|
|||||||||
Posted May 2, 2003
Regarding "Santorum's Sins" by Justin Raimondo:
Regarding your April 28th article on Senator Rick Santorum's initiating legislation to crackdown on campus criticism of Israel, I am in total agreement with your opposition to him and his plan.
However, I am not in agreement with your opposition to Santorum's criticism of homosexuals and homosexuality (where I come from, we don't call it that, anymore; we call it what it is: homosodomy). In fact, I find (in a link you provided) a contradiction concerning a revered principle of United States law, i.e., Free Speech, in Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's remarks against Santorum that "Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral." In the first place, no-one, including you or Mr. Dean has proven that this foul perversion is moral or not harmful or normal to society and therefore immune from criticism.
In the second place, I can't understand how any pervert can be self-respecting, whether he be a homosodomite, an alcoholic, a rapist, a pornographer, an unfaithful husband or wife, etc. In the third place, to place a gag on those who have a right to criticize homosodomy in public, is the same thing in principle that Santorum wants to do about criticizing Israel on US campuses, and this is contradictory.
The Catholic Church has traditionally taught that we hate the sin, but we love the sinner. That does not mean we love the person because of his sin, or that we condone his sin; it means we hope by loving him, he turns away from it. This is exactly what Christ was doing when He rescued the woman caught in adultery, when He told her that He forgave her and that she should go and sin no more. But, since you are an unreconstructed atheist, I doubt if any of this makes sense to you.
Justin Raimondo replies:
"Homosodomy" – hey, I like the sound of it! It kinda turns me on....
"Okay, so Santorum hates queers. Take it from me, bub: the feeling is mutual."
How cleverly you described your sentiments. Thank you for the candor. Not that it makes a whit of difference to people who adopt that tone, but you have just brought to a conclusion my support of your work – both financial and otherwise.
Hate away Justin lad. Feel bigger do you?
Justin Raimondo replies:
So, what am I supposed to do, break down in tears because Senator Rick Santorum hates me? Because you hate me? Give me a friggin' break, dude, and – if you're that sensitive – keep your money. Somehow, we'll scrape by without you....
Tremendous article. Thanks for steering our way through the fog of rage – even if it's quite justified – about Santorum's homophobia to highlight his even more serious threats to freedom. This is great stuff – I know we can count on Justin to see which hand holds the knife, and he's come through yet again.
I would, however, take issue with the following statement:
"The advocates of affirmative action and the civil rights revolution can hardly denounce the principle involved, which is the justice of the idea that some compensation for 'discrimination' is legally enforceable."
I think Raimondo's fallen into some kind of philosophical or logical fallacy here.
It's what I call the 'all-or-nothing' problem, and it rears its ugly head constantly in debates between principled conservatives and principled liberals. What often happens is that one side or the other takes an 'all-or-nothing' position on a certain issue, whether it's discrimination, regulating business, gun control, or drug laws. If someone support's marijuana legalization, it doesn't mean they think pilots should be allowed to smoke blunts in the cockpit, or that crystal meth should be sold in vending machines at elementary schools. Of course, figuring out exactly which drugs to regulate and how is the hell of a hard job, no one really wants to roll up their sleeves and get on with it, and so we often take refuge in an 'all-or-nothing' position.
In fact, the argument that ideological positions need to be protected in the same way that minorities are protected under civil rights legislation simply does not bear up to any serious scrutiny. It's like saying that representatives from the Flat Earth Society deserve the same protections as some hardworking inner city African American or Latino kid whose parents make less than ten grand a year. It really is apples and oranges. The criteria for deciding who is or isn't a member of a protected class are empirical – and typically, the deciding factors are race and economic circumstance. Yes, these criteria or open for debate, and there will always be disagreements, even serious ones, and you can never have a system that is completely fair. But this isn't something like literary criticism where you can just make up the rules as you go along.
Supporters of Israel deserve no more protection on campus than supporters of Palestine, France, Britain, or the Grey Alien Intergalactic Empire. That is the argument that liberals and conservatives can probably agree on, and it's probably the more effective position in combating Santorum's assault on liberty.
