The United States: A Country Without Mercy
The Christmas season is a time to remember the unfortunate, among who are those who have been wrongly convicted.
In the United States, the country with the largest prison population in the world, the number of wrongly convicted is very large. Hardly any felony charges are resolved with trials. The vast majority of defendants, both innocent and guilty, are coerced into plea bargains. Not only are the innocent framed, but the guilty, as well. It is quicker and less expensive to frame the guilty than to convict them on the evidence.
Many Americans are wrongfully convicted because they trust the justice system. They naively believe that police and prosecutors are moved by evidence and have a sense of justice. The trust they have in authorities makes them easy victims of a system that has no moral conscience and is untroubled by the injustice it perpetrates.
Lt. William Strong, son of a military family, tired of his wife's unfaithfulness and filed for divorce. The unfaithful wife retaliated by accusing Strong of rape. There was no evidence of rape, but Strong was deceived into a plea bargain. Once Strong entered a plea, he was double-crossed and given 60 years.
Christophe Gaynor took an adolescent skateboard team to New York City for a competition. One of the kids attempted to buy illicit drugs. Gaynor threatened to tell the boy's parents, and the boy pre-empted Gaynor by accusing him of sexual molestation. Gaynor was openly framed in the Arlington, Va., court system.
Americans, or perhaps more accurately some Americans, were horrified by the photographs showing the torture of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib by the U.S. military. The Senate Armed Services Committee has issued a report that concludes that the torture policy originated at the highest level of the Bush administration. Those Americans with a moral conscience have reeled under further revelations—the torture of Guantanamo detainees and the transport of people seized by U.S. authorities to Third World countries to be tortured.
We have to ask ourselves why American servicemen and women and CIA operatives delight in torturing people about whom they know nothing. It has been well known since the Stalin era that torture never produces accurate information. Yet, U.S. soldiers and CIA personnel jumped at the green light given to torture by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the U.S. Department of Justice. Why weren't our soldiers shocked instead at the immorality of their leaders?
One answer is that the U.S. military no longer operates according to a code of honor. Military discipline in the traditional sense does not exist. The ethos of the U.S. military has degenerated into kick-ass macho. Maj. Gen. Taguba, who, instead of covering up the Abu Ghraib scandal, attempted in his report to hold the U.S. military to its traditional principles, was forced to resign from the U.S. Army.
Another answer is that the work of torture, like police work and prosecutorial work, attracts brutal people who enjoy inflicting harm on others. The two Republican female U.S. attorneys in Alabama who framed Democratic Gov. Seligman enjoyed ruining Seligman and bringing grief to his family.
Deborah Davies of the BBC's Channel 4 undertook a four-month investigation of the torture of American prisoners inside American prisons. Videos taken by sadistic prison guards and videos recovered from surveillance cameras reveal horrible acts of torture and even of murder of prisoners by prison guards.
An American prison reformer told Davies: "We've become immune to the abuse. The brutality has become customary."
Few Americans seem to be disturbed as these inhumane and illegal practices continue unabated. Americans continue to see themselves as the salt of the earth, the "indispensable people."
"Law and order conservatives" have a great responsibility for this evil. Just as "law and order conservatives" created hysteria among the people about crime, they created hysteria about terrorists. Hysterical people condone great evils and arm government with power in the mistaken belief that it will protect them.
What kind of people have we become when we exercise no oversight over a criminal justice (sic) system that destroys the lives of innocent people and locks them away in prisons to be tortured by sadistic guards?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
typo on my last post. Mean to say 'created an ethnically clean Islamist state in Iraq'. There have been copious articles detailing the fleeing of the Christians, which seems to 'accidentally' occur in one pet state after another.
@46 - Slim: "Without the attack of Western fascist imperialism, Israel would be the largest empire in the world. Why? Zionism is basically the spreading of human rights. Working class people have always embraced this. Their fascist leaders would rather spread plo/kla/sharia ideology, crush all progressive movements, and profit greatly from slave labor."
I'll write this as charitably as I am able, Slim, you are deluded.
@slim
"If the US had never gotten into the demonization of the Jews game, Israel would have flourished just as Judea was flourishing during ancient Roman times."
But why did they leave their homeland if they loved it so much? If you love your home too much then you stay there. You can hardly blame the U.S. that Judea is not flourishing like it did in Roman times--what happened during the in between times of more than a millenium? The U.S. did not exist as a nation then. The Jewish people lead good lives here. In fact, a Jewish woman told me that Jews could have never imagined that they would have such a life here after the War. So you idea that the U.S. demonizes Jews is hypocricy.
What nonsense. To read this site is to believe that the greatest danger the nation faces are neocons, fascists in high places, and "dual loyalty" Jews. I cannot decide most of the time whether the comments on this site are providing insights or proving that the site attracts mostly cranks. This site is less "paleo-conservative" than reactionary, conspiracy-ridden, and vile. PCR is a prime example. His spiral to irrelevance is shocking and sad. To think that this man once worked for Ronald Reagan.
