Fr. Bush’s Vatican – a Demise of American Christianity

Posted by leslie on Saturday, 22 January 2005 22:46.

Tragically many Christians see President Bush as a righteous defender of the Faith; perhaps in much the same way our medieval ancestors honored the Pope, or Christian monarchs. But Christianity in America is an experience radically different than of the European heartland, with the partial exception of Great Britain.

American Christianity is a balanced formulation of protestant morality and democratic plurality. According to historian Paul Johnson this formula was present at the founding of the nation, and persists. [1]

In the post-war period American Christianity has seen a recession of the Christian element and a procession of the democratic. As the Christian element diminishes the democratic element - as if to mask its newfound muscularity - cloaks itself in sacred Christian rhetoric; a clever shell game.

This is a disturbing development for America and Christians. For instead of promoting the universality of Christ’s message – with a minimum of Christian dogma - America is creating a perverted orthodoxy with Christianity hopelessly entangled in democratic imperialism, engaged by military force.

The leading apostle for this new Faith is President George Bush. No president, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, has captured the hearts, undeservedly I assert, of so many fervent Christians:

I’m in a different Southern Baptist church almost every week, maybe two or three in a week—they say “Please, tell the president and Mrs. Bush that we’re praying for them, and how much we support them and how much we’re praying for their safety and for his wisdom and guidance.” I’ve never seen an outpouring quite like it.

The day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor in 1999, there were several of us who met with him at the governor’s mansion. Among the things he said to us was—and this goes back to my Lincoln analogy—he said, “I believe that God wants me to be president.” [2]


Stiffing Bush’s call for worldwide democratic revolution, Peggy Noonan called his inaugural address “God-drenched.” Noonan, a sincere Catholic, Reagan speechwriter, and a fixture of the elite media criticized the President’s inaugural address [3], reminding the readers, and presumably many Christians, that “this world is not heaven.” As Noonan knows, there is no call for democratic imperialism in Christianity. Liberalism, rather than Christianity, is Bush’s Faith; or Liberalism with Christian lipstick and eye-shadow:

“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.”

“By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.” [4]

(Aren’t fires associated with Pagan rituals?)

Constrast Bush’s stridency with Christ’s humility:

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Freedom when referenced in the Old Testament was concerned with the autonomy of the Jewish racial religion. The exclusivity of the Jewish God was revoked by St. Paul, all now are welcome to receive Christ’s message. This broad inclusion has a democratic feel, but St. Paul was not a democrat.

“Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” [5]

In Paul’s day the greatest earthy master was the Roman Emperor, which 2nd and 3rd century Christians prayed for, but would not give offerings. Again, on the advice of St. Paul: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers…” [6] In Paul’s day this was the Emperor; this ruler was neither a democrat nor a Christian.


[1] Paul Johnson,

A History of Christianity


[2] Dr. Richard Land, Director of the Southern Baptist Convention
[3] Peggy Noonan, Way Too Much God
[4] President G. W Bush, Second Inaugeral Address
[5] Colossians 4:1
[6] Romans 13:1



Comments:


1

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:58 | #

On most issues Bush is not a member of the most extreme left but a member of the moderately extreme left.  On at least one issue he’s well to the left of John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Hillary (probably the three major politicians who are furtherst to the left in the U.S. today, Kerry being further to the left than Teddy Kennedy), and well to the left of Karl Marx.  That’s how far left Bush is.  That Bush is a member of the left, not of the right, is simply beyond any shadow of a doubt.

It is also becoming clear that Bush is not mentally sound. 

George Bush is the most disastrous and contemptible president the United States has ever had in history, not excepting Bill Clinton.  He’s actually worse—more disastrous and contemptible—than Bill Clinton.  Furthermore, that Bush needs to be on psychoactive medication (probably for manic-depressive psychosis) is now evident.  Ordinary justice and the well-being of the United States demand that he be placed under arrest and either committed to the custody of a psychiatric hospital until he can be gotten on proper medication or put on trial (along with Bill Clinton) for high treason and assorted other crimes.


2

Posted by Psellos on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:37 | #

Christ called on us to turn the other cheek if someone smites us. The Bush doctrine is not only to smite the other guy if he smites us, but to smite him even before he attacks. It’s actually to smite him even if we’re not sure he has a club to attacks. Really, it’s more like ‘to smite someone if we suspect that he has a club with which he intends to smite us, and after we’ve killed them and search his dead body, finding that he had no club, to pretend that we should have smitten him anyway’.


3

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:47 | #

Always enjoy visiting your blog, Psellos.

Good to hear from you, too, Fred. I’ve been reading your posts on jkab.org

So glad to see others are appalled by the blood screed Bush delivered a few days ago. The bitterness I feel about this war is intensifying. Only the worst motives, I see, are behind this venture. Unfortunately, our young men and national treasure are being sacrified.

It sickens me.


4

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:44 | #

“By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day his untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.”

(Aren’t fires associated with Pagan rituals?)

Constrast Bush’s stridency with Christ’s humility:

Luke 12:49 I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!

Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

I dunno, Geoff, Christ’s humility and Bush’s humility sound an awful lot alike to me.

 

 

Freedom when referenced in the Old Testament was concerned with the autonomy of the Jewish racial religion.

This speaks directly to your question about fires and ‘pagan rituals’:

Zephaniah 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

Perhaps your question, Geoff, is better phrased: aren’t world consuming fires, whether initiated by YHVH, Y’hshua, or George W. Bush,  indicative of Jewish messianic projects and not paganism, of whatever sort?

That what we see in Bush’s inaugural is another Messianic project, is, I believe, detailed in Podhoretz’ “The War against World War IV”, found here and David Gelerter’s instructive essay “Americanism - and it’s enemies”, found here.

I find the second essay especially impressive. Gelernter boils down ‘Americanism’ to a triumvirate of three Biblically derived imperatives: democracy, freedom, and equality, which we are divinely inspired and justified in imposing across the whole earth. Though Gerlernter claims Biblical inspiration, he actually took his list from Samuel Huntington, who gave a somewhat expanded inventory: “liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property.”

Gerlertner, like many people who read or write for Commentary magazine, didn’t see so much need for the inclusion of individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property. With foreign nations under the thumb of democracy and ‘equality’, everything else needful can be procured for the Commentary crowd with ownership of the press, a coterie of lawyers, and limitless cash, as was done in Argentiana, Russia, the Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Now, the divinely justified export of democracy and ‘equality’ might sound to you like a prescription for a new French Revolution, but then, according to Gelertner, you’re probably just a lousy anti-Semite.

Actual lousy anti-Semite Alex Linder acidly notes of Gerlertner’s claiming of the Puritans as forebearers that:

You will note the parallel he doesn’t bring up: Like the jews, the Puritans WERE KICKED OUT OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY FOR BEING OBNOXIOUS! But of course they weren’t the problem. How could they be? They’re special.