Justin is absolutely right, however, that Liberals must beware the pitfalls of demonizing Santorum as part of some vast right wing (or any other) conspiracy. That argument leads absolutely nowhere, and does not address the absurdity of Santorum's position.
Justin Raimondo claims that the neoconservatives who wish to curtail criticism of Israel and liberalism on college campuses "have the Left in a bind". The reason he offers is that the Left could hardly disagree with the principle of state intervention to rectify an apparent discrimination. If Santorum argues that there aren't enough right-wing Christian nutcases on college campuses, isn't he right? Don't the statistics show an alarming tendency toward an establishment liberalism, even radicalism and – god save us all! – Marxism?
Using this cunning logic, I would like the neocons to propose measures in their amendment to ensure that the stunning inadequacy in the current representation of the mentally ill is corrected. If there isn't a retard with tenure by the end of the year, I will be outraged! And what about our animal kingdom? Doesn't our exclusion of so-called "lowly animals" from the education system represent what Peter Singer calls "speciesism"? Don't tell me animals can't count! THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE!
The assumptions seem to be twofold and interconnected. The first is that marginality and minority status is automatically a sign of oppression, an injustice that must be set to rights. The second is that an ideological conviction is commensurable with ethnicity, race or sexuality. But one's political persuasion is not a matter of birth, and its being in a minority does not guarantee that people of this persuasion are oppressed. One may change one's political outlook, as the ex-Trotskyist neocons are only too aware. These are matters of personal outlook and taste, not of identity, class or race.
One may not, however, change the colour of one's skin without a whopping loan from Michael Jackson. And this is where I think Raimondo's reasoning falls down. Certainly, he would have us abolish all statist interventions, even those of an allegedly anti-racist character, and let the market run free – for on the free market, the only colour that matters is green. The trouble is that there is demonstrably a legacy of racism that affects the general quality of life of black people in America. Racism is not just an unpleasant personal outlook, it is systematic discrimination in almost every area of life – from police harassment to unemployment. Can the same really be said of neoconservative ideologists? Are they oppressed in the same way?
The standard argument that "people should be employed on the basis of their personal ability, not because they happen to be black" is worrying, because it implies that the old system before "affirmative action" was in some way meritocratic. And Raimondo's appeal to the notion of universal property rights is a negation of human rights, pure and simple. If the only thing that matters from a legal point of view is what one owns, then it wouldn't matter that restaurants, bars and cafes in the South wouldn't accept black customers, or that they could often not find a bus or a cab that would stop for them. And why not have some more of those old minstrel shows, there may be a market for them? If the only thing that matters is what one owns, why shouldn't manufacturers solicit the custom of racists and bigots, even if it is offensive and degrading to others?
I won't argue that "affirmative action" programmes are an effective way to deal with racism, but it is important to recognise that they were part of a victory won by black people struggling, not some statist con-trick pulled by a liberal establishment. And the charges of hypocrisy and absurdity that one can level at neocons for seeking to rectify 'discrimination' against them do not in any way apply to blacks, Mexicans, gays or Jews. Their attempt to align their condition with that of a legacy of slavery, say, is laughable and it is on this basis that they should be condemned and thwarted.
~ Richard Seymour, London, England
In your haste to condemn together affirmative action and Kenneth Lee's laughable scheme to institute "ideological diversity", you fail to point out the most glaring analogical flaw. Blacks are still, unfortunately, discriminated against as a group, whereas I doubt that conservatives are in most contexts. There are few conservatives in academia because of their own choices: why would an intellectual toil in pursuit of a comfortable middle-income salary and tenure in his or her mid-thirties when a far more lucrative career at a neo-conservative think-tank awaits?
Regarding "No WMD? No Problem!" by Lee McCracken:
I am so tired of this horsesh*t. Send it to some tree-hugging socialist, or better yet, to some misguided soul in France. Why don't you people admit you just don't like Bush, instead of concocting this crap?
I didn't vote for him, but he is my president and I am all for him. What the hell would have happened if Clinton had been president? We are now suffering because the nitsh*t didn't do anything when he had the chance.
Lee McCracken replies:
Being neither a tree-hugger, socialist, nor (heaven forbid!) French, I can only speak for myself, but I don't dislike Mr. Bush. In fact, I voted for him, based largely on his pledge to pursue "a more humble foreign policy," "let other nations chart their own courses," etc. In retrospect, not the best judgment on my part.
