America’s Moronic Iraqi Policy
by Paul Craig Roberts
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
According to all accounts, the United States faces its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with $2 trillion in near-term financing needs for bailouts and economic stimulus. This is an enormous sum for any country, especially one that is so heavily indebted that it is close to bankruptcy. If the money can’t be borrowed abroad, it will have to be printed—a policy that carries the implication of hyper-inflation.
In normal life, a borrower who must appeal to creditors makes every effort to bring order to his financial affairs. But not the Bush regime.
The out-of-pocket costs of Bush’s Iraq war are about $600 billion at the present moment, a figure that increases by millions of dollars every hour.
In addition, there are the much larger future costs that have already been incurred, such as long-term care for the wounded and disabled U.S. soldiers, the replacement costs of the used-up equipment, interest payments on the war debt, and the lost economic use of the resources and manpower squandered in war. Experts estimate that the already incurred out-of-pocket and future costs of Bush’s Iraq war to be $3 trillion and rising.
Even these costs might be small if an article by Richard LaMountain in the November 2008 Middle American News is accurate. According to LaMountain, U.S. refugee programs for Iraqis displaced by the U.S. invasion and occupation could result in a large and growing Muslim U.S. population. These would be people whose lives were adversely impacted by the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
If the United States maintains its pro-Israeli stance against Arabs and Muslims generally, the implications of a growing Muslim population and a government obsessed with its “war on terror” are frightening for American civil liberty. In order to contain the potential terror that it will have imported, Washington would impose a total police state. We will have our own Saddam Hussein.
To avoid the immigration that would be problematic for U.S. civil liberties, the war must end. The war must also end in order that bankrupt Washington can borrow abroad the money it needs to bail out the U.S. economy.
The budget authority for the annual out-of-pocket costs of the war have been rising by $150 billion per year, an addition to the budget deficit that must be financed by borrowing abroad. A sane person might think that a government such as the United States, in need of foreign loans to save its economy, would jump at the change to get its troops out of Iraq, where they are not wanted.
Instead, the Bush regime has been struggling all year with the Iraq government in order to secure an agreement that lets the U.S. government continue to hemorrhage hundreds of billions of dollars by keeping American troops in Iraq.
The Korean War ended 55 years ago, and the United States still has troops in Korea.
Germany was defeated in 1945, and the United States still has troops in Germany.
A country that must go hat in hand to its creditors must first look to where costs can be cut. Annual military spending of $700 billion is certainly a good place to start.
But the U.S. government has far more hubris than intelligence and is on its way to being a failed state that has to print money to pay its bills.
It is not too late for the United States to save itself and the dollar standard, but it would require a rapid transition from arrogance to humility. The rest of the world can bring America down by not lending to us, in which case neither the trade nor budget deficits could be financed.
The world does not want to bring us down in this way. Our creditors would like to preserve as much as possible the values of their trillions in U.S. dollar assets. This is easier done if the dollar remains the reserve currency. Therefore, the U.S. government has an opportunity to go to its creditors with a plan.
This is what the plan must be: A declaration that repudiates the neoconservative goal to achieve U.S. hegemony over the world; a budget that reduces annual U.S. borrowing needs by several hundreds of billions by ending the Afghan and Iraq wars, by closing overseas military bases, and by cutting military spending; a new corporate tax system that brings back American jobs, manufacturing capability and export potential by taxing U.S. corporations’ worldwide profits according to the value added in the United States.
Such a plan would demonstrate that the United States respects the sovereignty and aspirations of other countries and is willing to cooperate peacefully with others as an occupant of what the Russian president has termed “our common house.” Such a plan would demonstrate that the U.S. government has come to the realization that there is a limit to its borrowing capacity and the loans that it can service and is prepared to put first things first. Such a plan would show that the United States can curtail its unsustainable dependency on imports without erecting a wall of tariffs.
If the United States had the leadership to approach its creditors with such a plan, a sigh of relief would emit from the rest of the world. Many of the economic hardships that Americans currently face could be avoided, and the prospect of a hyper-inflationary depression would recede.
Such a favorable outcome requires that the government in Washington give up the delusion that Americans are an “indispensable people” who have a monopoly on virtue that gives them claim to hegemony over the world.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Bob Johnson on 28 November 2008:
“The world does not want to bring us down in this way.”
And this was proven the day after the first bailout failed to pass (which was shortly followed, in an unrelated note, by the callow Eric Cantor’s walking into the elaborate trap set by whoever controls Pelosi).
2 Comment by george on 28 November 2008:
@1Bob Johnson
“..walking into the elaborate trap set by whoever controls Pelosi)”
Does this answer your question?
http://www.jewishjournal.com/tag/nancy%20pelosi/
3 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 28 November 2008:
Paul, the Korean War did not end at all. It’s still a hot shooting match with American deaths swept under the rug as “training accidents.” I agree our soldiers must be pulled out and the South Koreans forced to dragoon their own troops.
But the terrorism at home is not necessarily from Muslims. There are people born here to wish to see our self-destruction. They must be deported first, back to Israel or Africa.
4 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 28 November 2008:
Dr. Roberts has not only well diagnosed the problem, but even proposes some major elements of a good solution. Unhappily, the solution requires that Americans give up their two favorite vices of pride and greed and I don’t think either they or their leaders will do so because of the pain inflicted so far. What most people are still looking for is not any real change, but restoration of American dominance in the world and the ability to have a Beverly Hills life style on credit cards that need not ever be paid off.
In foreign policy, Obama will probably stick with the deal that Bush has been forced to cut in Iraq, although he may speed up the withdrawal schedule. He will most likely not attack Iran, but Bush was constrained from doing that by the military/industrial/financial/intelligence complex which rules from behind the scenes. And there is a very slim chance (with Bush there was none at all) that Obama may broker an Israeli/Palestinian peace.
But Obama has already devised a trap for himself in South Asia. By focusing on the hunt for the great white whale Bin Ladin and promising to pacify Afghanistan by more troops and by attacking Pakistan, Obama may well get us into a mess which will make Iraq indeed look like a cakewalk, if only by comparison. And that mess includes India. In addition, his proximate African ancestry and liberal instincts may lead him to “humanitarian intervention” on the dark continent. (Hey, we haven’t had a war there in 15 years or so.) This one will be sold to the national security minded as fighting piracy.
Economic and financial catastrophe may not be sufficient to bring down the US global empire. It may yet take military catastrophe as well.
5 Comment by KMarx on 28 November 2008:
Kirt Higdon
“But Obama has already devised a trap for himself in South Asia. By focusing on the hunt for the great white whale Bin Ladin and promising to pacify Afghanistan by more troops and by attacking Pakistan, Obama may well get us into a mess which will make Iraq indeed look like a cakewalk, if only by comparison. And that mess includes India. In addition, his proximate African ancestry and liberal instincts may lead him to “humanitarian intervention” on the dark continent. (Hey, we haven’t had a war there in 15 years or so.) This one will be sold to the national security minded as fighting piracy.”
Kirt, certainly your scenario is possible but let’s give Obama a little bit of breathing room. He hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. No one beforehand assigned blame to the present jackass in the White House prior to him saying, “I do”.
“Economic and financial catastrophe may not be sufficient to bring down the US global empire. It may yet take military catastrophe as well.”
Seems as though we are on our way!
6 Comment by KMarx on 28 November 2008:
“This is what the plan must be: A declaration that repudiates the neoconservative goal to achieve U.S. hegemony over the world; a budget that reduces annual U.S. borrowing needs by several hundreds of billions by ending the Afghan and Iraq wars, by closing overseas military bases, and by cutting military spending; a new corporate tax system that brings back American jobs, manufacturing capability and export potential by taxing U.S. corporations’ worldwide profits according to the value added in the United States.”
Beautiful! I only hope we can stave off corporate and Wall Street pressures on Congress to do otherwise. Its past record on this, especially the last eight years, is quite dismal.