Anyone who wishes to understand the deeper import of Bush’s inagural is directed to Podhoretz and Gelernter’s essays. Indeed, those who feel left behind by the rush of events should probably be reading Commentary magazine more regularly.


5

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:23 | #

Wintermute:

I agree with much of what you say about the cabal undermining our faith and government.

Let me add something.

If you haven’t read Paul Johnson’s, <u>A History of Christianity</u> in it he describes the many efforts to have Christianity re-absorbed into Judaism. It was quite a struggle, after St. Paul this was impossible.

I think this pattern is repeating. It is my opinion that the Commentary & NecCon cabal are anxiously waiting for the day when Christianity can once again be smothered by the Midrash and Talmud. This climate of multiculturalism makes such a transformation possible.

( Hertzlinger and his crowd will love this post ).

——

In regards to Christ, though, Luke 12:49 & 12:51: yes Christ isn’t multicultural. He separates the believers from unbelievers AND this world from heaven. I don’t believe Christ is a battlefield general, or that he intends for conversion by the sword, or by fire.


6

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:50 | #

Bush is one of the sickest men in American political history or one of the worst political criminals in American history, or both. Here’s what Joseph Farah (the wonderful editor of WorldNetDaily.com, and an American of Arab-Christian ancestry, by the way)—who reluctantly endorsed Bush for re-election—thinks of his inauguration speech, and here’s what he thinks of Bush’s latest amnesty plan and his insistence on keeping the borders one-hundred-percent open.


7

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:02 | #

psychoactive medication?

another Messianic project?

You guys better quit drinking that koolaid! You’re starting to think you know what you’re talking about.


8

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:08 | #

Excuse me, that first Farah anti-Bush editorial I linked above, which was published on Inauguration Day, wasn’t about the inauguration speech but about Bush’s open borders policy (in anticipation of the inauguration speech).  Probably after Bush’s inauguration speech Farah was in a state of shock and unable to write a response.

Stephen Quick, you apparently think Bush isn’t showing signs of bipolar disorder?


9

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24 | #

I checked out your web-site, Stephen Quick.  If you, who apparently favor preservation of our constitutional gun rights from leftist dismantlement, are such a big Bush fan, maybe you’d better check out this other Joseph Farah editorial opposing the incompetent toady Bush wants as Attorney General:

“I never had much use for Gonzales, but the last straw came this week when he told the U.S. Senate he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban. [...] Let’s be clear on something: The Founding Fathers didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect deer hunters or skeet shooters.”


10

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:32 | #

you apparently think Bush isn’t showing signs of bipolar disorder?

No, I don’t. You evidently don’t know much about bipolar depression. Try reading up on it before you decide that you are qualified to diagnose it in people that you are unfamiliar with. Here’s a handy link to get you started.

As for Bush’s nominee, that is simply politics. If you legitimately disagree with someone about politics, that is okay. But if you demonize your opponent and his ideas by insinuating he suffers from mental illness or by accrediting weird conspiracy theories to him, that pretty much cuts off any sort of civilized discourse doesn’t it?


11

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:38 | #

BTW, I never claimed to be a Bush “fan”.


12

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:02 | #

” [...] that pretty much cuts off any sort of civilized discourse doesn’t it?” —Stephen Quick

No, I’m afraid “any sort of civilized discourse” was cut off long ago by Bush himself, due in part to what is almost certainly his manic-depressive psychosis/bipolar disorder (combined with his extreme stupidity and general obnoxious boorishness).  But thanks for letting me know what’s OK and not OK about disagreeing with someone in regard to politics, and in particular about disagreeing with this former (and, for all anyone knows, ongoing) cocaine addict and alcoholic—and obvious psycho.  I’ll be sure to keep your advice in mind.  Right ... 

Regarding Bush’s plan to change the race of the U.S. from white to Mexican and to reach the irreversible stage in the shortest possible time so that no effective opposition can be mounted, identifying that isn’t the same as calling it a conspiracy theory.  He’s doing it in broad daylight—not hiding it at all—and the fact that he’s doing it is common knowledge.  Clinton started the project before him, and he’s continuing it.  As for “weird,” the only thing that’s weird is Bush’s plan itself.  It’s the weirdest thing any national leader has come up with to do to the nation he leads in the past ten thousand years.


13

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:16 | #

Fred do you know any real “psychos” that are actually under a physician’s care? I mean, if you were intimately familiar with what it means to be mentally ill, to have bipolar depression, then it would convince me of your argument that GWB is ill. Then I could go along with the rest of your assertions about his criminal plans for world conquest, because I just don’t see it.


14

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:27 | #

Is GWB a psycho? Not sure… though…

“If GWB didn’t exist,
it would be necessary
for the NeoCons to invent him”.


15

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:32 | #

But if you demonize your opponent and his ideas by insinuating he suffers from mental illness or by accrediting weird conspiracy theories to him, that pretty much cuts off any sort of civilized discourse doesn’t it?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050119-15.html

Tomorrow, I will take an oath and deliver an inaugural address. You’ll be pleased to hear I’m not going to deliver it twice. But I will speak about freedom. This is the cause that unites our country and gives hope to the world and will lead us to a future of peace. We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause.


16

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:38 | #

>We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause.

Yep. Bush belongs in a padded cell, no doubt about it.


17

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:41 | #

Stephen,

Psychosis is not mental illness.  Psychotics are not insane.  They choose some form of aggression because that is the bent of their personality.  Nothing delusional.  No medical intervention required.  Mostly it is of a low-level order, little more than bullying, and it is really quite widely distributed in society.  Psychotics frequently live near-normal, productive lives.  They are apt to rise in the military and in commerce precisely because they are unconstrained by any consideration of the effect of their actions.  Usually, they blame their victims for those effects, and so leave themselves quite free to act as they wish.

I have no idea whether Bush is really psychotic, or even stupid.  If anything, his policies to Mexicanise (really, cosmopolitanise) America and spread democracy across the globe suggest a pathological disorder.  They are certainly the two most extraordinary acts of any democratic leader that I can think of.


18

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:46 | #

Is the text you have in bold supposed to insinuate that George W. Bush is talking to God? Because if it is, that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. You could make anything (or nothing) out of that statement. I could, for instance, contend that “a calling from beyond the stars” means that we should all consult a medium and have our horoscopes read. But since I don’t believe in horoscopes (or other invisibles in the sky) I’ll just take it for the patriotic statement that it is.


19

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:59 | #

More on the racial/religious origins of Bush’s current Crusade:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/21/wus321.xml

Bedtime book that has given inspiration
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 21/01/2005)

President George W Bush’s pledge to confront tyrants and promote freedom across the world is inspired in large part by a recent book by the former Soviet Jewish dissident, Natan Sharansky.