If no concrete evidence of extensive WMD in Iraq turns up, then it would seem that Mr. Bush made a serious error of judgment in going to war, or at least that the case for war was not what he claimed it was (I'm assuming the best of motives on his part, at least for the sake of argument). In my view, it is a grievous error to allocate scarce resources to a minimal or nonexistent threat when there are genuine threats that need tending to.
In any event, "my president right or wrong" scarcely seems like the best attitude for an intelligent and critical adult to adopt.
The threat of Saddam's regime was highly exaggerated to sell the war to the American and British publics.
The mandate for the inspectors was to find; up and running, chemical, and biological programs, which represent an immanent threat in the words of the Prime Minster (can be used in 45 minutes). This administration claimed that it has intelligence of their existence; now they have control all over Iraq why do not they just point their location out.
But even if they found the smoking gun we are over looking the more important point which is Saddam didn't use any of these weapons even in his darkest hour, which just prove that THE THREAT WAS NEITHER PRESENT NOR IMMINENT. Saddam might have had these weapons as deterrent, which obviously did not work.
People that say we are; where we are now, but we could have got here with other means than war, but I think these other means would not have created an American military presence in Iraq, which is the aim of this war.
Lee McCracken replies:
Mr. Hamour raises a good point here. The crucial argument used by war proponents was that a) Saddam had WMD and b) could not be deterred from using them and/or passing them on to terrorist proxies.
But if these two claims are true, why is it that there were no Iraqi-sponsored WMD attacks on the U.S. or its interests before now? If the hawks were right, Saddam had every incentive and no effective deterrent to doing so. It would seem, then, that either (a) or (b) or both failed to obtain. Either Saddam never had an effective WMD arsenal, or he was deterred from using it.
The same argument would seem to apply, mutatis mutandis, to Syria and other candidates for the hit list.
Well said and thanks for writing it! (By the way – isn't this spring WMD planting season?)
~ Dorian Brooks, Arlington, Massachusetts
Regarding "Keep the United Nations out of Iraq – and America" by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex):
I thoroughly and completely agree with everything Congressman Paul says in this article, and it is really refreshing to see that at least one politician really does "get it" in this controversy concerning the U.N.
But whatever happened to Spc. Michael New, the soldier who refused to wear the UN blue?
To the best of my knowledge, his case still hasn't been settled. President George W. Bush could settle this entire matter about Michael New by simply signing an executive order – or has no one thought of asking him to do that? President Bush is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief, and he could clear up this matter about Michael New quickly, and insure that Mr. New doesn't have this "cloud" hanging over his head in the future, and allow him to get on with his life with a clean record.
I would like to see Rep. Paul pursue this, if he hasn't already done so, and if he feels that strongly about the UN, and our military taking orders from that unholy bunch.
Thank you – and please help get US out of the United Nations!
~ Ray Wright, Townsend, Montana
I just happened to link into your website and I am bowled over by what I read.
Finally a voice of clarity in a sea of jingoists, porkers and spenders.
I always considered myself an internationalist and I live in the City where the UN was founded but for some years now I have grown totally disillusioned by what is going on.
The UN has grown fat, overly bureaucratic and mind-bogglingly complex. It has become a job creation program for bureaucrats, stifling all new ideas and initiatives and it needs a serious overhaul or declare bankruptcy.
Cyprus is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of this bureaucracy and certainly the actions against Iraq have not helped.
We should immediately withdraw from the Security Council and the General Assembly and only continue payments to those UN suborganisations, such as Unesco and Unicef, that provide immediate benefits to poor children and poor people in general. We should continue to form alliances with nations that have similar views of national sovereignty and efficient government as we do (until our DHS was formed that is!).
There is definitely something wrong in an organisation that would have given Iraq and Saddam Hussein the Committee Chairmanship of its Sanctions Committee this summer. Whew! Just in time!
~ Antonio Locatelli, San Francisco, California
I just read the editorial essay advocating our removal from the UN. It gave me a renewed hope that our elected representatives really do listen to the people and understand our concerns. While some may see this as a backward, isolationist position, I see this as an open, and honest declaration of how the U.S.A should act in the international community. Not as an isolationist, but as an individualist unwilling to be subject to political mediocrity.