7 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 28 November 2008:
I’m one of those who thinks Mr. Roberts goes off the rails at times, but he hasn’t this time.
I don’t get the bit about the corporate tax structure, which PCR describes rather telegraphically, but otherwise, the Rx seems wise enough. Too bad those of us who would endorse it are living on locusts and honey in the political desert, voices crying in the wilderness.
8 Comment by Bob Johnson on 28 November 2008:
Thanks George,
I already knew it was you know who, but didn’t bother looking up Pelosi’s background as I never considered her worthy of thinking about as anything more than a pawn.
9 Comment by J. Meng on 28 November 2008:
KMarx, #5, but isn’t Mr. Higdon just extrapolating upon what Obama has already revealed during his campaign in outline form of his upcoming foreign policy? Didn’t he say he is after bin Laden; didn’t he say he wants to beef up U.S. forces in Afghanistan? Doesn’t that give us an idea of where Hussein Obama wants to lead this nation? No one blamed the outgoing dodo bird before his inauguration, because he didn’t become a full fledged dodo bird until after 9/11. It looks like Hussein Obama will be following in the dodo’s footsteps, albeit after some modifications; but we can be sure that Barack Hussein will not be following the recommendations of PCR.
10 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 28 November 2008:
Mr. Roberts, your suggestions for getting the U.S. out of the snakepit in which it finds itself are excellent, and in a sane world they would be implemented in a heartbeat.
Trouble is, this isn’t a sane world.
Nothing short of cardiac arrest will stop a neocon from pushing for “globalism” and U. S. hegemony. And when you talk about ending the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and shutting down our military bases abroad, every superpatriot “conservative” American moron will start screaming bloody murder.
That’s what we’re up against — a cabal of left-liberals and neoconservatives (who are just liberals in combat fatigues) combined with the stupidly visceral “Army-Strong” type of brain-dead heartland conservatives.
11 Comment by slim on 28 November 2008:
when does this ‘pro Israeli’ stance get started? or is PCR merely regurgitating more US government ‘big lies’?
How is stealing land that was given to Israel in the 1920s, cleansing it of Jews, and creating an ethnically clean Islamist state ‘pro Israel’? Said state has no objective other than eradicating Israel.
How is rescuing Arafat, and then bringing him back to Israel to kill peaceful palestinians and Israelis ‘pro Israel’ policy?
Abu Mazen is a literal and ideological ally of hashim thaci. Both are revived nazis, fully supported by the US and our fascist allies.
PCR is fully aware of all this of course, which makes him a pathetic liar.
12 Comment by J. Meng on 28 November 2008:
@Slim, #11: You stated, “How is stealing land that was given to Israel in the 1920s, cleansing it of Jews, and creating an ethincally clean Islamist state ‘pro Israel’? Said state has no objective other than eradicating Israel.” These are incoherent and unhistorical remarks. Maybe, you can be more clear?
13 Comment by Tarkin on 28 November 2008:
Why does he call this war ‘Bush’s Iraq War’?
Bush this, Bush that. Cheney this. As if they have the power. You know damn well who puts these muppets into the White House and orders foreign campaigs to begin and to end.
14 Comment by george on 28 November 2008:
@11slim
Yet Jews and Israel supported an ethnic terror state in Kosovo.
Hashim Thaci:
“I love Israel. What a great country! Kosovo is a friend of Israel,” the grinning Thaci, 39, says in a Pristina hotel crowned by a miniature statue of liberty. “I met so many great leaders when I was there — Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them,” Thaci continued, referring to former Israeli prime ministers Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon. ”
“In Kosovo — where Thaci’s campaign adviser was an Israeli, and where a recent candidate for Parliament used a picture of himself embracing U.S. President George W. Bush on his promotional poster — fears about radical Islam seem far-fetched.
Asked whether Kosovo was pro-Israel, Vlora Citaku, a spokeswoman for Thaci, laughed. “There is only one answer,” she said. “We are pro-U.S.”
http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/14932
15 Comment by george on 28 November 2008:
@11slim
Heres Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos who survived 5 different Nazi death camps fought the Nazis, Communists and probably Martians as well promising Albanians Kosovo in 89.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7647717319228463142
@13Tarkin
Gives us a hint and please don’t say it’s the illuminati or as Chuck Baldwin has said the UN.
16 Comment by Homophobic Horse on 28 November 2008:
“Yet Jews and Israel supported an ethnic terror state in Kosovo.”
The EU will do to Jerusalem what it did to Kosovo. It’ll be a little ironic.
17 Comment by slim on 28 November 2008:
@12: Howard Grief is a legal expert in the field of Israeli sovereignty. He has written an excellent article here:
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:LfdDnGqYzRAJ:www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm+%22howard+grief%22+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The jist is this: legally, the 1948 partition and all the subsequent land thefts are ILLEGAL abrogations of the Mandate and San Remo accords. The 1948 partition and subsequent land thefts represent illegal theft of land given to Jews in the 1920s, earned via more than 1900 years of continual genocide.
Regarding Thaci, Lantos, etc: Thaci and his good friends in Israel represent two sides of the same coin. They are both corrupt (or corrupted) lackeys of the US State Department, which favors pro-nazi leaders of the US quisling states (like kosovo and the palestinian ’state’), and Jews that will remain silent or will assist the genocide of Jews (like Rabbi Steven Wise, Nahum Goldmann, etc.).
Western media tells nothing but lies regarding US policy in the Balkans. I have to read Julia Gorin, Jared Israel, FGW, de-construct, and a few other sites to find out the truth about Israel and the truth about US Balkan policy.
And the truth is that just as thaci is a nazi pet of the US, Israeli leaders (and the ‘Jewish’ state department lackeys in the US) are corrupted pets of the US antisemitic elite. Once one understands this, the behavior of Lantos, Lieberman, Aaron david Miller, etc makes sense: they are ideologically identical to all the quiet, complicit, ethnic-Jew traitors that have been elevated by fascist ruling elites throughout history. They are ideological descendants of the original traitor Flavius Joseph. They are the antithesis of Jabotinsky and Bergson, Jewish patriots who would never have sold out their fellow concentration camp victims.
18 Comment by KMarx on 29 November 2008:
J. Meng
I would have like the answer you posed but but considering the fact you intentionally used the name “Hussein” I think you are one of the narrow minded bigots on this site and others. The world knows his middle name is Hussein. The only people using his middle name so frequently in the last few months were narrow minded bigots who just can’t accept the fact that Muslims, Arabs, Blacks, non-conservatives and so on, are not a problem just because of a few! Had say Bulgarians attacked on 9/11 instead, no one would have ever bothered to use the name Hussein and you know it too.
19 Comment by J. Meng on 29 November 2008:
KMarx, you are to be complimented for your depth of vision and perspicacity. You have found me out. Yes, I am a narrow-minded bigot: a bigot for the truth revealed to us by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and deposited in His Mystical Body the Catholic Church; a bigot for the lives of the vulnerable unborn humans of whom Hussein Obama is coldly indifferent; a bigot against the perversion of homosexuality which Barack Hussein condones as a mere alternate lifestyle which may include “marriage”; a bigot against illegal immigration which Barack Obama has no plans to thwart; a bigot against unjust wars which Mr. Obama will continue; a bigot against the $700 billion bailout to save corrupt plutocrats, but which Barack Hussein Obama rushed back to Washington to vote for. Oh, yes, I am such a narrow-minded bigot that I did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Can you imagine that?
20 Comment by John Lofton, Recovering Republican on 29 November 2008:
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
21 Comment by KMarx on 29 November 2008:
J Meng
You totally avoided the issue of why I see you as a bigot! You were using a tactic the right used during the campaign, that is, repeating Obama’s middle name. It didn’t work during the campaign because the people of this nation have had it with free-for-all economics and wars based on ‘Our favorite villain of the month’ club. You took the cue from lunatic right and became one of their lapdogs even. The election is over. Stop crying about what you think Obama will do. Let’s judge him by what he does, not by what he says or what you think.
