brute force everywhere in domestic and international life. The Planet of the Apes. Servan-Schreiber contrasts Fourastié's view with that of Samuel Pisar, an American, who sees a collective progression of the planet through conflict. The course of reason may be a supreme challenge, but it is not superhuman. Servan-Schreiber admits to being torn between the two scenarios offered by Fourastié and Pisar.

The problem in judging M. Servan-Schreiber's message is that he reaches some sound conclusions on the basis of dubious premises, from which he derives recommendations which could be disastrous.

There may be some satisfaction in seeing a Frenchman concerned with le défi, russe instead of le défi américain, but his interpretation of one is as crude as was his interpretation of the other. The shock of revelation that there are common interests of the Atlantic countries in economic as well as strategic matters is understandably more startling to a Frenchman than to others. It was all set out in 1949 in Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty and was restated eloquently in 1973 by Mr. Kissinger. But last spring European leaders were included to see the latter as a self-interested plea from a weak United States to a prosperous Europe. The North American countries were reminded that their role in Europe was simply to defend it on request.

I is a prideful word. It's full of boldness over against the internal slumbering of the rest of our planet's creatures. That's because they carry their world with them, like a snail and its shell, while man emerges out of an information gap. Other animals are directed by an instinctual encoding, while we must tell ourselves what we need to know in order to survive. Indeed, we must persuade ourselves to listen. We lack an internal conviction of reality, automatic animal persuasion. As anthropologist Ernest Becker says, “man became man in a total celebration of himself.”

The resistance of those who persist in maintaining old ways of thinking theologically and their accusations that the faith is being distorted are reminiscent of the opposition to the use of Aristotelian philosophy in theology. Notwithstanding the unfounded alarms and episodic condemnations these protests might provoke in the present, they, like their predecessors, have no future.

The future is in the hands of a faith which has no fear of the advances in thought and no fear of the social practice of man, a faith which allows itself to be interrogated by these phenomena, but also challenges them, a faith which is enriched but does not submit acritically.

The Post-American is committed to radical discipleship.” So begins a descriptive statement about a publication that seeks to serve as a forum for an emerging consciousness. Its message is both old and new—a radical understanding of biblical faith and discipleship. The context of American power and global dominance makes the need for “post-american” vision particularly critical. The publication, first as a tabloid and now as a monthly magazine, has received wide support among people seeking to rediscover the meaning of the Gospel for their lives and their times, people being driven to a new understanding of themselves, their nation and their Christian responsibilities.

The works of Niccolo Machiavelli throw needed light on a contemporary problem, the incompatability of the civilian and military modes of being. With Machiavelli, I assume that the surd between military and civil institutions originates in the abstraction of defense-of-oneVcountry from the citizens' daily concerns.

Machiavelli and other neoclassicists, assuming the Greek and Roman perspectives of social organization, stressed the importance of integrating civil and military “institutions.” A civil militia or “nation in arms” is the form of civil-military organization they deemed appropriate for the task. Machiavelli believed that the security of the state would be insured by incorporating the private everyday affairs of the citizens into a larger context of purposeful communal activity.

On Tuesday, March 12, 1974, a special kind of birthday party was held at Plaza Square, opposite the Plaza Hotel in New York City. The celebrants—Hal Prince, Carol Channing, Julie Harris, Hermione Gingold, Paddy Chayefsky, Geraldine Fitzgerald, to name a few—resembled a delegation from a “Who's Who” of the arts. The guest of honor, conspicuously absent, was Valery Panov. Probably one of the world's greatest dancers, he is known best in this country for his David-and- Goliath struggle with the Soviet authorities, a struggle which has cost him most of what he values in life.