I know that my opinion, the same as the thousands and millions of opposed to the tyrannical and abusive regime of the United States, will be silenced by a bias of convenience, exploitation, and the new era of north-American bully-style of appropriation of countries. I've been working for the UN in the Republic of Congo (something that probably many never touch or smell). If there is something to get fixed, that is the place and to make it more tempting for the north-American vultures: there are plenty of gemstones enough to fill up their ambitions again.
In this forgotten worst than hell earth piece, people are still eating people, children are slaughtering their brothers, dismembering them with knives and machetes and playing with their corpses after. But this is not important because there is not oil, good for the American plastic, car, and general industry.
What a strange coincidence: suv's were announced just previously to the aggression, and as you probably know, their consumption of oil is higher than the regular save-energy-combustible old past tendency in cars. Regarding the "occupation" of North Americans or the UN in Iraq, finally is the same, since UN's, when pressured by sanctions and again bully ways of persuasion will perform like an extended arm of the north-Americans. They should carry their business back to their clams.
By the way the term AMERICANS belong to the South and Central too. ...
By the way, since I can't express my opinion from my UN job, I am forced to send you this e-mail trough a different channel. (I am a north-American too).
The example around the world is set: "if you are bigger and stronger, take by force the others' property, and destroy whoever even think different or opposes your regime."
I believe what you say has merit. However, I would argue that we stay in the UN simply to use our veto when necessary to undermine them lest they become more powerful and united against America.
I am surprised to see such an article on an antiwar website!
1930 again. Yes, everyone seems to forget the failure of the 30's. The US refused to join the League of Nations and weakened it enough that Hitler was able to get them fighting amongst themselves; and they were unable to act as a single, united, democratic voice. Japan had no global body to appeal to against America's oil policy, and the only way they saw out of this dilemma was WAR.
Read Woodrow Wilson's Second Inaugural address and you see exactly what Bush has done wrong; he has let history repeat itself! Do not forget that Wilson is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Bush is not, and you hear no Peace Prize winner supporting the current US policy.
...[Wilson] conceived a democracy greater than the United States and it was in this spirit that hoped the US would support such an organization. Hasn't President Bush done everything against this truly great leader and Nobel Peace Prize holder? Without the US supporting a truly democratic, global body, that it also yields to, long-term peace is impossible and true global democracy is dead.
Americans have become too self-righteous again. You cannot call yourself "great" one minute, and then cry about having to help though less great than you the next. That is the responsibility of the rich. If the rich do not insure that the lives of the poor improve, then the way of the rich will eventually die. There are thousands of historical examples, and the formation of the US is just one of them!
~ Shawn T. Murphy, BSAE, MEME, MBA, CFA
The writer of this article is ignoring that it is only through the UN and international laws that the US are able to keep an eye on others countries weapons industry.
Without the UN, any other country will be free to build any weapon of its choice without boundaries and to use it against the US which are imposing theirs politics to others countries around the world.
The US who has built his power on the free use of weapon when it feels its security and interests threatened will be the first to be paid back by all the parties that are considering that they have been fooled and robbed by the US. ...
...[Rep. Ron Paul's] arguments are an attempt to confuse the issues of US misconduct and naked aggression against other countries. The real problem is the role of the transnational corporations and their role in policy making with in the Federal Government. They are the true threat to US sovereignty and the welfare of it's citizens, not the UN which the US seeks to dominate as a fig leaf for its imperial ambitions.
Our government operates on the principal that might makes right and that it's only wrong when someone else does it. Forked tongues abound.
(Just for the record I am a Combat Veteran with over 2 years in Vietnam going over as a gung ho Airborne Infantryman and coming back as an embittered young man who resented being played for a chump!)
~ James Ketola, US Army 1968-71
Ron Paul, M.D. wrote:
"Simply stated, just laws are derived from the consent of the governed, and Americans have not consented to be governed by foreign individuals or bodies."
That's interesting, I don't recall every consenting to be governed by Bush et al.