"If the US had never gotten into the demonization of the Jews game, Israel would have flourished just as Judea was flourishing during ancient Roman times."
Modern "Jews" have less relation to ancient Jews than George Bush does to Navajo Indians. The ancient Jews died out ethnically in ancient times, in the years after they slew the Messiah and his step brother, James (ca AD 66). The modern Gentile religion whose members call themselves "Jews" began in Medieval Babylon and is made up of more than four distinct, unrelated ethnic groups: the Ethiopian blacks, west European Mediterraneans, east European Turkics (60%-90% of the total), and Middle Eastern Arabs.
So who are the real Jews? blacks? Arabs? In fact, the Ethiopian Jewish blacks are the only ones with even a partial genealogy or a history sketching alleged Jewish descent. The other "Jewish" groups have no history at all before the Medieval times. So unless you are black, Slim, you are a Gentile.
Perhaps you should start defending Babylonians, Slim, since that is where it all began. Remember the Talmud.
Meng,
Which Muslim state offers the freedom of religion that exists in Israel? Which Muslim state has rights for women and gays, like Israel has?
Let me guess, you'll now make reference to the Wester media 'big lie' that Israel abuses palestinians, when it is only the hamas/fatah government (sponsored by the West/EU/NATO) that abuses palestinians.
Gargi,
Jews in America can do just fine (although the US had quotas in med schools and such up thru the 1950s and 60s), as long as they do not rock the boat. There are no Jewish leaders that rock the boat. 'Boat rocking' would mean telling the Jewish people that the forced theft and cleansing of Israeli land, and creation of Muslim nazi states therein, does NOT actually benefit Israel, and will NOT actually lead to peace. 'Boat rocking' would include telling Jews the truth regarding our fraudulent war on Serbia, and explaining why US MSM ignores African jihad completely.
Likewise, the US government does not attack Serbian Americans--but this does not mean that US foreign policy, created and carried out by the US ruling elites, mimics US domestic policy, which must adhere to societal rules of the American people--who are some of the most tolerant people in the world.
American Jews have been lied to for 40 years ('there's no peace b/c Jews are filthing up the palestinian state!' 'Israel is central to world peace!', 'Jews run the media and government!' blah blah).
This 'incubation' via repetition of big lies could be interpreted as anti-Jewish (not much different by the big-lies that tell blacks who the 'uncle toms' are, and that they should embrace horrendous socio economic behavior in order to 'keep it real').
@slim
It must be very difficult to live in a country like Israel, with hostile neighbors. I feel bad for people who are in those areas. I mean, is it a good thing for a nation to be dependent on another for too long, even if it is the U.S.A. for its existence? I mean what would happen if people discovered alternative sources of energy, and the U.S. decided that the Mid-East is not strategically important to it?
I enjoy reading the comments on this website very much, but, in my opinion, slim derails nearly discussion he participates in. PCR's article was not about Jews or Israel. I encourage the posters on this board not to allow slim to take every debate in that direction.
#53 travis
Amen.
There seem to be a few regulars in the comboxes here who would rather expound their views on the Israel Lobby, Zionism, Israel, and Jews in general than address the content of the post.
These are interesting topics and have their place in discussions about our times and our present fix. When they expand to fill the comboxes on quite separate topics, they become an annoyance and a distraction.
I keep coming back because there are challenging and interesting posts and comments from men like Messrs. Wilson, Fleming and Peters. The Jewish stuff, pro- and anti-, gets old mighty fast.
@51 slim
Since you persist in asking questions in an effort you suppose will make us think, I'll answer your question: Syria.
Syria allows Christian monasteries, airs Christian programs all day on December 25, and does not put religion on its ID cards. On the other hand, Israel bulldozes the houses of Christians in Ramallah, and Bethlehem. The IDF sets up extra road blocks on Sundays to harass Christians seeking to worship in churches that pre-date their monstrous, socialist nation. They treat Russian Christians like second-class citizens and set off bombs in bars where Romanians, Bulgarians, and Ukrainians hang out. In fact if you apply for permanent residence there, the form asks if you've been baptized. It might be better to live in Iraq than Israel.
gargi,
the only ones there dependant upon the US are fatah/hamas, who could not survive without UNRWA and similar aid--they have nothing resembling a productive economy.
Etienne,
According to wiki, there are only 25 Jews in Syria. It fails the freedom test. Your other claims are without any citation or context. By such logic, the US destroys the homes of Christians, too (eminent domain, which allows the government to sieze certain property).
It's an absurdity to claim that a country that has freedom of religion, and that protects the religious sites of all religions, targets certain religions for house destruction. What we do know for certain is that Israeli leaders target Jews for ethnic cleansing.
This latter behavior is quite hitlerian, and is still insufficient to keep the anti Israel zealots happy.