The Case for Democracy, published at the end of last year, has been the president’s recent bedtime reading. Within days of his re-election last November, Mr Bush invited Mr Sharansky to the White House to discuss how “the power of freedom” could transform the Middle East.

More at site. I wonder who slipped Bush the book? Of course, being such a voracious reader, it’s possible Bush came across it himself.

As freedom loving Americans, we are all very interested in what Soviet dissidents have to say - especially the Nobel prize winning Solzhenitsyn. Unfortunately, his most recent book, Two Hundred Years Together, which very gingerly touches on the role played by Jews in the NKVD and so forth, isn’t available to English speaking readers.

Voice of the Church Lady: Wee-eell, isn’t that conveeeeeeeeenient?

Odd that one Soviet Dissident finds his book has made it all the way to the White House bedstand - while the other can’t even get his book into print. How do you think that works, do you suppose?

Also, that the book is unavailable, doesn’t mean that Jews in the American Media can’t try to harm it or its author’s reputation: here is Cathy Young, a Jewess, in the pages of Reason magazine, denouncing Solsenitsyn, just like in the old Soviet Union. And just like in the Old Soviet Union, Solzhenitsyn isn’t allowed to respond.

Sic transit gloria libertarianism.

You, White Man, can’t read his words - his words of warning. But that’s not going to stop her, a Jewess, from trying to finish the work her co-racialists have done, which is to silence him utterly and forever.

The book came out years ago. Those here concerned about ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’ might contact a few publishing firms: will no one publish Solsenitsyn, not even as a prestige publication?

It seems not, and for much the same reason that there was no room at the inn for Mel’s movie.

What can we say of Solsenitsyn’s silencing by the other great evil Empire? Only this: that at least Natan Sharansky can add his voice to those of Bernard Lewis, Joseph Korbel, David Gelertner, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, David Feith, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowiz, Abram Shulsky, and all the rest, the one great swelling Chorus in and around Washington singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” for the umpteenth time.

—- DELETED: by Geoff Beck———


20

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:06 | #

Guessed said:

Psychosis is not mental illness.

In the first place, I am not the one that equated the two. Be that as it may, I know very well what someone with bipolar depression is like because I live with someone that suffers from it. And people that suffer from it are not “of a low-level order, little more than bullying”. Were GWB to be suffering from it the whole world would have known about it long before now.

If GWB’s policies are “the two most extraordinary acts of any democratic leader that I can think of” then you had better go back to your history books. I can think of actions by other presidents that were far more “extraordinary” than these. I feel I must reiterate, however, that not finding his actions “extraordinary” does not imply agreement with them. What I do find extraordinary is the characterizations of his actions to be found on this comment thread.


21

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:16 | #

I wonder who slipped Bush the book? Of course, being such a voracious reader, it’s possible Bush came across it himself.

grin LOL

Wormtongue gave it too him.


22

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:19 | #

Is the text you have in bold supposed to insinuate that George W. Bush is talking to God? Because if it is, that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.

You don’t get out enough.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: “God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/099745.htm

The Amish told the president that not all members of the church vote but they would pray for him. Bush had tears in his eyes when he replied. He said the president needs their prayers. He also said that having a strong belief in God is the only way he can do his job. ... At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.’’


23

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:23 | #

DELETED by Geoff Beck


24

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:33 | #

About the comment deletion:

Our proprietor is sleeping at this moment. I’m not sure he would think such a direct comment is useful.

I’ll send him and email and ask if it can be reinserted.


25

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:38 | #

You deleted my comment? I’m not the one making the anti-semitic remarks Geoff.


26

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:42 | #

Stephen:

The comment left by Wintermute is very incendiary. Your comment directly refers to it. I understand your position, but if I were to leave the reference, well, I just can’t do that. Sorry.

Our boss will be around in the morning. We’ll see what he says. I apologize.

—Geoff


27

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:43 | #

Stephen -

I have included my email in the signature line, and am interested in your last comment. Why not mail it to me?

Sincerely,

Wintermute


28

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:48 | #

According to Abbas…

Yes that engenders trust.

Let’s see, the other was “Bush reportedly told the group”. Don’t they know for sure? Weren’t they their to hear the quote?

I get out plenty.


29

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:50 | #

Geoff -

I suppose my comment could be seen as incendiary - though not as incendiary as Bush’s inaugural, of course, as it lacks any actual references to setting the world ablaze.

I am privately curious, though. Do you think my comment untrue in its particulars? Or are our mutual friends less uncaring than I give them discredit for?

Sincerely,

Wintermute


30

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:50 | #

Why not mail it to me?

No, Geoff’s right. I retract it. And I apologize to our host for momentarily letting my anger get the better of me.


31

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:57 | #

IMHO, no apologies are necessary. I was gripped by the discussion, I just thought the invective inserted by Wintermute detracted from flow. It added nothing, and detracted much.


32

Posted by Stephen Quick on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:15 | #

What can we say of Solsenitsyn’s [sic] silencing

Maybe that he was a reactionary who’s charm was never quite what it was made out to be?

Despite an enthusiastic welcome on his first arrival in America, followed by respect for his privacy, he had never been comfortable outside his homeland. However radical he might have been in the USSR, outside that context he appeared to some to be a reactionary, particularly in his Russian nationalism and his religious orthodoxy. At any rate, he was hardly the “Cold War prize” some had thought him.

He has been criticized by some who consider him a radical, as he frequently blames Jews, Georgians, Latvians and other minorities for the mishaps that befell Russia in the 20th century.


Besides, have you ever tried to read his works? The word “slog” comes to mind.


33

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:30 | #

another Messianic project?

You guys better quit drinking that koolaid! You’re starting to think you know what you’re talking about.

More reports from the field by my fellow kool-aid drinkers.

The National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/robinson200501201415.asp

But the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.

Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation.

Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006184

The administration’s approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the “reality-based community.” . . . This world is not heaven.

The president’s speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. “The Author of Liberty.” “God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul.”

[. . . ]

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that’s an ambition, and if you’re going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn’t expect we’re going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it’s earth.

Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com

http://antiwar.com/justin/

Midway through his inaugural address, when the president proclaimed “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” I wondered if Bush or his speechwriters knew or cared how alien this ultra-revolutionary rhetoric would seem to conservatives of the old school – and soon had my answer:

“Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.”

A fire in the mind – surely, I thought, Bush’s speechwriters can’t have inserted this phrase without knowing its literary origin. It is taken from Dostoevsky’s novel, The Possessed, a story set in pre-revolutionary Russia in which the author chronicles the intrigues of the emerging revolutionary movement: one of the main characters is based on the infamous nihilist Sergei Nechaev, whose aim is to make a revolution of such destructive power that bourgeois society will be completely destroyed.