22 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 29 November 2008:
@20
Hello John. I was thinking about how much I miss your comments in the Washington Times. It’s nearly all neocons now.
23 Comment by J. Meng on 29 November 2008:
Slim, #17: Thanks for the link. I printed a copy of Mr. Howard Grief’s explanation and read it carefully. Unfortunately, his argument is based on fiction. That is, it neglects certain theological, legal, and historical facts which are irrefutable and destroy the Zionist argument for the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
First, in 1904, Theodor Herzl, was granted an audience with Pope St. Pius X, the Vicar of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of mankind. He sought moral support from the Pope for the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine. At this meeting, Pius X replied to Herzl’s importunities by declaring, “The Jews have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”
Second, by their rejection of the true Messiah, Jesus our Lord, the Jews can no longer claim Palestine by Divine Right. “They were assigned that part of the earth as their inheritance on condition of their being obedient to God. They disobeyed God’s command to hear His Son, by their rejection of Our Divine Lord before Pilate and on Calvary, and they persist in their disobedience. Accodingly, there can be no questsion of a right based on a divine promise.” [Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, 70]
Third, the Arabs have occupied Palestine over 1300 years, and thus have a natural right to the land. According to Canon Arendzen, in an August 1936 article in the Catholic Gazette, “the Arab population which has occupied the country for the last 1,300 years has definite and inalienable rights which must be respected. The Jews are foreigners in Palestine and the intrusion of vast numbers of foreigners so as to swamp the native population seems an act of unprovoked injustice….The Jews have practically evacuated Palestine since 138 A.D., and their intrusion into it after having left it for eighteen hundred years seems unjustifiable, on any known principles of equity.”
Fourth, the Balfour Declaration, the Jan Smuts Resolution which became Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the San Remo Resolution on Palestine are trumped by the McMahon-Sharif Husayn correspondence of 1915-16 which promised Arab independence by the British government for services against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Particularly, in reference to Sir H. McMahon’s letter to the Sherif on the 24th October, 1915, Palestine was mentioned as being included in the boundaries of Arab independence [Cf. Secret Political Intelligence Department Memorandum on British Commitments to King Hussein, p. 9]
Fifth, the agreement signed between Chaim Weizmann and Emir Feisal on January 3, 1919, had a disclaimer at the very end. It reads, “”If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.” Of course, the British and the French rearranged things to their advantage vis a vis the Mandate System created by the victors, which included Zionist influence, at the Paris Peace Conference and the San Remo Peace Conference of 1920. Thus Emir Feisal rejected the conditional agreement.
In other words, Slim, the Jewish homeland thing was FIXED by traitorous Brits, unscrupulous Zionists, French imperialists and diplomats of the Masonic club known as the League of Nations. There are no theological, legal, or historical justifications for the so-called State of Israel. Sorry.
24 Comment by robert m. peters on 29 November 2008:
KMarx @ 21
Your words:
“Let’s judge him by what he does, not by what he says or what you think.”
If Mr. Obama acts according to what he has said, he is very dangerous.
If Mr. Obama acts in contrary to what he has said, he is a liar and perhaps dangerous as well.
Since my standards are those of a Christian, of a man who holds to a republican model and to common law, am I to abandon those standards and judge him by someone else’s standard?
25 Comment by J. Meng on 29 November 2008:
KMarx,
Forgive me, I thought I did a complete job of addressing the issue of your silly attack on me. In my reply to your blustery umbrage for daring to use Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s middle name, I stressed it repeatedly. Go back and study my reply carefully, you will note that I repeated his middle name FOUR times. If you wish, I could repeat it more often so that you’ll get the idea that I am a narrow-minded bigot and that I loathe your Liberal sensitivity.
Of course, I could point out that you missed the point of my rejoinder: Obama is a disciple of the Cult of Corruption and Death. However, you have failed to grasp that point. Oh, yes, to make it clear to you that I am not a member of the right, either, I did not vote for McCain. Frankly, and I say this without rancor or intimation, only the media dumb-downed voted for either Obama or McCain.
26 Comment by polemicscat on 29 November 2008:
Obama is a loose cannon. He showed himself to be that in the campaign. He showed himself numerous times to be grossly ignorant of simple facts. But the MSM covered for him and allowed him to be saved by his team which was repeatedly having to explain what he meant when he made absurdly false statements. We don’t know what he will do —- maybe he will allow his cabinet to run things for him. That’s probable in light of his very brief and strange period in the Senate. My bet is that –if we are lucky– his administration will drift along without causing much irreparable damage to the country until he can be replaced.
27 Comment by slim on 29 November 2008:
meng,
Hilarious that you claim that Grief’s arguments are based on fiction (when they are not) and then your first several paragraphs are based on biblical proclamations, some of which are from the antisemitic vatican.
Pretty much all of your statements are lies, fabrications, and similar distortions. I recommend you read the ‘British record on partition’ as well as the articles I’ve posted at:
http://www.box.net/shared/86jltj9p8i/rss.xml
Read ‘claimtopalestine.pdf’. The British sabotaged partition in every way, and being the fascist antisemites that they are, they colluded with their Arab league pets (and imported Bosnian and German nazis) to finish the ‘final solution’ and then get military base rights in the region.
There never was, nor never has been any ‘palestinian’ nationalism. There has only been a nomadic culture of effendi oppressing and exploiting effendi. Jews came and bought land from the effendi fair and square. The Jews then liberated the fellahin (see israel_conquerors.pdf). Jews are liberators. Arab fascists and their masters (be they British, US State Dept, or Soviet) are oppressors.
Jews don’t control the media, but we can dig into ‘the Nation’ before it became entirely corrupted by the US-Saudi alliance.
And the ‘British Record on Partition’ as well as the articles I’ve posted expose you as the liar you are.
28 Comment by slim on 29 November 2008:
Incidentally, I’ll add that Jews have lived in palestine for over 2000 years, even though most were cleansed by the Greeks and Romans, the ancestors of their 3rd reich disciples.
The only country that had ever existed there was Israel. Jews have and had every right to come and buy land, and the past 60 years have proven that this was the right thing: the Jews have created a first world economy, expertise in electronics/semiconductors, have all the ‘luxuries’ of a modern economy (even a pro basketball team).
The ‘palestinian nationalism’ movement, which is nothing but a US sponsored quisling movement, is entirely corrupt, thuggish, oppressive, and worthless in every way.
29 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 30 November 2008:
The usual suspects, who blame the Jews for everything, must have created “slim” as a sock puppet to mouth the crudest possible version of Zionist propaganda.
Whether “slim” is a sock puppet or a throwback, the discussion has run into the ditch. Too bad.
30 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
J Meng,
“Of course, I could point out that you missed the point of my rejoinder: Obama is a disciple of the Cult of Corruption and Death.”
What hysteria! You’d think Obama is the next Hitler, the next Antichrist! Please, tone down the rhetoric. BTW: Glad you could have pointed out what I supposedly missed and didn’t! Thank you.
If you are referring to the question of abortion and, by extension, the matter of when life begins, you should think about some things. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that life began at conception. It was his opinion, nothing more. Any scriptural references on his part, or anyone else’s for that matter, regarding when life begins are subject to interpretation. Aquinas lived in the 13th century. He had no concept of the terms sperm and ovum, let alone zygote, embryo and fetus. He never saw them under a microscope. Yet, some people and religions take his word on the matter without question. The decision to have or not have an abortion should depend on matters other than the pronouncements of a 13th century theologian who knew nothing of biology. The questions of abortion and the definition of what constitutes life are neither easy nor simple.
“However, you have failed to grasp that point.”