In these days, no good man in his right mind should ever work with anyone under the age of 18 unless they are his own children. And even then, make sure you have a good wife.
J. Meng @ 27
I don't claim to be a Catholic; I AM a Catholic. But you, Meng, are a sedevacantist who doesn't want to come right out and admit to it.
I don't know why you're so scared to admit your actual position. The great actor and director Mel Gibson is a sedevacantist, so you are in good company.
@Mark Higdon
Well whatever the government might do, the people in America taken in separation are large, friendly peoples--No one can deny that.
This country lets you be as long as you do your part and are not a drain on the system.
However, this does not mean that the "system" can also not be ruthless towards those who fall through the cracks, and it is all too easy to fall through the cracks here. Also, people are bound to suffer more due to the breakdown in the family structure, when they do not fare too well in the system.
When you have the best equipped public schools in the world, but they are not functioning properly, then you have a problem that is not just an economic one---
PcH @ 29
The post of PcH @ 29 is a perfect example of what happens to your brain when you read the Bible too much.
I used to read Mr. Roberts's columns with interest now I know he is full of baloney. I'm a prosecutor so I know a little something about whether our prisons are "full of innocent" people and how we are "framing" so many innocent people. Mr. Roberts you are watching too many Hollywood movies.
Salemi-
Christians know that all men, no matter how genuinely great, fall short somewhere in their virtue. I pointed out a few proven moral shortcomings of a few genuinely great men, but no one was able to challenge these shortcomings in any way.
To be a Catholic, one must actually believe in his church's teachings. Buddhism is not one of them. Buddhism is not Christianity. There is no salvation outside Christ's Church. There is no true virtue apart from him.
Christians believe that all virtue comes from God, either by way of his creation, or by way of his grace which he gives like the sun that shines on the fields, or by way of the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Men will continue to need virtue so long as each refuses to acknowledge something greater than himself.
This is why. If there is none higher than you, then I guess you are able to decide what is right all by yourself. But what if your brother believes you are wrong? Who is right? If he, like you, believes he alone knows what is right, then you have a standoff. Now if he is a prison guard, and you his prisoner, he is free to do what he wants to you and you have no cause to complain.
But if both brothers believe in God, in God that will judge their actions, then they must stop and do something unusual -- each must question himself. Thus he will act not on his own feelings, mood, or whim, but on the belief that he is accountable to another for what he does.
To be a Christian, you must believe in Jesus Christ alone. Buddha's God is incompatible with Jesus Christ. Remember, Buddha taught that the goal of existence is Nirvana -- absolute ego loss -- which ends the cycle of reincarnation. But Christianity teaches that God wants to redeem the soul (minus the sin). These systems are precise opposites. You cannot uphold both the soul-redemption of Christ and the soul-extinction of Buddha.
But the real problem that PCR illustrates (knowingly or not) is the autonomy of man, that each man believes he is right in himself and accountable to no one.
As the postmodern says, "Your truth is not my truth." As each man is autonomous, he has trouble understanding other points of view.
He does not even think other points of view are worthy of his time. Things greater than himself, such as God, are ludicrous to him, because in his thinking, there is none higher than himself.
The man who is autonomous from God thinks he is free. He thinks he is free to disregard others, or ignore them, or insult them, or torture them, since without any standard of behavior to which he is accountable, he can do what he wants. Paul Craig Roberts, writes:
It is a people that no longer has any moral system. In the political sphere, there can be no oversight if no one can agree to a common moral code. There will be no common moral code without faith in a common religion, and there will not be true virtue unless enough men find faith in true religion. A religion, such as Buddhism, that teaches soul-extinction inevitably winds up promoting vice over virtue. Why? Because those who are resigned to soul-extinction over the long haul will not fight against injustice and their rulers can demand submission in the name of ego-loss.
Remember, Tibet did not even consider whether their isolated position on the roof of the world could be defended against the Communists who were exhausted after a long civil war. Maybe they could have. Maybe not. But the fact is that Tibetan Buddhism demanded the Tibetans do nothing, and they lost their country.
A pluralism of religions cannot work, because there would be too many competing moral codes. Anyone who pretends that all roads lead to heaven, really does not know religions, and is not proposing that religions be respected, but that they be ignored.
Western countries, formally called Christendom, already have one acknowledged religion. When all agreed to it with at least lip-service, all could agree on principles of right and wrong. But when the numbers of true believers dwindle, when men start to believe in themselves separately, there is no longer a common moral code. There is no longer a standard of right and wrong.
And are there not "proven moral shortcomings" in a great many good Roman Catholic men?
The only point I can see in your post is the contention that if we had a single moral system governed by the Baltimore Cathechism, everything would be just fine.
Do you honestly believe that?
If medieval England and France could have a sanguinary Hundred Years' War despite the fact that both nations were devoutly Roman Catholic, how does that affect your argument?
Utopianism is utopianism, whether peddled by liberals, socialists, or C.U. F. members.