[ . . .]

In Dostoevsky’s novel, that fire in the minds of men is not a yearning for liberty, but a nihilistic will to power that can only end in destruction. Put in George W. Bush’s mouth, those words are not a paean to freedom, but a manifesto of pure destructionism. Like Governor Lembke, President Bush has no dearth of hardline advisers who counsel him in ways calculated to provoke a violent reaction: unlike Lembke, however, there is little chance George W. Bush will learn his lesson, even if it comes too late.

The fiery imagery that pervades the text of Bush’s second inaugural address is disturbing because it is so constant.

[. . .]

The revolutionary nihilists in Dostoevsky’s novel, and those real-life nihilists in pre-revolutionary Russia on whom the characters were based, believed themselves to be agents of progress, destined by History to sweep away the old in the purifying flames of a great uprising that would be the prelude to a new world. A similar messianic sense of being on the right side of history pervades Bush’s polemic:

“History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty.”

[. . .]

This is quite possibly the most worrisome and even frightening speech ever delivered by an American president. Its imagery of a fire burning up the world, coupled with the incendiary promise to aid “democratic reformers” against “outlaw regimes” worldwide, evokes the spirit of another murderous “idealism” – one that made the 20th century the age of mass murder.


34

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:50 | #

pure drivel certainly not worth the effort you put into it. but think what you want.


35

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:59 | #

Mr. Quick:

I don’t see how you can just write-off the arguments put forward by Wintermute, and be sincere. Its your cecision to rebutt what he said, of course.


36

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:22 | #

No rebuttal is necessary. His arguement is rediculous, as are all the criticisms he puts forth. Besides, I have previously rebutted this arguement. What value is there in engaging in a “did too—did not” back and forth? But if you insist, here is an excerpt from Belmont Club, but otherwise I’m through with it.

—-

Unnoticed in Peggy Noonan’s critique of President George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Speech as having ‘too much God’ was the fact that it invoked a wholly different paradigm from Ronald Reagan’s City on a Hill. Bush’s peroration did not come from Winthrop, but from the Declaration of Independence. Reagan had asked:

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

But as the shining city stood, so too would the outer dark continue to enfold it. In Winthrop’s original formulation, America was condemned to be a City on a Hill; forced to keep the fires lit against the night. “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses . . .” On the day the light failed, other, dark spirits would alight beneath the extinguished torch. But the Declaration of Independence contained a new element; the suggestion that the flame could not be contained, because all men could be kindled by it. Logically it was the flame, not the torch of liberty, that was invincible; that once released could not be restrained. The light would go to the nations, until the darkness was no more. It was an altogether more dangerous proposition. There were hints in Bush’s Second Inaugural Speech that he understood or at least had thought about the sheer hazard of it.

<style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.</b> ...

... Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.</i>


37

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:28 | #

Sorry for the mistakes. It should have read:

<style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.</b> ...

... Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.</i>


38

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:29 | #

Well it did it again. Don’t know what that’s about.


39

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:51 | #

No rebuttal is necessary. His arguement [sic] is rediculous[sic], as are all the criticisms he puts forth.

There’s really nothing I can say to that.

If the Wall Street Journal and Le Figaro both find Bush’s speech ‘messianic’, then it is plainly world opinion, Left and Right, which is ‘drinking the kool-aid’, and not sane and sensible Mr. Quick.

Who can argue with that?


40

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:57 | #

Besides, I have previously rebutted this arguement.

This is true. In response to representative quotes from NRO (who found the speech Statist), Peggy Noonan (who found the speech ‘at odds with reality’), and Justin Raimondo (who positively identified the phrase ‘a fire in the mind’ as originating with Dostoevsky), Mr. Quick replied:

pure drivel certainly not worth the effort you put into it.

It is plain from this response that Quick is certainly not a troll of some sort who has escaped from Free Republic or some similar venue, and whose only possible response to actual documentation are bald, ignorant, counterfactual assertions.


41

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:34 | #

From Srjda Trifkovic, Chronicles magazine:

http://chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsViews.htm

One of the best informed political commentators in Washington, Chris Nelson, thinks so. His influential newsletter, The Nelson Report, has been keenly read inside the Beltway for the past 20 years because his information is usually reliable. In its January 3 issue Nelson wrote of the rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush “does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information”:

Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear “bad news.” Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq . . . building democracy. “That’s all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.”

Especially alarming is the insistence of Nelson’s sources that this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself, and that it is not the result of senior officials around him trying to mislead or insulate him. <objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.”</b>

Similar warnings about Mr. Bush have been heard before, and the disturbing signs—such as his tendency to a messianic outlook—have been apparent for years. His belief that “history has called America and our allies to action” was stated with great firmness in his first State of the Union address three years ago.The conclusion, that he sees himself as an anointed agent of divine providence, seems inescapable.

Messianic. There’s that word again.


42

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:50 | #

From Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan:

http://vdare.com/roberts/050124_war.htm

After listening to his inaugural speech, anyone who thinks President Bush and his handlers are sane needs to visit a psychiatrist. The hubris-filled megalomaniac in the Oval Office has promised the world war without end.

Bush’s crazy talk has even upset rah-rah Republicans. One Republican called Bush’s speech “God-drenched.” It has begun to dawn on the formerly Grand Old Party that a bloodless coup has occurred and that Republicans have lost their party to Jacobins, who cloak themselves under the term “neoconservatives.”

What is a Jacobin? Jacobins ushered in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins saw themselves as virtuous champions of universalist principles that required them to impose “liberty, equality, fraternity” not merely on France by a reign of terror, but also on the rest of Europe by force of arms.

Unlike America’s Founding Fathers, who exhorted their countrymen to cultivate their own garden, Jacobins were not content with revolutionizing France. They were driven to revolutionize the world.

President Bush’s second inaugural speech is Jacobin to the core. It stands outside the American tradition. Declaring American values to be universalist principles, Bush promised to use American power to spread democracy and to end tyranny everywhere on earth.

[. . . ]

Michael Gerson, the Jacobin White House speechwriter who wrote Bush’s infamous “God-drenched speech,” defensively insists that Bush’s wars will only last “a generation.

[. . .]

There is nothing American or democratic about this program. Bush speaks as Robespierre when he invokes “a fire in the minds of men” that “warms those who feel its power.”

[. . .]

Led by Bush, the Republican Party now stands for detainment without trial and war without end.

It is a party destructive of all virtue and a great threat to life and liberty on earth.

If anyone is curious, Micheal Gerson, the author of the speech, is a Jew. No surprises here.


43

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:18 | #

More on Bush’s religious outlook:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1076026,00.html

Bush said to James Robinson: ‘I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.


44

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:24 | #

The greatest tragedy for sincere Christians, and for the Faith, is its association with a political movement and particularly with a war.