Maybe I “failed” to grasp your point though I think not. Perhaps my IQ is nowhere near yours but please don’t tell me you used Obama’s middle name for any other reason than to infer that he is something detrimental to this nation. After 9/11 many in this country irrationally felt that those who are Muslims, Arabs and Middle Easterners are to be feared. During the presidential campaign the propagandists were out in full force repeating the term “terrorist” in their hysterical rants and in the same breath with Obama’s middle name. Didn’t you realize what was going on?
“Frankly, and I say this without rancor or intimation, only the media dumb-downed voted for either Obama or McCain.”
There were only two real choices. If a candidate we wished would have run didn’t then we are left to choose between the lesser of two “evils”. What’s the alternative? It’s nice to look down on the rest of the country from Mount Olympus but we must make the best choice in the hope of getting this devastated nation back on the road to recovery. The last 8 years almost destroyed this country!
If America becomes ‘just another country’ then new would-be actors will try out for part. But the question is what will they stand for? Quandiu stabit coliseus, stabit et Roma; quando cadit coliseus, cadet et Roma; quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus (“as long as the Colossus stands, so shall Rome; when the Colossus falls, Rome shall fall; when Rome falls, so falls the world”).
31 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
robert m peters
“If Mr. Obama acts according to what he has said, he is very dangerous.”
Please elaborate!
“Since my standards are those of a Christian, of a man who holds to a republican model and to common law, am I to abandon those standards and judge him by someone else’s standard?”
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.
32 Comment by robert m. peters on 30 November 2008:
KMarx @ 31
Obama is a liberal;that makes him dangerous.
Obama is a progressive;that makes him dangerous.
Obama is anti-republican;that makes him dangerous.
Obama is a multi-cultural ‘everyman;” that makes him dangerous.
Obama is a chameleon associated with the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine; that makes him dangerous.
Obama advocates expanding the role of the general government into almost every aspect of American life; that makes him dangerous.
Obama cloaks himself in the spirit of Lincoln and FDR; that makes him dangerous.
Obama is pro-abortion; that makes him dangerous.
Obama advocates or has advocated limitations on firearm possession and use, support for the fairness doctrine and internet neutrality and support for “hate-crime legislation; these things make him dangerous.
I am not sure what you intended with your quote of Scripture.
Note that I am no lover of Republicans, neo-cons and pseudo-conservatives.
33 Comment by John Lofton, Recovering Republican on 30 November 2008:
Thanks for the memories, Etienne, and the encouraging words. Email me privately and update me re: what you are doing now. God bless you, your family, your work. And God does bless us when we OBEY Him…
John Lofton, JLof@aol.com
34 Comment by travis on 30 November 2008:
@ robert m peters
“I am not sure what you intended with your quote of Scripture.”
It is an Alinksy tactic to use the rules of Christianity against Christians. Any post under the name KMarx is best ignored.
35 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 30 November 2008:
@32 robert
Matthew Henry’s commentary says of Ezekiel 24:1-14 The pot on the fire represented Jerusalem besieged by the Chaldeans: all orders and ranks were within the walls, prepared as a prey for the enemy. They ought to have put away their transgressions, as the scum, which rises by the heat of the fire, is taken from the top of the pot. But they grew worse, and their miseries increased. Jerusalem was to be levelled with the ground. The time appointed for the punishment of wicked men may seem to come slowly, but it will come surely. It is sad to think how many there are, on whom ordinances and providences are all lost.
Does this cut and paste job help out? I must admit it has been a while since I read the prophets and now consider myself refreshed on that verse. Being a Christian while watching the satanic political game being played before us can be disheartening at times, but keep the faith, God’s got the big picture under control.
36 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
“It is an Alinksy tactic to use the rules of Christianity against Christians. Any post under the name KMarx is best ignored.”
Why? Because some of you do not want to hear ideas that you think challenge your own? True conservatives that I know and knew would welcomed dialogue.
37 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 30 November 2008:
@30 KMarx
You need to read the Psalms again, and pay particular attention to number 139, then what Saint Thomas Aquinas says will be trumped by the Holy Scriptures.
“I knew you when you were formed in secret …”
38 Comment by J. Meng on 30 November 2008:
Robert M. Peters, @#31, Excellent points. Thanks for making it unambiguous for those who cannot quite see the danger in Obama.
KMarx @ #30: You said,
“Perhaps my IQ is nowhere near yours but please don’t tell me you used Obama’s middle name for any other reason than to infer that he is something detrimental to this nation.”
I thought I had made that crystal clear: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is detrimental to this nation.
You said,
“If you are referring to the question of abortion and, by extension, the matter of when life begins, you should think about some things. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that life began at conception. It was his opinion, nothing more. Any scriptural references on his part, or anyone else’s for that matter, regarding when life begins are subject to interpretation.”
You apparently lack any sort of education in the life sciences, i.e., biology. Everyone who has knows that in sexual reproduction, when the male gamete unites with the female gamete (a process called fertilization or conception) then a new individual of species has come into being and barring any untoward action to its development will become mature and be able to reproduce itself. Ever watch the birds and the bees?
Now, the Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, declares that human life begins at the instant of conception; that is, God creates a new soul and unites it with the new body brought into being by his parents. The soul is as necessary to the body as the body is to the soul. Our nature is the union of body and soul.
As far as interpretations go, there is no room for any, since the Church has spoken on this matter — except, of course, among Liberals, who are not sure about anything but pleasing themselves at the cost of the body politic. Nevertheless, maybe you would like to give us your interpretation as to when human life begins? Within the first of existence? A couple of days? After three months? Six? Or nine? Probably after taking a first breath of air? How about after being weaned from the breast? Just when does human life begin, KMarx? Would you say that a baby who had survived the traumatic effects of trying to be aborted is a human being with a right to life? If you answer yes, would you say that a baby who had survived such an abortion, but was shunted into a room without any care or food and left to die, was being murdered? If you answer yes, then why would you not find Hussein Obama a dangerous creature, because that’s what he voted for while in the Illinois legislature?
39 Comment by slim on 30 November 2008:
29 GOM,
not sure what your point is. I’m not them. But it is correct that there is a substantial geopolitical force, embodied by the US governmend and people like PCR, that do their best to pit Jews against Serbs and vice versa.
I also made a mistake in my post: the ME is a history of effendi oppressing fellahin, the latter of whom were liberated by the zionists. Your fascist masters loathe such liberation movements and must demonize them.
40 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
robert m peters
“Obama is a liberal;that makes him dangerous.”
So Liberals are dangerous? (Personally I’m glad I wasn’t around when FDR created Social Security, it would have scared the everliving hell out of me. What would have been much worse would have been the temporary jobs created by the government , e.g., WPA, during the Great Depression. My lord the thought of something other than the “private sector” creating jobs is blasphemy, even when millions were down to their last dollar! It’s much better to let the hoi polloi starve I’m sure.)
Perhaps you really do believe that Liberalism is dangerous. I say that traditional, and I emphasize “traditional”, Liberalism has done more to lift the majority of people in this country than any other political philosophy, including and especially laissez faire economics.
“Obama is a progressive;that makes him dangerous.”
Why? Perhaps he wants to rectify what happened under the present disastrous administration whose goal in life was to concentrate money in the hands of a few while the rest were hung out to dry.
“Obama is anti-republican;that makes him dangerous.”
In what way is he against a republic (I assume you meant to use lower case for the word ‘republican’)?
“Obama is a multi-cultural ‘everyman;” that makes him dangerous.”
Pray tell what is your notion of a ‘multi-cultural everyman’?
“Obama is a chameleon associated with the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine; that makes him dangerous.”
Alert, Alert! Obama is not, repeat not, a chameleon. He is an Afro-American. Every politician in Washington is associated with various forms of political elements he/she don’t like. These include both parties along with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives (paleo and neo). So what are we supposed to do, not vote for anyone who isn’t snow white and pristine? Such people do not exist. We must get on with society. Heaven knows that it has gone to hell in the last 8 years especially.