Salemi -
Proven moral shortcomings in men means that they are still subject to sin and not fully following Christian teaching. Wars between Christians mean they are not, or at least one side is not, living the Christian life well. This is an imperfect world full of temptations and difficult choices.
For example, even David fell short with Bathsheba and his kingdom faced the consequences of his passion. Joshua, who is not recorded as sinning, himself failed to see through a ruse of the Gibeonites and they so became a thorn in the side of the kingdom that eased its later division and captivity.
So accepting the Christian system is only a starting point. Perfection will only ever occur after the Lord comes in judgment. The goal is not utopianism, but obeying the will of the Father. As Christians, we have no choice. But we know that that also means obeying the command to Adam to take lordship and we also know that while obeying the Father to the best of our abilities, he will supply grace to accomplish more obedience.
If we truly acknowledge the truth of the one, holy Faith, then we must be confident that reaffirming an intelligible moral code for our fellows will make their lives easier, even if they do not have a saving faith in the Son of God. The alternative promises chaos, which is what we face now in our society owing to concerted efforts to drive out God's rule.
As for America, it had its golden age right from the start. Until about 1861 or thereabouts, Christianity in the authority of holy Scripture was acknowledged even by secular politicians to be the "great conservative force" of the constitutional structure. At very least, Christianity provided the moral code by which men were held responsible and could make sense of each other.
It is a matter of presuppositions. Are our presupposition grounded in human reason or in God? Presuppositions are a starting point whence a true and lively faith grows, whereby we become the leaven for our fellow created men wherever we live.
Or, without faith in God's sovereignty, we can expect more abuse in all levels of society and government, in a culture that is falling apart.
Best wishes!
@63 - Joseph Salemi to me: "I don’t claim to be a Catholic; I AM a Catholic."
Me to Joe: By Golly!
@68 - Joseph Salemi to PcH: "The only point I can see in your post is the contention that if we had a single moral system governed by the Baltimore Cathechism, everything would be just fine. Do you honestly believe that?"
But Joe, didn't Christ our Savior commission His apostles to teach to all the nations all that he commanded them? Isn't the Baltimore catechism an exposition in question and answer form of the revealed truths given to us by Jesus Christ and taught by His Catholic Church, at least up until Vatican II?
@63 - Joseph Salemi to me: "But you, Meng, are a sedevacantist who doesn’t want to come right out and admit to it."
Joe, I never claimed to be a sedevacantist, but I do lean in that direction, because of all the Modernist tripe that has come down the line since John XXIII, especially, the modernism of that treacherous pope called John Paul II, and the near total dismantling of the Church throughout the world. Its the same Modernist tripe you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, which you echo here on this blog site.
Now, Joe, let me ask you just one question - since you have dramatically claimed that you ARE a Catholic: do you believe the traditional teaching that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation as defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent and thereafter? To put it another way: do you believe the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, is the only means to eternal salvation?
@ 67 and 69 - PcH. Well done!
I'm not fully sure of why it is, but there is a real problem with religious rhetoric. The critic Northrop Frye tried to put his finger on the quirk in his book The Great Code, but even that brilliant literary scholar couldn't quite nail it down. Frye wrote a second book on the subject, Words With Power, wherein he renewed his attempt to analyze just how and why religious people speak the way they do.
When many religious persons speak (not all of them, to be sure) there is a sappy, sentimental, saccharine, and sentimental tone in every word they utter. Their language is laden with a kind of unctuous emotional urgency, as if they were trying to coax you into something that you don't want to do, but that you somehow "ought" to do. They tend not to state their premises clearly, but proceed on the assumption that you already share those foundations, and just need a little nudging towards the right path. It's maddeningly offensive and irksome.
They can't speak dispassionately, or with cool detachment. Everything has a hyped-up, celebrational vibe, or -- in reverse -- the clangor of shocked outrage. In addition, there is the persistent tendency to speak in the persona of a messenger, delivering some sort of announcement or proclamation: Gather round and rejoice! Hear the good news! Listen to the word! It's as if one were listening to a rather long and annoyingly upbeat infomercial.
Now I suppose it might be argued that such persons, having been touched by the euangellium, can't help communicating in the way that they do. After all, if you've accepted what you consider the most important piece of news in human history, with eternal implications for every living soul, naturally you want to spread it around.
But you want to know something, guys? Guess who talk in PRECISELY the same way: Liberals.
I work in New York City and I am an academic. I navigate seas of liberal stupidity every day, and have done so for forty years. Liberal rhetoric is as familiar to me as our city transit system.
Liberals talks very much like religious people do. They blithely assume that you share their basic premises. They are constantly exhorting you. They coat what they say with an overlay of emotion, refusing to be dispassionate or detached (that would show -- Paulo Freire forbid! -- a "lack of genuine committment"). They speak in the same hyped-up, overenthused tone, or else in a voice of shocked outrage. And they show the very same proclivity to make major announcements in an exalted, rapt manner.
