Our Blessed PlotrnThe Case for the Bricker Amendmentrnby Theodore PappasrnAs if we needed more proof of the threat to nationalrnsovereignty, there comes John Gardner’s latest “JamesrnBond novel,” SeaFire. Gone is Ian Fleming’s wonderful cast ofrncharacters. The drab but lovable Q has been replaced by arnwoman nicknamed Q’ute; the admiral M has been replaced byrna committee of bureaucrats; a primping tart called ChastityrnVain has taken the place of Bond’s faithful and dignihcd secretaryrnMoncypenny; and Bond, with knee bent before the altar ofrnthe pink ribbon, has stopped philandering and is about to settlerndown and marry again, which I suppose is preferable to seeingrnBond wait anxiously for the results of his latest blood test.rnThis is not the Bond of Ian Fleming, the cultivated herornwhose courage, self-reliance, and resourcefulness saved Britain,rnprotected its security and sovereignty, and defended the institutionsrnof the free and civilized Western world. No, this newrnBond has a different purpose. The famed 007 section has beenrndisbanded, and Bond now heads a department called the TwornZeros, which in turn reports to a committee called MieroGlobernOne, whose purpose is not to defend Britain’s borders and protectrnits liberties but instead to fight breaches of internationalrnlaw and treaties. Forget that signature line of identification:rn”Bond, James Bond.” For it is now: “Bond, Boutros Boutros-rnBond.” If this means that the classic Bond films are to be remadernas well, to conform with the transnational New WorldrnTheodore Pappas is the managing editor o/”Chronicles. This articlernwas originally given as a speech at the 1994 meeting of thernJohn Randolph Club.rnOrder, we can only hope that Janet Reno will be cast as RosarnKlebb.rnMost telling, however, is this noxel’s portraval of the socalledrnvillains of today and rogues of tomorrow: namely, men ofrnthe right. In SeaFire, the ‘illain is one Max Tarn, an Englishrnphilanthropist who is secretly a German seeking to become—rnwhat else?—a new Hitler. Tarn, we are told, “deals in death,”rnmeaning he sells guns; he is against foreigners overrunningrnGermany; and he has a growing and devout following, some ofrnwhom arc hairless. When Bond witnesses a rally in Germanyrnfor Max Tarn, he reports: “Thugs, toughs, young men andrnwomen, many of the men with their heads shaved, all of themrnin various kinds of disreputable dress. The kind of louts [who]rnhave made German cities unsafe,” “attacking foreigners,”rn”parading in the streets,” “marching in antigovernmentrnprotests.” In the 1960’s, hellions with long hair and disreputablernclothes who took to the streets in antigovernmentrnprotests were frequently called “engaged,” and fawned upon forrntheir activism and idealism; todav, voungsters with no hair andrndisreputable clothes who take to the streets in antigovernmentrnprotests are called threats to humanity. It must be the hair.rnBut even more disturbing to Bond and Gardner than thernsight of an actie populace defending its home and native culturernis Max Tarn’s speech, in which Tarn embraces the absurdrnnotion of “a Germany for the Germans.” This, trembles Bond,rnis Nazism “plain and simple,” because the next step is a Germanyrnfor only “purebred Germans.” Bond could almost “hearrnthe jackboots stomping” and see a “Europe a ruin.” as “a mon-rnOCTOBER 1995/21rnrnrn