“Obama advocates expanding the role of the general government into almost every aspect of American life; that makes him dangerous.”
Show me where Obama wants to extend government into more aspects of everyday life. What did he say exactly to bring you to this conclusion? It seems that if the laissez faire crowd had acted in a respectable and responsible fashion with their first and only thought being the best interests of this country as a whole then the fiasco which occurred would not have. Don’t kid yourself, when you allow any economic system off the leash, it wanders into the excesses and everyone suffers, especially those with the least power. If and when the Wall Street/Corporate crowd learns to act responsibly and puts the best interests of this country first then we as a society should grant them leeway but not until. The so called invisible hand of the market is a child’s fairytale.
“Obama cloaks himself in the spirit of Lincoln and FDR; that makes him dangerous.”
Where did you get this idea? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
“Obama is pro-abortion; that makes him dangerous.”
Oh sure, there’s never a good reason for an abortion such as when it’s either the life of the mother or the baby. See reality as it is, not what you wish it would be. Yes, having an abortion for the hell of it is an abomination but there are valid cases for it too.
“Obama advocates or has advocated limitations on firearm possession and use, support for the fairness doctrine and internet neutrality and support for “hate-crime legislation; these things make him dangerous.”
No kidding! This makes him dangerous?! Perhaps if there were stricter requirements fewer people would end up dead. Law abiding, reasonable citizens should have no reason to fear for their Second Amendment guarantees under stricter regulations. When the Constitution was written guns were necessary for people to hunt. They were also needed so members of a militia could use their own weapons if called upon. Things have changed a bit don’t you think?
As far as some of the other things you mention, I certainly feel that so called hate-crimes should be called crimes period. A crime against a person of one group should not have more or less protection than another. One for all and all for one.
“I am not sure what you intended with your quote of Scripture.”
I intended to express the belief that God will judge one on one’s deeds and not by what one says. If God can do this then why not judge Obama on what he does, not his political rhetoric? Show me a politician that promises you the world and delivers it I’ll show you an illusion. The last person who tried to do all he promised his people ended up shooting himself on April of 1945 in his bunker (and good-riddance).
“Note that I am no lover of Republicans, neo-cons and pseudo-conservatives.”
No kidding? Neither am I but I do listen to what many have to say. BTW: What are you a lover of? I mean you eliminated Republicans, neo-cons and pseudo-conservatives and I’m sure you find Democrats and liberals “dangerous”. So just exactly do you love in the area of political ideas?
41 Comment by Josh Cooney on 30 November 2008:
#40 “Perhaps you really do believe that Liberalism is dangerous. I say that traditional, and I emphasize “traditional”, Liberalism has done more to lift the majority of people in this country than any other political philosophy, including and especially laissez faire economics.”
Lift them to what?
42 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
KMarx said:
“If you are referring to the question of abortion and, by extension, the matter of when life begins, you should think about some things. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that life began at conception. It was his opinion, nothing more. Any scriptural references on his part, or anyone else’s for that matter, regarding when life begins are subject to interpretation.”
J Meng said:
“You apparently lack any sort of education in the life sciences, i.e., biology. Everyone who has knows that in sexual reproduction, when the male gamete unites with the female gamete (a process called fertilization or conception) then a new individual of species has come into being and barring any untoward action to its development will become mature and be able to reproduce itself. Ever watch the birds and the bees?”
My reply:
Yes, thank you for reminding me how I got here. I never did buy that story about the stork. But I was talking about when something can be defined as living. Let’s look at an example. As a person such as yourself who is well versed in the area of Biology I’m sure you are aware that zygotes can be frozen, stored and used to impregnate a woman. Let’s say that someone who was handling a frozen zygote intentionally decided to destroy it, say by crushing it. In your opinion should that person be tried on charges of premeditated murder??? If so and the verdict is guilty, do you think that person should be imprisoned???
Regarding the birds and bees, I watch birds but shun bees as they sting, ouch!!! However, I do not watch the intimate behavior of birds and bees as I think they have a right to do whatever they want behind closed nests and hives!!!
Oh BTW: Somewhere along the way I managed to acquire an MS in Biology. I guess I didn’t deserve it as I “apparently lack any sort of education in the life sciences”. Oh well as they say it’s back to the old drawing boarding.
J Meng said:
“Now, the Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, declares that human life begins at the instant of conception.”
My reply:
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided that Earth was the center of solar system. It taught the ill-founded belief for several centuries and killed those non-repentants found guilty of preaching the Heliocentric Theory. Case in point, the “heretic” Giordano Bruno. Perhaps you agree with the church’s theories and its practices in this matter???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided that so called heretics like Galileo, should be killed by the church if they did not repent??? Perhaps you agree that heretics should be killed if they do not repent???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided to change its previous stance on Capital Punishment. In the past it supported it, now it stands resolutely against it. Where do you stand on this issue???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, is a fallible institution just like any other hence we should keep an open mind???
J Meng said:
“The soul is as necessary to the body as the body is to the soul.”
My reply:
Did you read this in some science book or medical journal??? What’s the title, I’d love to read it???
J Meng said:
““As far as interpretations go, there is no room for any, since the Church has spoken on this matter — except, of course, among Liberals, who are not sure about anything but pleasing themselves at the cost of the body politic.”
My reply:
My, you sound so much like that nutty Ann Coulter who lives to blame everything that ever went wrong in her life on Liberals! I guess it lets her sleep better at night. Looks like you are taking a page from her book.
J Meng said:
“Nevertheless, maybe you would like to give us your interpretation as to when human life begins? Within the first of existence? A couple of days? After three months? Six? Or nine? Probably after taking a first breath of air? How about after being weaned from the breast? Just when does human life begin, KMarx? Would you say that a baby who had survived the traumatic effects of trying to be aborted is a human being with a right to life?”
My reply:
No one can say when life begins, not even the Catholic Church. That doesn’t mean that we should never perform an abortion. There are cases that are based on solid ground like when a mother will die if she goes full term. A choice must be made at that point. What would you counsel a pregnant woman to do in such a case???
J Meng said:
“If you answer yes, would you say that a baby who had survived such an abortion, but was shunted into a room without any care or food and left to die, was being murdered? If you answer yes, then why would you not find Hussein Obama a dangerous creature, because that’s what he voted for while in the Illinois legislature?”
My reply:
I would say this much that if a baby is born and is left to die, then those responsible should be arrested and tried on the charge of murder. Anyone born alive is open to all the protections the Constitution, the law and this society have to offer.
So Obama voted to allow the killing of newborns. Did he now? This sounds like the WW I propaganda the British government tried to sell about German soldiers (aka labeled Huns) when the British government accused German troops of bayoneting helpless infants. Show me where Obama or anyone in this country voted for legislation allowing a newborn could to be left to die under such circumstances???????????
43 Comment by KMarx on 30 November 2008:
Josh Cooney
It lifted their standard of living.
44 Comment by J. Meng on 30 November 2008:
KMarx, #42: my, my, such venting, but you have revealed yourself for the rascal you are. Anyway, not wishing to aggravate you further, I am complying with your gracious request for evidence that Obama voted against legislation “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act”, that would have protected babies that survived abortion attempts. Please, go to these links:
1. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view7pageID=78189.
2. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/19/obama-ad-lies-about-obamas-infanticide-vote/
3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/o,2933,407882,00.html.
Of course, there is more evidence, and any search engine will provide you with many websites to further confirm my accusation. Basically, these links will show you that not only is Obama bloodthirsty, he is a consummate liar, as well.
As far as I am concerned about you, your liberalism and your anti-Catholicism are antithetical to social well being and make you a living proof about not casting pearls before swine.
45 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 30 November 2008:
KMarx,
You are foaming at the mouth right now. It might help to sit this one out.
Dr Peters,
Thanks for your posts.