I think most readers of MR are atheists, agnostics, or simply incapable, or lack the interest, to understand Christianity.

It is very likely the war will sour - or has soured. When it does, so too, may the current revival.

Mr. Quick cannot deny that GWB has wrapped himself in Christian rhetoric and actively courted evangelicals to vote for him.

I’ve witnessed the Bushy toadyism in my own Church - I can’t stand it.


45

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:45 | #

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt.

Who would question liberty’s global appeal? 

And the past four decades have been a period of rapid *loss* of freedom for our own communities.


46

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:54 | #

Geoff said

I think most readers of MR are atheists, agnostics, or simply incapable, or lack the interest, to understand Christianity.

I am an atheist. I do know a bit about Christianity, however. In fact, the more one knows about the actual origins (1st century that is) the less one is likely to believe, IMHO. But that is another discussion. In any case, it matters little whether or not any president raps himself in Chritianity to invoke patriotism. It is one of the reasons we created a republic instead of a democracy.


47

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:09 | #

knows about the actual origins (1st century that is) the less one is likely to believe

Yes, this is consistent with your view.

I for one have come to the opposite conclusion. Enjoy your republic, while it lasts.


48

Posted by Stephen Quick on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:22 | #

“My” republic? You don’t have any allegiance, any affinity, for our country? Maybe that is why you see bogeymen under the bed (and in speeches meant to be inspirational).

I’m certain “my” republic will outlast GWB.


49

Posted by wintermute on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:24 | #

I’m certain “my” republic will outlast GWB.

‘Your’ republic, such as it is, will last as long as there are television sets and enough Boobus Americani to man them.

The open-air market that the rest of us live in, the one with open borders, 20M illegals, affirmative action, speech codes, sensitivity training, “hate” crime legislation, forfeiture and asset seizure laws, incipient National ID cards, a consolidated intelligence sector, systematic use of torture, a collapsing currency, a devastated industrial base, a ballooning debt, and an executive and legislative branch that have been suborned by agents of a foreign power, is not a ‘republic’ by any stretch of the imagination.

You remind me of something Garet Garrett wrote, almost seventy years ago:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

At any rate, why should a man like yourself, for whom an author’s status as a ‘reactionary’ - according to Wikipedia - is grounds for the supression of his writing, care at all about the collapse of the Republic? It does not sound like something that enjoyed your favor to begin with.


50

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:39 | #

And you sound like a man that is projecting.


51

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:18 | #

What needs to happen is for Republican patriots and Democrats to get together and arrange the impeachment of this lunatic who through some ghastly mistake occupies the White House.  The Democrats will sign on.  It remains only for enough Republicans to stand up and do their duty to their country, their forefathers, and their posterity for us to finally be rid of this ordure.  “Politics ends at the water’s edge” and at the lunatic asylum’s edge.  Sheer stupidity and outright stark-raving insanity are no excuse for what this “president” has done and is doing.  George Bush has no excuse.  It’s time for him to go.


52

Posted by wintermute on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:29 | #

Even more on the inaugural:

http://www.rense.com/general62/brain.htm

Instead, recent disclosures from the White House itself - published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media - demonstrate that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but that - in addition - at least two of Sharansky’s key neo-conservative American publicists, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
 
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12 - even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
 
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, The New York Times reported that “The president was given[Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him in the Oval office . . . Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”
 
The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, the determination of which would be no doubt very telling indeed.

Affirming the Times, disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words, “Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.
 
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neo-conservative” supporters of Israel - William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatrist-turned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds - were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.

Kristol, Krauthammer, Gershon, Sharansky . . . were any Gentiles involved in Bush’s deranged inaugural speech?


53

Posted by wintermute on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:32 | #

More from http://www.rense.com/general62/brain.htm

It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post says helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner who is director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Wehner - it just so happens - is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett who was himself a protégé of Kristol’s father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.

[. . .]

As far back as July 2002 - just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world - neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
 
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who - between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel - peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.

Michael Ledeen, another Tribal author of “American” foreign policy, was hip deep in Iran-Contra, and also was involved in the hiring of Jonathan Pollard.

But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.

For its own part, the Times’s daily counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”“that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American conservatives

Messianic. There’s that word again.

Although the worldwide media hails President Bush’s philosophical mentor, Israeli politician Natan Sharansky, as some sort of “human rights activist,” there is much more to Sharansky’s point of view than the media is saying.
 
Writing on January 9 in The Washington Post Book World - in response to a review of Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy, published on December 26 - M. J. Rosenberg of Chevy Chase, Maryland laid out Sharansky’s hypocrisy in no uncertain terms:
 
Sharansky advocates for human rights only when his own country, Israel, is not involved. Throughout his post-Soviet-prison career, he has used his celebrity to support human rights for everyone"except Palestinians. [Sharansky believes] that before Palestinians are permitted a state and perhaps (just perhaps - he is a strong supporter of Israel’s settler movement) an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they must fulfill a host of conditions. For Palestinians, basic rights are conditional; for everyone else, they are fundamental.”

Ah, yes, Jewish “human rights”. We will build a wall, you will open your borders. We will have a racial state, and you will have no care for your race at all. We will opine, and you will obey.

In sum: Human Rights for me, but not for thee.

Which is another plausible answer to the rabbinical question, how to summarize Torah while standing on one foot.


54

Posted by John Ray on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:30 | #

What an amusing thread!  That a moderate centrist like GWB evokes such animosity from both Right and Left certainly confirms him as a centrist but also shows how unbalanced much political debate is at the moment.

I think he is too weak on immigration and too weak about tariffs but I also think he is a good and sincere man who is doing his best in difficult circumstances.  Those who think ill of him ignore large parts of the circumstances.  They also show their own pent-up hatreds.


55

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:57 | #

John, so you agree with Stephen Quick that the inaugural address was just rhetorical hype meant to arouse feelings of patriotism and should not be critically analysed? 

“That a moderate centrist like GWB evokes such animosity from both Right and Left certainly confirms him as a centrist [...]”

That’s false.  The U.S. mainstream media—the leftist newspapers The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times, the news magazines Newsweek, Time and others, the cable-TV network CNN, and the three broadcast TV networks CBS, ABC, and NBC—all without exception, I believe, have used that argument to prove they weren’t biased:  “The proof we’re not liberal is we get criticised about equally by left and right.  That shows we’re middle-of-the-road.”  Of course it’s been proven any number of times and any number of different ways that they are indeed not only biased toward liberalism but brazenly and outrageously so.  Hitler and the Bolsheviks were criticised by both left and right and dealt with those critics more or less the way Stalin dealt with Trotsky and Hitler, Ernst Roehm.  Russian leftists like Alexander Kerensky couldn’t stomach Lenin from the left and German rightists like von Hindenburg and von Stauffenberg couldn’t stomach Hitler from the right.  That means Lenin and Hitler must have been middle-of-the-road?  No, because, for one thing, renegade madmen—like Bush, for instance—will also be criticised by both left and right.