As I mentioned elsewhere, liberalism has all the emotional plangency of Christianity with none of the doctrinal heft to back it up and justify it. That's why the popular stereotype of the liberal is uncannily accurate: the starry-eyed advocate for humanity, filled with irrepressible hopes and dreams, squirting a squid-like ink of benevolence as he urges you to join him in realizing his good intentions for mankind. It's the same evangelical hoopla that one encounters in a revivalist meeting.
The problem that I see before us, as rightists, is how to cultivate the tough-minded, no-nonsense intelligence and clear-sighted focus that we need in this life-or-death struggle for Western survival when many of us are still fogged over with the same gaseous rhetorical style that our major enemies use. The problem may be insoluble.
J. Meng @ 70
Meng, somewhere else on this website someone accused you of a lack of reading comprehension, and it's now clear that he was correct.
Listen now VERY CAREFULLY. All I said was that even if everyone accepted Catholic doctrine, there would still be trouble, tribulation, wars, and suffering. Got that?
Yes, the Baltimore Catechism is an exposition of divine truths. But even when two Catholic nations accept it unquestioningly THEY CAN STILL DECIDE TO SLAUGHTER EACH OTHER IN POLITICAL CONFLICTS! The catechism isn't a swiving panacea for geopolitical competition and struggle! And it is just ultramontane utopianism to think otherwise!
To your two questions: Yes and Yes. I had a strict pre-Vatican II upbringing.
Since, as per your admission, you have serious doubts about whether there has been a validly elected Pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958, you are technically in schism from our Holy Mother Church, though you are not, as far as I can see, a heretic.
That's OK -- it takes all kinds.
@72 - Joseph Salemi
"Since, as per your admission, you have serious doubts about whether there has been a validly elected Pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958."
Joe, in which one of my posts did I assert what you have falsely accused me of? If you read carefully what I wrote, I am inclined toward sedevacantism because of the Modernist tripe that has come down the pike since John XXIII, and because the Church in its human element is in shambles across the world. Something is wrong, Joe; I am sure a great academic and Catholic as yourself has noted that over the years, since you had a "strict pre-Vatican II upbringing." Some credible persons in the know have called it Apostasy in high places.
And, in your rush to judgment, I am so thrilled that you didn't consider me a heretic. You are so merciful, Joe, just like a pharisee.
"The problem that I see before us, as rightists, is how to cultivate the tough-minded, no-nonsense intelligence and clear-sighted focus that we need in this life-or-death struggle for Western survival when many of us are still fogged over with the same gaseous rhetorical style that our major enemies use. The problem may be insoluble."
Answer :"It's the same thing every day, poor people, sick people, one after the other. I reproach myself interiorly for not spending enough time in prayer and purely spiritual things. By day people never stop knocking at my door, and at night when it would be a good time for it, I fall asleep like a wretch.
— Charles de Foucauld
Dear Mr. Meng --
If I have been overly zealous in my recent posts, or uncharitable, I apologize to you. As traditionalist Roman Catholics we share many of the same concerns. I too am sickened by a great deal of what has transpired since Vatican II. We both have every right to be disgusted and angry.
The biiterest fights are intramural, and too much energy is wasted when people who should be on the same side decide to duke it out over trivialties. Believe me, I have many traditionalist friends, and the arguments that I have with you here at Chronicles carry a distinct flavor of deja vu for me.
As I said to one of them in a recent letter, ""Some traditionalist Catholics have an unfortunate tendency to see doctrinal errors in things that are merely indifferent lapses of good judgment." Lots of things in the modern Church are simply SILLY and TASTELESS, like hootenanny Masses, absurd decorations, priests giving homilies like a stand-up comic, and all the other idiocies to which I'm sure you could add your own examples.
But all these things, stupid and fatuous as they are, don't impinge upon the Magisterium of our Holy Mother Church. Tasteless and silly pastors may be jerks, but they're not necessarily heretics.
Also, you can't be "inclined towrds sedevacantism." You either believe the See of Rome is vacant or you don't.
@75 - Joseph Salemi,
I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year!
And the very same wishes to you and to yours, and to all here.
Mr. Salemi & Mr. Meng: Thanks for making up. I was beginning to worry about you! If you hadn't stopped we might have revisited angels dancing on a pin.
My theology has shifted toward Catholocism as I have aged, so some of your discourse was interesting and relevant. I do think it went a bit far from the original topic. You two might consider another method/forum to discuss the finer theological subtleties. I see this trend on other topics. I had to look up sedevacantist; thanks for improving my vocabulary.
Back on the topic: I think the American victim mindset is telling in this discussion. The concept that if I have had wrong done to me, I then deserve justice is a good, basically human one. The demand that justice be served on someone whether or not they can be proven guilty of wronging me is a different story; wrongly punishing someone is just one more injustice. That is one reason why legal systems exist, to prevent unjust retribution. But our society wants payment not only for real injustice, but imagined ones (hate crimes, for instance) as well. Many Americans want to be some sort of victim so they can demand some sort of repayment: witness the insane lawsuits, which should never have made it to court, but regularly do. When everyone is shouting "crucify," the police, DAs, judges and juries have a hard time not being influenced.