46 Comment by Josh Cooney on 30 November 2008:
Liberalism lifted the American standard of living??? I would agree if you include capitalism under the heading of Liberalism, but it sounded like you were not including capitalism.
By the way, your comments on Christianity and the Catholic Church are absurd. I suggest you spend less time blogging and more time reading Scripture and history. Perhaps you could start by reading up on the wonderful success the ideas of your namesake had on raising the standard of living in Russia. That is, for the ones who actually survived.
47 Comment by Michael Ezzo on 30 November 2008:
Thank you very much, Mr. Aitken, for injecting some sanity here!
It was Chesterton, I believe, who said that only men who agree with each other should argue. Chronicles, the magazine, has already presented over the last three decades its position regarding these topics. Might I suggest that KMarx get some back issues and study them thoroughly before jumping into an online argument? Then perhaps we will find some (if any) common ground from which to start. Thank you.
48 Comment by JE on 30 November 2008:
For the record, Aquinas didn’t believe that — to be strict about the terms — the individual human soul informed the body at conception. Rather he believed that this occurred some weeks into gestation, at the point at which the corporeal senses begin to function (and this occurs when the sense-organs have reached a sufficiently teleologically determinate level of development).
Aquinas’ argument, taken more or less straight from Aristotle, comes from a metaphysical position on the intellect’s dependence on sensation, and through sensation sense-organs, for operation. But like Aristotle’s his argument is really *too* empirical, and not sufficiently metaphysical — he doesn’t, for example, consider the peculiar features of the intellect’s dependence on sense-organs, which the specific character of intellection’s relation to its per-se object (‘being-through-itself’) require. (He does discuss these peculiarities in treating the immortality of the soul, with famously ambitious conclusions.)
Albertus Magnus, Aquinas’ teacher, took the metaphysics of the generation of specifically intellectual creatures rather more seriously, though his solution involved an extremely daring position regarding ‘formae inchoatae’, with such massive ontological implications that its adoption was, and is, highly unlikely. (I think Albert is correct, by the way, although he never developed the theory adequately — in part because, in his historical circumstances, he didn’t really need to.)
The point of this post isn’t to wander into virtually unsoundable metaphysical waters here, but rather to point out that the true — and received Catholic — doctrine on the unborn child’s development — and in particular how an indivisibly intellectual and corporeal creature comes to be — has *not* been worked out fully. And any adequate solution would need to deal with the huge metaphysical problem of ‘inchoate substantial forms’ — which some more recent attempts have attempted, though, if I recall correctly, flail a bit without the metaphysical rigor of the full scholastic-Aristotelian system.
None of this matters for the purposes of law, of course: Aquinas himself notes that the destruction of potential human life is the greatest sin after the destruction of actual human life, so he doesn’t need to claim that ‘life begins at conception’ in order to claim that abortion (and, for that matter, artificial contraception) is colossally reprehensible, and, moreover, the sort of thing that secular law must prohibit.
Of course the epistemology implicit in modern cellular biology can’t really say much about this ‘potential life mumbo-jumbo’, but that’s an understandably deep and difficult quagmire to escape from, even if evolutionary biology (and to some extent biochemistry) has made huge leaps in this direction. In other words I’m not sure that sufficient appreciation of ‘determinate potency’ is possible without a massive revolution in the philosophy of nature (though Heisenberg does vaguely, if incoherently, quote Aristotle on potency in support of Heisenberg’s own interpretation of his own mathematical formulae; which is another matter altogether, but anyway a glimmer..but I’m getting off track)..which isn’t going to happen any time soon, and anyway isn’t really the cellular biologist’s business. But neither is ethics, properly.
Also, we should probably be careful not to dismiss ’standard-of-living’-type arguments out of hand, even by accident — for the obvious reason that there really is a difference between ‘living’ and ‘living well’, and, moreover, that difference is specifically constituted by rationality. What exactly ‘living well’ entails is of course another question. It isn’t ‘having lots of stuff’, but for everyone besides a consecrated celibate it isn’t strict poverty, either. The ‘having lots of stuff’ claim too easily flows from a misguided economic Austrianism, as contributors to this site have debated repeatedly in the past.
For the relation of ‘living well’ to human fruitfulness, by the way, Catholics can prudently look to Alphonus Liguori’s authoritative contributions to the laxist/rigorist debates on marriage. The whole abortion/contraception debate is of course deeply connected with the question of pleasure in sexual intercourse — essentially, even, so that one can’t really discuss the one without discussing the other. (This is the profound truth that Paul VI recognized, to many theologians’ shock and chagrin.) And it’s undoubtedly true that much of the (non-magisterial!) Catholic tradition has had more juridical than substantive, and in many cases disgracefully false, things to say on this subject. This is not unrelated to the fact that (as TJF has pointed out, I think) most of the texts constituting that tradition were written by consecrated celibates. But I think most on Chronicles already know that lay Catholics have a massive and special task ahead of them today.
One final note — it’s not meaningless, nor irrelevant to this thread, that mentions of ‘double effect’ figure most prominently in two ethical discussions: war and abortion. I’m not sure exactly what else to say about this at the moment, except that the goofily Kantian version of ‘double effect’ radically separates ‘conscious intent’ and physical reality — which is rather a general criticism legitimately levellable against the Bush administration in particular, and neocon international policy in general. And, for that matter, Obama’s political philosophy, as far as I can make out from his vacuous, demagogic rhetoric.
49 Comment by KMarx on 1 December 2008:
Josh,
Josh said:
“Liberalism lifted the American standard of living??? I would agree if you include capitalism under the heading of Liberalism, but it sounded like you were not including capitalism.”
My reply:
Reason it out! This country is based on Capitalism. Hence any increases in the past of living standards were in part due to Capitalism, albeit a more benign form than what we now have. I prefer to label the present form as Free-for-All Capitalism, a system that puts profits before the overall welfare of this country and its people; a system which is concentrating wealth in the hands of the few; a system which is engaging in a feeding frenzy on cheap labor; a system intricately perplexing to the point that no one really understands it; a system which is becoming uncontrollable and, with this, very, very dangerous indeed!
Josh said:
“By the way, your comments on Christianity and the Catholic Church are absurd. I suggest you spend less time blogging and more time reading Scripture and history. Perhaps you could start by reading up on the wonderful success the ideas of your namesake had on raising the standard of living in Russia. That is, for the ones who actually survived.”
My reply:
Show me exactly what you consider absurd regarding my comments on Christianity and the Catholic Church? For example are you saying the church never tried then killed “heretics”? Please tell me what I said that you found so absurd.
Regarding my so called namesake, did you ever think the ‘K’ might stand for Kevin, Keith, or Kenneth, or perhaps Kathryn, Kelly or Kimberly, etc?
Actually Karl Marx never considered Russia or China as economies that would become Communist in the near term. His theory (based in part on the theories of G. F. Hegel) stated that economies evolved through a process of Dialectical Materialism. (This term was supposedly coined by the German philosopher Josef Dietzgen.) Marx believed a country like England would be the first country to morph into Communism as it was the most industrialized country in Europe at the time. Marx considered highly industrialized Capitalist countries as the last step toward Communism. Marx considered countries like Russia and China, which at the time were agrarian based, having to reach the next step in development – Capitalism – before his concept of Communism could become reality.
One final important point on this matter – Marx’s goal in his massive analysis of Capitalism was in large part not intended just as an analysis of the system as a whole BUT as an analysis of the effect an economic basis of culture has on the values, morals and mores of that culture. He saw the economic basis as acting much like Freud’s concept of repression (stolen from the brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche), that is, he saw the system as shaping values, morals, etc, such that the culture was unaware of the effects. Marx was a Humanist and wanted to open the eyes of people to things that influenced their behavior, things they were unaware of. Marx would have laughed at both Russian and Chinese forms of Communism. Keep in mind that he believed that after Capitalism’s demise people would no longer be hampered by tyranny, the state would fade away and people would live happily ever after. (I’m sure he didn’t believe all this nonsense but it was a rallying cry for a more humane world, certainly not one based on tyrants like Stalin and Mao.)