“Too weak on immigration”???  You can’t see, then, that he’s doing exactly what he wants on immigration?  (That’s a rhetorical question, John.  You don’t have to answer it—the answer’s already obvious.)


56

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:19 | #

Fred said:

“Too weak on immigration”???  You can’t see, then, that he’s doing exactly what he wants on immigration?”

You can’t see that one has nothing to do with the other? I agree with John that he is too weak on immigration. I also agree with you that he is doing exactly what he wants on immigration. But I don’t agree that either makes him a “madman”.


57

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:59 | #

How does “getting exactly what he wants on immigration” amount to his “being too weak on immigration”?  Getting exactly what you want on an issue—getting exactly what you want right in the teeth of considerable opposition, mainly opposition from your own party, to boot—is a sign that you’re being too weak on that issue?  I don’t get it.  You mean he’s too weak in the sense of too weak-minded?  You mean he’s so weak-minded he doesn’t realize that what he wants on immigration, what he’s digging in his heels and fighting tooth-and-nail to make sure he gets, is something he shouldn’t want and no sane president should want, in other words?  I certainly agree Bush is pathetically weak-minded.  (Yes he’s stubborn, as everyone knows—stupidly, unthinkingly, dumbly stubborn, stubborn as a mule.  But neither in mule nor in man is stubbornness strongmindedness.)  If weak-minded is what you mean, I fully agree—he’s every bit as weak-minded that other evangelical-Christian wet-noodle clueless, harmful, and destructive president we were cursed with, Jimmy Carter.  But how can you support such a man as president?  How can you defend him against the most simple, the most basic criticisms of what are the most intolerable, the most outrageous policies of any president in a hundred years?


58

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:25 | #

Fred said:

“How does “getting exactly what he wants on immigration” amount to his “being too weak on immigration”?  Getting exactly what you want on an issue—getting exactly what you want right in the teeth of considerable opposition, mainly opposition from your own party, to boot—is a sign that you’re being too weak on that issue?  I don’t get it.”

You’re correct, you don’t get it. Bush is not weak minded as you insinuate. He is getting what he wants on immigration. But what he wants is considered soft (or weak as you put it) on illegal immigration because he doesn’t want to anger Vicente Fox, Mexicans, and any American Hispanic base that he might have and because he believes in free trade. Hardliners want to strictly interpret the immigration laws, anything less being “soft” (as in soft on crime) or weak.

You have no evidence, other that your own rhetoric, for calling him “weak minded” or a “renegade madman”. The fact that you can line up a few other idiots that somewhat agree with your postition does not make any of you correct, but merely raving.

You also said:

“But how can you support such a man as president?  How can you defend him against the most simple, the most basic criticisms of what are the most intolerable, the most outrageous policies of any president in a hundred years?”

How can I support him as President? Because he is doing his primary job as President which is to defend this country from foreign agression. If you counter that their is no foreign agression from islamic terrorists in Iraq or that Hussein was not a threat, you merely prove that you are a raving lunatic unable to see reality. Your other contention that “the most simple, the most basic criticisms of what are the most intolerable, the most outrageous policies of any president in a hundred years” are simply unfounded. You obviously have a deep seated need to jump up and down and shout “Look at me!!!”


59

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:06 | #

I must also point out that you and wintermute and Geoff have all conflated criticism of your criticisms as tacit approval for the policies of GWB when I have consistently stated otherwise (except for stating approval of his defense of our country in the previous entry), an obvious error, but more proof that you “don’t get it”.


60

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:22 | #

What policies of Bush’s do you disagree with, Stephen?


61

Posted by wintermute on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:33 | #

If you counter that their[sic] is no foreign agression from islamic terrorists in Iraq or that Hussein was not a threat, you merely prove that you are a raving lunatic unable to see reality.

This bears repeating.


62

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:35 | #

I don’t agree with his stand on immigration. In my opinion the border should be closed down completely and I include the norther border as well as the southern.

I’m irritated that we have yet to take down Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. He isn’t moving fast enough.

We aren’t out of the U.N. yet.

We don’t profile middle eastern men on the highways and in airports. Instead we screw around with obviously law abiding citizens.

The tax cuts aren’t permanent yet.

Social Security isn’t privatized yet.

The Democrats still exist.

Bill and Hillary are still free.

...need I go on?


63

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:41 | #

Bill and Hillary are still free.

Not while they’ve still got eachother.


64

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:31 | #

...take down Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

They aren’t worth 1 dead American ( or Britain).

Let them choke on their sand and oil. They can’t build a refrigerator unless we do it.

Here’s the deal.

If outsiders fight them -they unite.
If left along - they kill each other.

Let them kill each other.


65

Posted by Stephen Quick on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:42 | #

If left along - they kill each other.

Let them kill each other.

No, because that is not true. They kill other people too.

I want as many of them dead as it takes for their cult (islam) to die out.


66

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:48 | #

Mr. Quick:

> I want as many of them dead as it takes for their cult (islam) to die out.

I’m not that ambitious or bloodthirsty, Mr. Quick. I am sincere when I ask these questions to you:

Do you really believe President Bush when he says Democracy is the future for Iraq?

Furthermore, when you countenance the plan to kill all those opposed to a future - other than the one Bush is ‘offering’ - are you willing to spend our treasure and more American lives for this mission?

Furthermore, since you are convicted in this matter, would you be willing to sacrifice yourself, or your sons for Iraqi Muslims?


67

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:53 | #

Look here, democracy is the only future for the whole world. If you think otherwise you are a fool. I don’t think you are though. I think you just haven’t thought it through.

To answer your other questions:

I’m not bloodthirsty as you imply. I simply want my family, my friends, and my country safe from danger. In most cases, despite the rhetoric that is spewed out all around, the only way to make us safe is to eliminate the threat, just as one would do with a rabid dog. And the islamists that threaten the world are the equivalent to a rabid dog. The only solution is to kill it (or them).

Would I go? In a heartbeat! I was in the Marine Corps (ever heard of the U.S.S. Iwo Jima? Beirut? I was over there before that took place, this fight’s been going on a long time.) You are damn right I would go. But I’m too old now.

If my one and only son (or any of my sons-in-law) chose to go I would respect his decision. He is a fine man and capable. Let him get out of college first, though. I hear officers have it better than old sergeants (as long as they listen to the old sergeants).

BTW, this is not an immoral position. What is an immoral position is one that would continually appease the thugs so that my children and grand-children would face a continual threat in which they would never know peace.