First let me commend Rep. Paul on his courageous stand in opposition to the war in Iraq. I've found the articles he has written on this subject over the last year to be a reassuring voice of reason. This is why I found this particular article especially disturbing. I am aware that Rep. Paul has long opposed the United Nations on the basis that it violates the national sovereignty of the United States. His arguments have much merit and deserve deep consideration. Unfortunately, by reintroducing the Sovereignty Restoration Act at this time, he will be seen by many as aligning himself with the neocons who, albeit for different reasons, are also opposed to the United Nations.
While Rep. Paul argues that the United Nations is an impediment to the people of the United States in exercising sovereignty over their own nation, the Bush administration sees the United Nations as an impediment to establishing American sovereignty over other countries. These points of views could not be more opposite, yet the goal of both is the same, the abolishment of American participation in the UN.
What is most unfortunate about the reintroduction of this legislation is its timing. As Rep. Paul notes, the anti-UN mood is on the rise in the United States, but not for the reasons that he has argued. Rather, a large number of American people now oppose the UN for the same reason they hate the French, which is because neither one would endorse Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Rep. Paul also strongly opposed this war which puts him in agreement with the stand taken by the United Nations Security Council. To now turn around and attempt to use current public opposition to the UN in order to achieve his personal goal hints of opportunism. Having work hard for 20 years to point out the flaws and hypocrisies of the UN, I cannot believe that Rep. Paul could take much satisfaction in having this legislation passed if it is passed for the wrong reason. If the United States leaves the UN it should be for the reason that the United Nations violates the sovereignty of the American people. The US must not leave the United Nations because the UN refused to endorse the United States violation of the sovereignty of Iraq. Sadly, if this legislation is passed now it will only be for the latter reason.
The fact is that now the United Nations poses absolutely no threat to the sovereignty of the United States. The Bush administration has seen to this by their unilateral actions and their rejection of the World Court Treaty. If one is truly interested in abolishing American participation in the UN then this should be done for the right, moral reason. I would suggest that as a prerequisite to leaving the United Nations, the United States needs to show the rest of the world that Americans truly respect the sovereignty of other nations and that the United States is fair and just in all international relations. Unfortunately, this will never occur as long as President Bush continues down the path that he established with the illegal invasion of Iraq. That is why it is so important for every US citizen who opposes the Bush Doctrine of imperialism to work together to halt the neocons plan of world empire and rebuild the image of this country as the free and just nation that was once the model for the rest of the world. I fear, however, that the reintroduction of this legislation will only aid the Bush administration’s dreams of conquest while serving to divert and divide those of us who have been working so hard to halt this new and dangerous American imperialism.
~ John Leighton, Cincinnati, Ohio
I totally agree with American sovereignty.
It appears all too clearly that the current administration is working its process against "international law", but, more importantly and exclusively, it is working against the Constitution of the United States of America.
What does Mr. Paul propose about that? This is much more important of the moment than the UN.
The current administration seems to regard no law except what they make up at the moment.
I am not convinced that this is the best time to relinquish the UN.
Other nations regard the USA deplorably to an extreme at this time. Until the US establishes itself as the just, shining light of principle to the rest of the world, I fear that these other nations will regard the US withdrawal of the UN as more of a threat.
The United States of America is not defined to threaten maliciously and childishly, smaller countries who are not capable of defending themselves.
~ Michael A. Carter, 2002 Candidate for Texas Senate
In his editorial, Ron Paul wrote: "Simply stated, just laws are derived from the consent of the governed." This definition of just law is incomplete. Consent is a necessary condition, but in and of itself is insufficient. All just laws must be held to the standard of individual rights. No law can morally usurp the sovereignty of each individual over his own life (and liberty and property) and only over his own life. Failure to recognize this limit is the cause of democratic tyranny of the majority over the minority. Without this standard to limit the power of any governing body, whether the US Congress, the UN or the nascent Iraqi government, just law will not occur.
...You know you've really got it wrong: the world does not envy you, why should it. Contrary to your thinking money is not the sole reason for living, and the capacity to inflict destruction and death on those weaker than you (even innocent civilians) is not something to be envied, but something to be feared and loathed.