Regarding the living standards in Russia you must be aware that life under the Tsars was anything but kind to the mass of people. This set the stage for revolution. People do not overthrow governments just because they have nothing better to do with their free time. Indeed, life in Russia was harsh after the revolution, as one would expect after most any revolution. The so called Communist leaders did little to change the nature of the political leadership, they changed just the titles. The Russian people were however better off in that they eventually had healthcare, education and food on the table, something the Tsars never worried too much about. Even today when Russia is a quasi-Capitalist state, it still has problems exploiting much of its natural resources and the like. A centuries old culture does not change overnight.
50 Comment by KMarx on 1 December 2008:
Jacob Aitken
“KMarx,
You are foaming at the mouth right now. It might help to sit this one out.”
My reply:
Bow wow, ruff ruff, Grr Grr. Thanks for the advice on taking a timeout. I’m now panting in an effort to stop my foaming! Hope it works.
51 Comment by Josh Cooney on 1 December 2008:
KMARX,
I never said I was pro-capitalism. I am a distributist, and I reject a “standard of living” that is based on purely material standards.
No, I never considered your name was Kathryn. Would you like to go by that name?
Apparently the Church didn’t burn enough heretics. But your argument concerned the Church’s suppossed intolerance of science. In all seriousness, I recommend Stanley Jaki’s The Road of Science and the Ways to God. Even if you don’t read it, you must ask this question: why did most of the great achievements in science occur in Western Europe?
I didn’t say Marx would have approved of communism’s manifestation in Russia and China. But detaching the results from the source is a conveniant excuse for not dealing truthfully with the destructive nature of Marx’s ideas.
Did the Russian people overthrow the Tsar? Was it a mass movement by the peasants? How can you whitewash the millions of peasants and Christians who were banished to Siberia or excecuted? Also, the seminaries, monastaries, and clergy were systematically destroyed. The Russian people were not better off, even the ones who weren’t murdered in the attempt to obliterate all vestiges of the peasantry, the Orthodox Church, and Old Russia.
52 Comment by JE on 1 December 2008:
KMarx @ 49:
Two quick notes and one question:
(1) The remarks about Bruno, heliocentrism, etc. were all absurd: the historical record is pretty clear on this. The general matter of heretic-burning has nothing to do with your specific claims, to which claims I think Josh Cooney was responding.
(2) The ‘food on the table’ line is a little peculiar in light of Stalin’s Holodomor and Mao’s Great Leap Forward. I’ve seen Leninist/Trotskyite rebuttals to the relevance of both of these counter-arguments, but I wonder where you stand on both matters. (Disclosure: my maternal grandparents are Ukrainian, and fled their country during the Nazi invasion; I am consequently unsympathetic to Tsarist/Soviet dichotomies, as my ancestors had little joy from either oppressive foreign power.)
And the question: What do you make of Trotsky? I happily grant that Marx was a great romantic genius (if deeply mistaken), and that dialectical materialism demands at least *seriousness* (though this doesn’t make it in at all *correct*), but one of the problems Lenin and Trotsky faced, as I recall, was that Marx/Engels’ philosophical writings didn’t exactly provide a step-by-step manual for revolution. I’ve heard modern (dialectical) Marxists claim that Trotsky successfully made the argumentative move from Marxist theory to Bolshevik practice where Lenin (and later Stalin) totally failed. But I wonder what you have to say on this (since this is one of the standard arguments offered to deflect objections to communism that appeal to the Soviet Union’s horrific and spectacular failure).
53 Comment by polemicscat on 1 December 2008:
#32
Well said.
54 Comment by KMarx on 1 December 2008:
JE
You said:
“The remarks about Bruno, heliocentrism, etc. were all absurd: the historical record is pretty clear on this. The general matter of heretic-burning has nothing to do with your specific claims, to which claims I think Josh Cooney was responding.”
Please give me specifics. For example, you maintain that what I said about Giordano Bruno and Heliocentrism are absurd. Point out the absurdities! Are you saying Bruno was not tried and convicted for heresy? Perhaps his promulgations of the theory had nothing to do with his being condemned? The record is clear on this. Just investigate and you will see that one of his “heresies” was his teaching of Heliocentrism.
I answered the following post of J Meng:
38 J Meng
“Now, the Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, declares that human life begins at the instant of conception; that is, God creates a new soul and unites it with the new body brought into being by his parents. The soul is as necessary to the body as the body is to the soul. Our nature is the union of body and soul.”
My intention with the following post was to demonstrate that the church is fallible. In his post J Meng is saying that the church declared that life began at conception. As far as he was concerned there could be no more dialogue on the matter because the church was the final word. It’s as if there are no other opinion on the matter.
42 KMax
“The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided that Earth was the center of solar system. It taught the ill-founded belief for several centuries and killed those non-repentants found guilty of preaching the Heliocentric Theory. Case in point, the “heretic” Giordano Bruno. Perhaps you agree with the church’s theories and its practices in this matter???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided that so called heretics like Galileo, should be killed by the church if they did not repent??? Perhaps you agree that heretics should be killed if they do not repent???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, decided to change its previous stance on Capital Punishment. In the past it supported it, now it stands resolutely against it. Where do you stand on this issue???
The Catholic Church with the authority given to it by Her Founder, Jesus Christ, is a fallible institution just like any other hence we should keep an open mind???”
JE said:
“The ‘food on the table’ line is a little peculiar in light of Stalin’s Holodomor and Mao’s Great Leap Forward. I’ve seen Leninist/Trotskyite rebuttals to the relevance of both of these counter-arguments, but I wonder where you stand on both matters.”
From what I’ve read about the Holodomor the verdict is still out as to whether it was due to natural causes or intention on the part of a paranoid Stalin or perhaps a combination of both or still yet other factors. The USSR is no stranger to crop failures. During the height of the Cold War under the Kennedy Administration the US agreed to sell the USSR grain as the USSR was short on its grain crops for years. There was a lot of dissension at the time by the American public but the government saw an opportunity to make money.
JE said:
“And the question: What do you make of Trotsky? I happily grant that Marx was a great romantic genius (if deeply mistaken), and that dialectical materialism demands at least *seriousness* (though this doesn’t make it in at all *correct*), but one of the problems Lenin and Trotsky faced, as I recall, was that Marx/Engels’ philosophical writings didn’t exactly provide a step-by-step manual for revolution. I’ve heard modern (dialectical) Marxists claim that Trotsky successfully made the argumentative move from Marxist theory to Bolshevik practice where Lenin (and later Stalin) totally failed. But I wonder what you have to say on this (since this is one of the standard arguments offered to deflect objections to communism that appeal to the Soviet Union’s horrific and spectacular failure).”
The Marx/Engels manifesto was not intended as a ‘How and Why’ manual. Marx believed that revolution would only speed the transition to Communism but Communism was inevitable as a part of the laws of history (a mystical, magical force akin to the ‘invisible hand of the market’).
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that some Marxists ‘claim’ that Trotsky somehow put Marxist theory into Bolshevik practice. According to Marx the laws of history are unalterable and will lead to Communism irrespective of any outside intervention. My point being that Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and that whole crew needed a philosophical mantra behind which to hide their desire for power. Do not associate Marx the Humanist with any of these others.
55 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 1 December 2008:
Precisely what does any of this have to do with America’s Moronic Iraqi Policy?
56 Comment by KMarx on 1 December 2008:
51 Josh Cooney
Josh said:
“I never said I was pro-capitalism. I am a distributist, and I reject a “standard of living” that is based on purely material standards.”
I like the idea of what you call a Distributist if that it means that the society tries to set the conditions where anyone can get a real chance in life.