68

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:59 | #

Oh, and we have every right to do whatever it takes to insure our continued existence, including meddling in whichever country’s business that we need to. Or making them submit to our will if they won’t willingly co-operate.


69

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:06 | #

Well, we certainly see events very differently.

BTW do read National Review or the Weekly Standard, often?


70

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:23 | #

Mr. Quick:

May ask again, because I’m not sure you answered it, perhaps, you did:

“Do you really believe President Bush when he says Democracy is the future for Iraq”?

Why do I ask this?

Well, do you think Iraq has the capacity for it to become a representative government?

In otherwords, do you privately think, the whole Democracy thing is a charade for the gullible in America? What the planners really want is strongman rule. Or do you honestly think Bush’s motives are without guile?

I ask these questions in all sincerity.


71

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48 | #

“Do you really believe President Bush when he says Democracy is the future for Iraq”?

I believe democracy will work for anyone. I do not, for instance, think that there is a genetic basis to democracy. Or a culture that is unable. These people are as capable as any other group in having democracy (they are caucasion after all—I would think they would be just as able as we are). The fly in the ointment is the idea that their religion and democracy are not compatible. This is what the whahabists believe and want all of islam to believe.

The idea that anyone in our government prefers (or ever did prefer) a dictator in place of a democratically governed ally is really old and long since been disproven. This is the old hippie meme from the 60’s. It was never true [DWL] and is not true today. Are they trying to install a strongman? No. How do I know? Because I have looked the man in the eye. He is an honest man.

Do I read National Review or The Weekly Standard? I occasionally read National Review online. It depends on the article. Maybe 1-2 a week, sometimes less. I never read The Weekly Standard either in print or online.


72

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:57 | #

BTW, most of the people that are saying they don’t believe the motives of the president, if asked why could only truthfully answer, “because he is the president.” i.e. any president that is not Bill Clinton is automatically Nixon. There is no rationaltiy to it. They are against him because they are not for him and look for reasons to fit their worldview rather than looking for facts and adjusting their worldview to fit the truth.


73

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:07 | #

Mr. Quick:

I genuinely appreciate you answering my questions.

Was Saddam Huissen involved in the 9/11 plot?

Why do you think there wasn’t any WMD found in Iraq?


74

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:25 | #

Was Saddam Huissen involved in the 9/11 plot?

Not likely. Although it is possible that he may have been and didn’t know it. By that I mean that he supported terror and terrorists, so he may have supported them without knowing specifically about the 9/11 plot. This is something that, if it is ever pieced together, it will be years (decades?) from now and still circumstantial.

Why do you think there wasn’t any WMD found in Iraq?

Probably because the people in charge were faking. They knew, just like Hitler’s scientists knew, what would happen if he ever got his hands on WMD’s (and let’s face it, we are talking nukes). They were running a scam so effective that not only did it fool Saddam Hussein but it fooled the rest of the world too.

Your next question is probably going to be did I think he was an imminent threat. I think that he was a threat to many people, especially his own, in the region. I think that he would have been a threat to more of the world as soon as he could have been and that had he not attained it, one of his son’s would have. Taking him down was a good thing. Also, it was militarily (in a strategic sense) a good thing because Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were a row of islamic terror dominoes. We now hold two of the dominoes and have the most formidable, Iran, pinched between them. And don’t think that they aren’t aware of this. It is why terrorists are coming to Iraq in droves to get killed. Besides, the more we kill over there means the fewer we have to kill here in the future. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it can’t happen; that we are insulated from it. You can’t talk a rabid dog out of biting you.


75

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:35 | #

Thanks. I’m sure many are appreciating your candor!

What happens if Iraq is recalcitrant? A Violent and bloody rebellion might continue for years - or generations - as Bush, himself, has acknowledged.

Is it conceivable to you that the US might fail in Iraq?

Is there any limit either in American dead or dollars that you would call it off?

If we fail in Iraq is the U.S. doomed? It seems that is what you are implying? Are you not saying that somehow if we fail in Iraq somehow the country will be at the mercy of Islamic radicals.


76

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:10 | #

Look, you need to get your head on straight. This last set of questions is naive. The only way we fail is if we lose the war and allow our democracy to fall to the whahabists. Our primary goal is to insure the continued peaceful existence of our country. Democracy in other countries, whether Iraq or any others, is a side benefit. Having other countries become democracies is how we safeguard our own, and, while an admirable and humanitarian thing to do, is not mandatory. It just happens to be the best thing to do. We could accomplish the same thing by bombing them (with B-52’s or missiles, your choice) until nothing exists, but everyone agrees that would be less desirable.

So the answer to your question is no we won’t fail. We can’t fail. If we do it means you are on your face in a mosque and your wife doesn’t go outside the house without you because if she does some teenaged punk will whip her with steel rod.

Or do you believe that bullshit about “if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone”. Because WE WERE LEAVING THEM ALONE when they dropped two buildings in Manhattan.

Is there a limit…? When the rabid dog is dead, the snake is out of the yard, the burglar is out of the house. We don’t quit until the job is done.

If we fail in Iraq…? We won’t fail. It is simply a faze of the war. It is one battle. Afghanistan was first, Iraq is now. There WILL be others. We will knock as many dominoes down as it takes to insure the survival of our country and our culture and our ability to interact (through trade,etc.) with other free world countries. As I have mentioned before, that is the President’s number one responsibility.


77

Posted by DissidentMan on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:32 | #

We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause.

Wasn’t H.P. Lovecraft fond of the phrase “beyond the stars”. I found this one quote and its conceivable that the phrase occured in his stories too.

Children will always be afraid of the dark, and men with minds sensitive to hereditary impulse will always tremble at the thought of the hidden and fathomless worlds of strange life which may pulsate in the gulfs beyond the stars, or press hideously upon our own globe in unholy dimensions which only the dead and the moonstruck can glimpse.

It’s very likely that many others have noticed that too that but I haven’t bothered to find out.

About messianism, I reckon that that the moment you advertise your own virtue (if you ever had any to begin with), that will be the beginning of its end. Therefore, all self-proclaimed “lights unto the world” (of whatever persuasion) are almost necessarily something else.

This leads me to another point…Mesianism seems to have caught on rather early in America. Exibit A is that atrocious statue of the woman holding the torch. That is as concrete a symbolisation of the “We are the light unto the world” mentality as you’re ever going to see. I don’t know the actual history of that statue but I hope that at least some Americans opposed its erection. Make me your president and I promise to have it shipped back to France or demolished (whatever’s most expedient)

Re the “fire in the mind” expression. I cannot imagine any symbolism more negative that that…Have burning passions become good things? The gods do indeed make mad whom they first destroy.


78

Posted by DissidentMan on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:12 | #

I meant to say the gods do indeed first make mad whom they destroy.


79

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:22 | #

And the islamists that threaten the world are the equivalent to a rabid dog.