Your society is the most violent, the most uncivilised in the world. Americans kill many times more Americans each year than were killed on September 11th, 2001.
It is not surprising that you care little for any system of international law since there appears to be little respect for domestic law within your country – or could it be that you feel there may be some votes in this. Given the deplorably distorted picture of the world outside America – and there is – one painted by the so-called free press, it is not surprising that such a view would emerge at this time. How are you different from the so-called neocons?
However, the UN should stay out of Iraq. It should not be used to impart retroactive legality on a clearly illegal war. By the way do you propose tearing up the Geneva Convention also. I beg your pardon, the US has already done that with Guantanamo Bay.
WMDs
With
the war over in Iraq, many are now doubting the very existence of WMD
or more appropriately unconventional weapons. Why were so many ready to
give the UN inspectors six more months (or even longer) but the Bush administration
only gets three weeks to find them all?
While this website has made me question why it had to come to war for the objectives the Bush administration wanted to accomplish, my political feeling has been that it was done in such a manner to send the world a message that America is number one and will remain so for awhile. I do not believe this war was the beginning of a perpetual war state or the start of an empire. Many events in the last 30 years have pointed towards an eventual cataclysm that would kickstart America into fighting back; the bombing in Lebanon '83, WTC 93, Somalia 93, Saudi Arabia 95, USS Cole 01, and WTC 01. These little pinpricks into American superiority have thrust this situation into the front. What is wrong with thinking your country is the best? I'm not speaking as in Nazi Nationalism but in American Patriotism. ...
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
The point isn't that Bush hasn't found "all" (more like any) of Iraq's alleged wmd after 3 weeks, the point is that the US military just invaded and occupied Iraq and no wmd were used (by Iraq, anyway) or found.
As George Bush said in October, "If the United Nations does not have the will or the courage to disarm Saddam Hussein and if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm [him]." So where the heck are the arms?
Regarding "How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War" by Michael Lind:
You completely overestimate Gore. He is/was no different from GW Bush and if he had become President we would still be where we are today. Its has usually been the Democrats who have gotten us into wars, Wilson, JFK, Roosevelt (Franklin D). How's that for self-determination, The Republicans are just as bad, they are just more open about it. If we left everything to self-determination there would be no USA, there would be a Balkanized group of pseudo-countries. Texas would have reverted back to Mexico after its financial and commercial bankruptcy in the mid-1800's, the Confederacy would have eventually collapsed – What then?
ANYWAY, Gore was a moderate Dem and that's why he was VP as the liberal Social-Dems needed the moderates to get elected. Gore had spoken out against Clintonism on several occasions and he paid the price. If you don't think so, then why are the Dems fielding a score of candidates for Pres? Both parties need their moderates to survive and eventually these same moderates will band together and replace the Dems and Reps with another party which will represent the majority of us real Americans. As a close and dear friend of mine in Arkansas once said, "we elected Clinton president to get him out of Arkansas."
Regarding "The Arrogance of Power" by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D–WV):
I live in Germany. Believe me, Senator Byrd is not the only one who weeps for what has happened to America. There are many in Germany, in France, everywhere in Europe, who believed America could continue to offer the world a "better way". But they, too, now weep to see the great United States of America become simply one more militaristic imperialist aggressor no different than all the other warmongers of the past centuries. What has happened to America today under its war lord administrators has shattered a hope, a world wide dream, that America could guide the world to a better tomorrow. Alas, that appears not to be the case. Senator Byrd is not the only one who weeps for America – and the world.
Regarding María Luisa's letter and Alan Bock's reply:
I, too, am from a "third world" country – South Africa. Maria, thank you for your letter.
I was concerned at what Alan Bock said in reply. He states that it is a rational attitude for Americans to be incurious about foreign affairs and other countries. I really don't see how it can possibly be rational to wallow in your own ignorance. Whether the US citizens care or not, their country is out in the world, strong-arming it's way to global dominance. To be ignorant of what your own country is up to, to allow yourself to be lied to by your government – that is suicidal and very conscious. I cannot see how anyone in the "information age" can really be ignorant unless they choose to be. Americans have always had an arrogant idea that they are the best, the only ones that matter. They think very little of the rest of the world and most really do support the government's idea of running the world, because they accept the idea that they, as the best, should be on top.