Things in reality may not be as bad as PCR paints them, but they most certainly are tending that direction: the doors have been opened. Even if a significant number of people wake up and see that we are going downward, slippery slopes are not easy to climb back up.
Also: I like to see the real-life replies that either confirm or disprove the assertions of the author (e.g. #12, #13, #66). I hope you guys are being honest with me.
D. Wihowski @ 78
The reality IS very bad. Mr. Roberts is not exaggerating about the abuse of police and judicial power in this country.
My good friend, Dr. Reinhold Aman, a world-famous linguist, philologist, and editor of the journal Maledicta, was railroaded by the viciously vengeful Wisconsin judicial system and served eighteen months in a federal prison. His crime? Writing a POSTCARD! The real reason the legal scum went after him is that he presumed to satirize them in print after corrupt judges and lawyers ruined him in his divorce case.
They sent an inoffensive and elderly scholar, who was in poor health, to a prison that nearly killed him. And those scum on the Wisconsin bench did it because THEY COULD DO IT. And no one in America could stop them.
You "law and order" conservatives say we're free? I say go stick your "law and order" where the sun don't shine.
@75Joseph Salemi
It has been reported by some that Malachi Martin was a ADL agent inside the Vatican 2 conference and helped shape Catholic thinking.
Someone told me once that people first came to America with a gun--you either survive with the gun or you die. Perhaps there is something of that mentality left over in this society considering the amount of violence---
Mr. Salemi @79
Thank you for that example. I have lived in Wisconsin for most of my life. I never even heard of this case: no surprise, given the media bias. I tend to ignore the media anyway, though I listen to enough local news to catch the forecast and a few other bits.
Wisconsin is a state with multiple pesonality disorder. Lots of hard-working Germans, Scandinavians, Poles etc. who still have some common sense. They're just too nice to speak out about the courts, police, etc. because they hold on to the idea that they are the "best of us" and largely above corruption.
Malachi Martin was a quirky and idiosyncratic Jesuit, but I doubt very much that he was an "agent" for anyone.
Again and again on such threads one hears from things such as "until Americans rise up against this tyranny, it will continue." With all due respect, does anyone think Americans are capable of doing so?
This tyranny was put in place because Americans are a decadent people unbecoming any sort of liberty or autonomy. Liberty is in fact not an unalienable right but a privilege--as is any right--and there can be no doubt that Americans are not capable of exercising the responsibilities therein. Therefore we have lost our right to liberty.
We have a more or less brutal police and legal force because, in the first place, we have descended to behaving like animals, and so we should not be surprised that those who would curb us have taken to employing methods akin to animal control. In the second place, we should not be surprised that, drawn from our very ranks, this police and legal team is as nasty as we are.
There are decent Americans left. Unfortunately, an inordinate proportion of them read Chronicles.
The problem is of course spreading, especially in other Anglophone countries but also has a solid foothold in Western Europe. I confess sometimes I fantasise of getting all the good ones among my fellow Americans out of that country and over here to Europe, and booting the dregs from here over there. It's what was done in colonial times. But of course that would mean destroying my home (if there is anything left to destroy).
No. Not until enough Americans realize that there is something greater than themselves, not until they submit themselves to the moral code of the Creator.
This would be the toughest thing they could ever do, and most are too weak to do it. Almost are subject to the weak, phony believism like in some of the above comments. Most are ready to make excuses for abject moral cowardice. The coward will always make excuses for his weakness, he will always tell how tough he is. But he will not obey his Father, he will not follow the precepts of his own putative religion.
Another way of looking at the mass corruption in government, the justice system, and certain parts of the military is cowardice. It takes moral strength to restrain oneself, it takes moral courage to do the right thing. When a small man (and in many cases, an angry little girl, as PCR mentions) has been handed armaments and immunity, it is too easy to apply the electrodes to those who are handcuffed.
But a small person will do anything &ndash kick, shriek, and bite – rather than accept the reality that he is not the end-all of the world. Until Americans can accept that they are already responsible to the infinite God and his law, until they live the faith that they loudly pretend to believe in, they will have neither the strength nor the cool heads necessary to live as men.
Until then, expect more stories of electrodes.
What too few understand is that putting one's self at risk to do the right thing actually can be – fun.
"No. Not until enough Americans realize that there is something greater than themselves, not until they submit themselves to the moral code of the Creator."
Even after willing and total prosternation before God and submission to His Church it takes many years for a mind poisoned by decades of lies to be fully rehabilitated and recognisably human, as I know well from experience and to a lesser extent observation. One hopes for a miracle, but realistically speaking it seems more likely that the only solution to such large-scale, widespread disgustingness is something akin to the fate of Sodom.