Quite the reverse.  Rabid dogs engage in erratic aggressive behavior because their command centers (brains) have been invaded by pathogens that use the host for their own purposes—which are inimical to the interests of the host, of course.  The virus spreads by inducing the hapless host to attack (bite) another animal.

Likewise, the locus of control of the US military apparatus has been invaded by pathogens with names like Wolfowitz, Perle, Sharansky, and Feith who use the American people to benefit their own kind at the expense of the American people.  Like the rabies virus, the more virile strain of this pathogen spread their disease—called “Democracy” for the time being (in earlier days, in some markets, it was advertised as Marxism or Communism)—by inducing its host nation to conquer other nations.

By the way, if not treated, rabies is fatal.


80

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:30 | #

And the islamists that threaten the world are the equivalent to a rabid dog.

Quite the reverse.  Rabid dogs engage in erratic aggressive behavior [..]

No, not the reverse, but you do have part of it correct. The islamists are engaged in erratic aggressive behavior, one would think because of some pathogen or mental illness. Truth be known, it is because islam is a cult.

The rest of what you wrote (in bold) is garbage. Next time, try and remember that freedom and democracy are not in any way similar to marxism or communism.


81

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:02 | #

“Democracy” and “Marxism” are essentially the same thing—government by fraud.  In each instance government by a self-selected elite is hidden behind the cloak of an ideology that significant segments of the target market found appealing.  Under each brand name the Kristols and Podhoretzim of the world (who represent not just the intellectual but also the physical continuity of this project from one generation to the next) promise government by the people, for the people.  Yes, the Marxists spoke of government by the “proletariat” rather than the “people”, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Everyone who was not already part of the proletariat was to become part of the proletariat or be eliminated.

Lenin and Trotsky wanted to export this ideology of Democracy/Marxism through worldwide revolution.  Now, at the urging of Lenin & Trotsky’s heirs, Bush is pursuing the same project.


82

Posted by Stephen Quick on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:06 | #

“Democracy” and “Marxism” are essentially the same thing—government by fraud.

Hah! You need to switch dealers. That batch of crack is tainted.


83

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:44 | #

Lenin himself explained that he was creating a democracy (at least until it would “wither away”) in the context of an ideology to be exported around the world:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Lenin/TPOR17.html&e=9835

A NEW TYPE OF STATE
EMERGING FROM OUR REVOLUTION

The most perfect, the most advanced type of bourgeois state is the parliamentary democratic republic: power is vested in parliament; the state machine, the apparatus and organ of administration, is of the customary kind: the standing army, the police, and the bureaucracy—which in practice is undisplaceable, is privileged and stands above the people.

  Since the end of the nineteenth century, however, revolutionary epochs have advanced a higher type of democratic state, a state which in certain respects, as Engels put it, ceases to be a state, is “no longer a state in the proper sense of the word”.  This is a state of the Paris Commune type, one in which a standing army and police divorced from the people are replaced by the direct arming of the people themselves….  It is being realised by the initiative of the nation’s millions, who are creating a democracy on their own.
***
The more democratic the Russian republic, and the more successfully it organises itself into a Republic of Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, the more powerful will be the force of voluntary attraction to such a republic on the part of the working people of all nations.
***
The international obligations of the working class of Russia are precisely now coming to the forefront with particular force.

  Only lazy people do not swear by internationalism these days. Even the chauvinist defencists, even Plekhanov and Potresov, even Kerensky, call themselves internationalists. It becomes the duty of the proletarian party all the more urgently, therefore, to clearly, precisely and definitely counterpose internationalism in deed to internationalism in word.
***
There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.


84

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:50 | #

Some words from Trotsky:

The Soviet is the first democratic power in modern Russian history. The Soviet is the organized power of the masses themselves over their component parts. This is a true, unadulterated democracy, without a two-chamber system, without a professional bureaucracy, with the right of the voters to recall their deputy any moment and to substitute another for him. Through its members, through deputies elected by the workingmen, the Soviet directs all the social activities of the proletariat as a whole and of its various parts; it outlines the steps to be taken by the proletariat, it gives them a slogan and a banner. This art of directing the activities of the masses on the basis of organized self-government, is here applied for the first time on Russian soil.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1918/ourrevo/ch05.htm


85

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:04 | #

Trotsky’s concept of the “permanent revolution”:

Subjugating nations, if necessary, to impose “democracy and emancipation” on them!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/pr10.htm

How does this differ from Bush’s proclaimed goals?


86

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:06 | #

How’s this for a similar messianic product under a different brand name?  Again Trotsky:

...the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/pr10.htm


87

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:10 | #

Then again, Trotsky seems to think “socialist revolution” and “democratic revolution” are the same thing!

A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.


88

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:04 | #

I’m closing this thread. This thread is exhausted.



Post a comment:


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: HEGEL: Where all the nonsense originated
Previous entry: The sin of Prof. Summers in context

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Arktos Alpha-hole commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:13. (View)

Alt-Right Snafus & Kerfuffles commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 03:47. (View)

Nawaz suing SPLC commented in entry 'Nawaz put at risk by (((The SPLC))), (((Nick Cohen))) blames "The White Left"' on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 01:25. (View)

John K. Press commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:37. (View)

most eligible bachelor commented in entry 'Survivor located of a branch not seen in 30 years among one of the most endangered species' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:42. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:36. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:00. (View)

We gotta get you a woman commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:49. (View)

Racist commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:34. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:01. (View)

Sean Gabb / James Kalb discuss liberalism commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:37. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:23. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 05:40. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 02:32. (View)

Abonymous commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 00:57. (View)

John K. Press commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Sun, 25 Jun 2017 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:40. (View)

Stunning US intel of Putin's direct involvement commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 22:50. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 16:10. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:53. (View)

Putin’s direct instructions to damage Hillary commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 13:22. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:38. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 08:17. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 04:20. (View)

Leeds Great Eddie Gray commented in entry 'Euro Cuck Final: a Disgraceful Epitome of The Cucked European Masculine Instinct for Nationalism' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 02:38. (View)

al-Baghdadi's death almost "100% certain" commented in entry 'What happens when WNs accept Russian news reports uncritically?' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:44. (View)

Greetings to France from Africa commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:27. (View)

Somali genius abetted the fire commented in entry 'LONDON'S BURNING: TOWERING INFERNO EXPECTED TO COLLAPSE' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:00. (View)

"I can't answer that" commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 04:48. (View)

Summer Solstice commented in entry 'Nudity in Pamplona. Fancy dress at Stonehenge. Naked ambition in Manchester.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:19. (View)

Julia commented in entry 'Nudity in Pamplona. Fancy dress at Stonehenge. Naked ambition in Manchester.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:47. (View)

affection-tone