A gang of thieves confront the cadets at a military school on a celebration night, as the formally uniformed boys welcome girls to a party. The hooligans call the cadets Nazis & attack them. The cadets defend themselves; they are unimpressive fighters; likely, they fight for honor. The general leading the school arrives at the scene, trying to break up the fight. The kids cannot listen! A hooligan jumps on his back, somehow unholsters his gun, & shoots one of his own gang. Then another one accuses the general of killing the boy: The general apologizes. He is then arrested.
The gov’t, the press, & the parents blame the military school & want to close it. The kids are humiliated &, given the sense of their own honor inherent in being together, they realize suddenly how foreign they are to the civil political arrangement. To hear them speak, they are warriors. They refuse to take orders anymore; they will fight for themselves from now on. They must now look for an independent ground for their education.
Soldiers as such are professionals of the art of war or some part thereof & may serve anyone who hires them. In this limited sense, soldiers do a job & get paid for it. It would seem they are rather more interested in getting paid, so they can make a living. That means they are interested in countries warring constantly.
Our protagonists are different: they are not paid, they are not yet professionals. & they will only fight for America, their country. They should, therefore, obey the American laws. What causes them to betray the laws? They see that those who defend themselves are accused, not their aggressors. This hatred of self-defense & affection for aggressors is characteristic of latter-day liberalism, which has abandoned justice in favor of tolerance, so it must destroy warriors, who continuously cause conflicts.
The school, the kids argue, belongs to them, because they can use it properly. What title to property is more reasonable than competence? Their education centers on the art of war. On what grounds should politicians decide about war? Without the politicians, however, the kids must answer the whole question of how men should live. Their answer may be: By war.
The kids at least argue for their superiority over the hooligans: They want to keep their school open, whereas the others want to close theirs. These kids have been taught to love their own & defend it, whereas the kids educated by liberals hate their own. This argument finally means that the art of war, in requiring honor, teaches patriotism. Liberalism has nothing comparable: The politicians agree, implicitly admitting inferiority, & send in the military.
A must-see for young men