Josh said:
“No, I never considered your name was Kathryn. Would you like to go by that name?”
No just call me KMarx.
Josh said:
“Apparently the Church didn’t burn enough heretics. But your argument concerned the Church’s suppossed intolerance of science. In all seriousness, I recommend Stanley Jaki’s The Road of Science and the Ways to God. Even if you don’t read it, you must ask this question: why did most of the great achievements in science occur in Western Europe?”
With regard to science I was not referring to the contemporary church. I was referring to a time when the church was indeed intolerant on many issues of science which challenged its beliefs. It wasn’t long ago that the Theory of Evolution was not in the church’s vocabulary. I have great respect for Pope John II as he acknowledged that evolution can be the mechanism through which God created life. He said that if someday we contact life in other worlds it would demonstrate the breath of God’s kingdom. For these admissions and many other matters I think he will go down as a great pope.
Josh said:
“I didn’t say Marx would have approved of communism’s manifestation in Russia and China. But detaching the results from the source is a conveniant excuse for not dealing truthfully with the destructive nature of Marx’s ideas.”
Marx has been much maligned throughout the years, especially by Capitalists who never read anything written by him. I suggest you read the following books if you can find them written by one of his foremost interpreters: Eric Fromm. Fromm was a Psychoanalyst by training who applied the techniques of psychoanalysis to societies where in prior times these techniques were applied to individuals. He is not difficult to read and if you keep an open mind I believe you will see another side, a most enlightening one, regarding Marx and what he was truly about. The books are: Beyond the Chains of Illusion and Marx’s Concept of Man. I would suggest you read the latter book first.
Josh said:
“Did the Russian people overthrow the Tsar? Was it a mass movement by the peasants? How can you whitewash the millions of peasants and Christians who were banished to Siberia or excecuted? Also, the seminaries, monastaries, and clergy were systematically destroyed. The Russian people were not better off, even the ones who weren’t murdered in the attempt to obliterate all vestiges of the peasantry, the Orthodox Church, and Old Russia.”
From what I remember it was in Petrograd where there were a host of different sorts, average people, local reserve units, workers on strike and so on who rioted. The problems in Russia were enormous including shortages of food and fuel. During this time two groups were formed from the existing government. From here on out there the discontent spread. In time many groups tried to seize like the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, White Russians and so on. In all this the Tsar had to step down. There were major economic problems in Tsarist Russia. Eventually the Communist group, the Bolsheviks, won out. Look on the Internet and you can find a multitude of reading material.
In answer to another of your questions, I don’t remember whitewashing anything about those who were killed under the regime. Many of those killed were from political groups that were in conflict with one another.
I must disagree regarding whether the Russian people were better off. In most revolutions there are always some of the worst forms of persecution. Look at the French revolution for example. It has been said that revolutions do not take place in a velvet box. Intense feelings are released that wreck havoc. When I said that the people were better off after the revolution I was referring to the time after things settled down. It took the French some time for things to settle as during that time there was phase called the Reign of Terror followed the a phase called the Thermidor. A classic book titled, ‘Anatomy of a Revolution’ by the historian Crane Brinton compares the English, French, American, and Russian revolutions in terms of their unique aspects and especially their common threads.
The USSR did not become a major power until after WW II. In order to bring this about the public as a whole had to be better educated, feed and had things like healthcare provided. America realized that after WW II it had to increase funds for education and provided a GI Bill for returning veterans. This was a first. The reason was simple – the major powers saw the incredible technologies resulting from the war. They knew their people would need better educational opportunity among other things to compete.
57 Comment by JE on 1 December 2008:
Etienne Gervaise is right — we’ve run foul of our thread’s proper subject-matter. So very briefly to KMarx, in reply to #52:
Re. Bruno and heliocentrism: Since you and I are clearly citing different authorities, we can’t possibly make any headway without a fully critical, independent, and dialectically conducted investigation. I doubt either of us has the time for this (at least, I’m afraid I don’t), though ‘just investigate’ isn’t very convincing; and anyway others on this site are surely better able to perform such an investigation than I. But do be aware that the general attack on ecclesiastical authority (which Bruno and heliocentrism, or for that matter any heretic-burning case as such, don’t remotely touch) isn’t going to make much headway here.
More or less the same goes for the Holodomor, re. the difficulty of historical inquiry, and the relation of Marx to Bolshevism, re. the philosophical/causal relation. I suspect the locus of our deepest disagreement lies in evidently contradictory evaluations of ‘Marx the Humanist’ — but (assuming we’ve both read Marx fairly) these evaluations probably differ in respect of humanism more than in respect of Marx himself. I will observe, in passing, that the rhetorical effectiveness of even the most disingenuous masking of libido dominandi behind philosophy’s impressive facade surely depends on the particular philosophy’s at least *apparent* suitability to the disguised power-grab; and this appearance alone would warrant curiosity, at a minimum, toward the Marx->Bolshevik relation.
58 Comment by george on 4 December 2008:
@53JE
And who orchestrated and planned the Ukrainian famine?
The Ukrainian government released a list of those involved yet it has not got any media attention why despite the recent media blitz on the issue?
Maybe because the list had majority of Lithuanians and Ukrainian Jews and only 2 ethnic Russians on it.
When Jewish organisations complained the list was retracted for “review”.
@57KMarx
The problems in Russia before the Bolshevik invasion were due to an international campaign against the Czar.
Loans were being withheld, underground Marxist groups were being setup organised and financed from abroad and financing the Japanese Navy to attack Russia all to undermine the Czar and bring about revolution.
International conferences and Marxist groups were held in Europe and the US London, New York, Czech Rep, etc.
The revolution itself was financed by New York Banker Jacob Schiff who also financed the Japanese war effort and 75% of all commissars during the revolution were Jewish including here in Britain with our Foreign minister Mllband whose granddaddy with a Bolshevik commissar.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/jews_and_bolshevism.htm
Communism was ethnic warfare against Russia.
Marx formulated a strategy so his brethren could have total control of Russia and destruction of Russian culture which would explain the destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow yet not one synagogue was touched.
Which includes a central bank and progressive tax system (which we have in the UK and US). Interesting know that Russia has a flat rate tax system of 13%.
What was the first law the new government passed?
Anti-Semitism is punishable by death.
The same thing is going on in Russia today different group in Russia any way.
They have spent millions trying to over through Putin and weaken his government because he has is a bulwark against Brezinski’s strategy of the break-up of Russia into 3 through a series of proxy wars much like they did in the former Yugoslavia with Islamic militants we have been training in camps in Afghanistan, Turkey even military bases in the US which include chemical and biological weapons.
Interesting a few years ago with this rendition controversy that the Neocon’s were running secret prisons used by Communist in the former USSR.
Same people different name.
59 Comment by J. Meng on 4 December 2008:
George, @58: My research into the Ukrainian “famine” confirms your points. Have you read Malcolm Muggeridge’s journal of his tour through Ukraine in the 1930s during the “famine”? It is abysmal reading, because of the horror he records.
60 Comment by george on 14 December 2008:
@60J. Meng
I have not read Malcolm Muggeridge’s journal.
Is there a website of his work or a PDF file on the internet?
I’ve read some background on the Russian revolution and its true makeup with extracts by famous correspondents at the time.
Like William Dudley Pelley
“…By the end of the First World War, Pelley’s prestige was such that his publisher commissioned him as a foreign correspondent on assignment in Eastern Europe. With a generous expense account and the diplomatic rank of “consular courier” conferred upon him by the United States government, he shipped out for Russia in early 1918.
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/pelley.html
Douglas Reed and London Times correspondent Robert Wilton.
Robert Wilton book is interesting Last Days of the Romanovs, as it lists by ethnicity the post revolutionary communist state.
“pp. 184-185 — According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State. . . there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews
Even Jewish journals and historians like the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia have referenced the Jewish role in Communism.