It is inculcated into them from children – how good they are, how they have helped other countries so often (the kind of help the rest of us could do without).
Shortly after 11 September 2002, I was talking to a few Americans on an e-mail list. They were carrying on about how exceptionally good the US is, how wonderful the Americans are, etc. When I dared to point out that my country has a constitution that is perhaps better than the American constitution (since our constitution includes gay rights, rights for those who are HIV+ and a specific mention of rights for all races and religions and for women), I was blasted. How dare I? How dare I even suggest that America is not the home of the free-est and the land of the bravest? How dare I rank my piddly little third world country as being equal to or better than the greatest nation on earth?
Attitudes like that are what makes people hate Americans. And there is a lot of hatred and anger in my country aimed at America. People say – when is someone going to teach those Yanks a lesson? When will they learn that they cannot do whatever they want and get away with it? When will they understand that they are the only rogue state on earth, the real danger to this planet? Will it be before the nukes fall or only afterwards?
I do not think that it is just Bush, Cheney , Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Powell and Rice that are to blame. It is the fault of every single American. Ignorance is no excuse.
~ Lilly, Johannesburg, South Africa
Regarding
"The 'Real'
Crisis" by Justin Raimondo:
Having
dealt with various Korean people in the past I will tell you that these
are people of a different stripe than the Arabs and others that cut and
run once they see the odds are against them. These are people of strong
resolve and they will fight you to the death once they have decided to
do so. Ask anyone who fought them during Truman's "police action".
N. Korea is important but the real crisis is that the the American people
are no longer in control of their Government. Tin Star Bush will soon
come to realize that their are tougher men, and better poker players,
in Dodge than he and his gang of deluded bureaucrats. These idiots are
about to get a lot of Americans and other innocents killed for their stupidity.
History and experience tell us that whenever someone starts to talk tough
and pushes others around someone soon steps up to call their bluff. Bush
is far too ignorant and proud to step back from N. Korea. He and his arrogant
advisors will soon find out that not everyone runs away when they tell
them to.
Regarding "The New Leninism" by Chad Nagle:
Very compelling essay. You don't leave much room for hope! As I see it, you view late capitalism as a kind of one-party state-run society, with top-down undemocratic management/ ownership, and 'planning' of everything from production to education and other services. In the case of the SU, it was the CP in control, producing a slightly more worker-positive situation, with ideals of equality and social security, as opposed to individual freedom and consumerism.
I think you're overly pessimistic. I grant the SU was a top down system, but there are other examples of alternative development. I think Venezuela pushes the limits of your theory. Venezuela under Chavez is developing a grassroots democracy under incredibly difficult circumstances. Cuba – yes, it is Leninist (statist) to a fault, but again, under extremely hostile conditions. And even there, there is a spirit of populism, general welfare, solidarity (as well as lots of Soviet-style cynicism, I'll admit). What might have happened in many other past cases, Chile for one, we'll never know.
You rip away the economic foundations of societies to show an interesting parallel between right and left, but fail to put them back in. I have too much respect for Marx the economist to throw out the bathwater as I think you do. Capitalism (profit, profit, profit) is fundamentally different from the various noncapitalisms that have tried to replace it (grassroots social revs, plan, stagnation, war). Of course the US et al has done and does everything conceivable to make them fail, including overthrowing them.
The utopia you quote of anarcho-capitalist communities, libertarian if you like, is naive, of course, ignoring the inevitable logic of accumulation and greed behind capitalism. Communities built on consensus and communal living are still the only meaningful alternative.
Long live anarchy! (And this coming from an ex-'Party' member.)
Chad Nagle replies:
Thank you for your very thoughtful message. I am literally amazed at how many interesting responses I have received from this thing, which was written very impulsively out of burst of hate that seemed to come out of my gut, a bit like the Two Minutes Hate in 1984, except it lasted for a few hours. I agree with you that Marx had a lot of valid and disturbing things to say about modern economy, and my idea was not to condemn him but just to sort of say that there always seems to be a "Party" and it always seems to want to kick humanity in the face. Anyway, it ended up more like a bit of creative writing than anything else.
Thanks again,
and do not lose hope.