(I might regret I just said that.)
"What too few understand is that putting one’s self at risk to do the right thing actually can be – fun."
That's the truth.
Or at least it can be fun, and that's certainly something.
PcH @ 85
"Not until enough Americans realize that there is something greater than themselves, not until they submit themselves to the moral code of the Creator..."
Oh boy, here we go again.
When people here go on about how our sociopolitical problems will only be solved by a return to "God's Law" or "the Moral Order" or some other fetishized abstraction of that nature, they are confusing the personal and the political, just like our liberal enemies do.
Ever since Christianity was first preached, it has been the task of its ministers to give moral exhortations to the Christian community. St. Paul's epistles are filled with such exhortations. And that is perfectly right and proper. Christianity makes strict demands on those who would be genuine followers of Christ, in terms of both behavior and thought.
But here's the catch: that sort of moral exhortation is a continuing and never-finished process. Every century must do it. Whether the year is 2008 or 708, the task of ministerial exhortation goes on, unabated. That is because the exhortations are directed to individual persons, in the context of their personal lives. And this is done because we are all children of sin, and need to be reminded constantly of our failings and evil proclivities and neglected duties.
However, none of this has any political implications. No matter how intense the moral exhortations are, there is never going to be a utopia on earth. NEVER. The priests and the ministers are going to have to fight a non-stop battle against the Prince of This World, and it will always be a touch-and-go thing because of our fallen nature.
(Continued below)
It follows, therefore, that any exhortation that urges us to "return to God's Law" or to "obey the Creator's Moral Order" has to be seen as primarily personal in nature, and not necessarily political. Our religion isn't going to "save the world" in the sense of creating some sort of realm of perfect justice and harmony here and now. It is only going to save INDIVIDUAL HUMAN SOULS.
To think otherwise is purely utopian and visionary and non-Christian. There isn't going to be any "reign of righteousness" upon earth. The great Eric Voegelin called such an attitude "immanentizing the eschaton" -- a fancy way of saying "trying to transfer the heavenly paradise to earth." It ain't gonna happen.
Now politics deals with power-relationships. To put it bluntly, it's about who gets what, and who calls the shots. It's a hard and sometimes brutal business, like a fierecly contested hockey game. Would you apply your Christian convictions to a hockey game? Would you charitably allow the opposing team to make goals? Would you turn the other cheek when a player hits you with his stick? Would you politely get out of the way as he goes down the ice with the puck?
You'd never win a game if you did. And that is because Christian principles are for individual human lives, not for the rough-and-tumble competition of real-world survival of a nation, a race, a people. For real-world survival you ned H-bombs, machine guns, bayonets, armored divisions, jet fighters, land mines and barbed wire -- along with a cold willingness to use them when necessary. If you think that your Christian piety will save you without them, then go join a monastery -- but don't be surprised when the Vikings sack and burn it.
(Continued below)
That is why I say that all these religious exhortations are essentially distractions. They waste our political force. How much right-wing energy and time and money were lost on things sublimely unimportant and pointless, like school prayer and Bible-reading? Why are we investing in spectacularly idiotic ideologies like Creationism and Intelligent Design? Why are we diverting our energies into "Faith-based Initiatives"? Why are we taking part in anti-drug and anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco frenzies, as if these enthusiasms had the slightest political importance? Can't we leave this sort of looniness to the Left?
Look -- after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn't been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.
"Look — after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it."
Oh, for Heavens Sake !!!!!!!! Any damn fool who could even write this is worthy of disbelief. Any person who could believe it should run for Republican"chairperson" at the National Level or as a husband and wife team in one of the Blue States-- leaving what's left of the red states the hell alone !! Puuleease !! If you think this, and I know you do, then l"ll tell everybody to shut up about their morals and religious convictions, if you will simply map out the strategy to ultimate political victory for all of us and THEN WHAT ??
Joseph Salemi @ 89, 90, & 91:
So, if I understand your remarks in reply to PcH 85, you are declaring there is no room for Christian morality in politics; it only applies to the individual and not to the community as a whole? If I missed some nuance in your explanation, please correct my misunderstanding.
J. Meng @ 93
You should not confuse "community" with "politics." A community is a group of people who have something in common (it could be nationality, race, interests, geographical location, religious belief, history, shared experiences, or any combination of these things). Politics is the aggregate of methods and practices that a community uses to keep its cohesion, independence, and existence. If a community's politics is successful, the community stays alive and identifiable. If its politics is unsuccessful, the community disappears from history.
Keep in mind what I said about the hockey game. You will never win if you behave on the ice like a good Christian. That doesn't mean there aren't some rules to be followed. But the rules to be followed are NOT there for reasons of personal moral edification. They are there because otherwise the game would degenerate into a mere fistfight.
Let me give an illustrative example. Traditionally, civilized nations used to honor what were called "the laws of war." This meant that, no matter how fierce the fighting became, there were certain things that the belligerents would not do under any circumstances. You could not execute prisoners of war. You could not torture them for information. You could not finish off enemy wounded on the field, or force captives them into slave labor. You could not slaughter civilians or other noncombatants (By the way, no one pays attention to these quaint niceties today... the modern world considers them to be as obsolete as whalebone corsets).
No why did we have those "laws of war"? It had nothing to do with Christian morality. It had to do with simple, pragmatic self-interest. If one belligerent had practiced those wicked things, the other side would have felt no obligation to avoid those atrocities either. And warfare would have fallen back into the savage butchery of cave-man days. We followed the rules because, whether we won or lost, we could expect a certain amount of consideration from the other side, and that was safer for all concerned.
So yes, we follow certain rules in politics, and some of those rules are perfectly consonant with Christian teaching. But that is by sheer happenstance. The "morality" is being practiced for reasons that have nothing to do with our desire for individual salvation.
Does that mean a Christian shouldn't behave as a Christian as much as he possibly can? Of course not. A Christian should be as Christian as he can be. But that doesn't mean he should allow his personal quest for salvation to distort and denature the legitimate political goal of survival! And he should not confuse things that are required of him personally as a good Christian with whatever happens to be required politically, if his community is to survive.
Robert @ 92
Since your comment is almost totally emotional rather than rational, I'm not sure how to reply to it.
I'm not a Republican and never have been. I was a functionary for the Conservative Party of New York State for many years, working in the campaigns of both Buckley brothers. I care nothing for party affiliation; I only care about Western survival.
I'm not sure what the "strategy for ultimate political victory" should be. But I know this: Bible-thumpers howling about Scripture, and calling for "Faith-based Initiatives," and trying to force Creationism into the public schools, aren't going to get us anywhere. Got that?
By the way, you can only say "Puuleease!" if you come from Noo Yawk, like I do.
Gargi@45
Just because they are poor doesn't mean they should act like thugs. I doubt that all these young people that do join are thugs when they enter the service, but do end up so on their way out. Heck I knew a guy that lived across the street from me a few years older that went to West Point. He was no nonsense, non drinking, no swearing, 4.0 kid that was the kicker on the football team. Damn, 4 years later he drank and swore like a sailor, and this was a cream of the crop type kid. The service isn't good for anyone to go in, as most of their promises about training are outright lies.
#94 - If there is a conflict between a person's quest for eternal salvation and the survival of his (or another's) community, the quest for salvation must take precedence. That, after all, is what God has placed us on earth for. I don't know which, if any, communities aside from the Church will survive eternally. Most communities have not survived in time and many surviving right now do not deserve to survive.
Kirt Higdon @ 97
Your post, in a nutshell, shows why religion is having a distorting effect on right-wing political efforts.
As a matter of fact there is no real "conflict." Christians throughout history have always been able to kill their enemies. Why should we start being milksops now?
Joe @ 95 " if you come from Noo Yawk, like I do."
I had no idea Mr. Salemi that you were handicapped by the Yankee prejudices and culture rot of New York, or I would have been more patient and charitable in recounting your outrageous statement:
"after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.”
Now that I know you worked for both Buckley brothers and viewed those campaigns as notable conservative thrusts into the belly of the beast I can better understand why you are capable of assinine assertions such as:
" after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.”
Certainly as a New Yorker you have perhaps grown accustomed to a false sense of charity such as federal bail outs that subsidize ignorance, greed and depravity so common in the Northeast. In the world of politics New York can be proud of almost nothing which again explains quite accurately why no New Yorker should ever be ridiculed in public for making statements such as:
" after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.”
Again, if you simply would have said," My name is Joe and I am from Noo Yawk. " I would have simply ignored the predictable self -serving stupidity that always follows such introductions and moved on without public attention being given to statements such as:
" after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.”
and even without an ounce of rancor in my heart. Please believe me when I say, all is forgiven and I do understand --- really!!Save your pennies like the honest beggars do in the vast concrete jungle that is New York or do it the old fashioned New Yorker way and just steal it, but do get out while you can.
The book I believe you are talking about when you said,
" after the 1994 elections we could have wiped the swiving floor with our liberal enemies. We had CREAMED them! A major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-establish political sanity in the country was lost. If we hadn’t been mesmerized by religious chin-music, we might have accomplished it.”
was written in 1948 and was called 1984 by George Orwell. It was not, as so many of you Yankees assume, written in 1994 by Newt Gingrich or named, "Contract with America." Got that ?
#98 - So refraining from murder is being a milksop and having a distorting effect on right-wing political efforts. If only. Thanks to the neo-cons, the willingness to kill enemies retail or wholesale is now what defines right-wing political efforts in the minds of most Americans - left, right, or in-between. Is this bloodthirstiness something you picked up from the Buckley brothers? You must be ecstatic about what's going on now in Gaza.