Sunday, November 29, 2009
"On November 16/29, 1979 they burst into the monastery and with a hatchet butchered Archimandrite Philoumenos in the form of a cross. With one vertical stroke they clove his face, with another horizontal stroke they cut his cheeks as far as his ears. His eyes were plucked out. The fingers of his right hand were cut into pieces and its thumb was hacked off. These were the fingers with which he made the sign of the Cross."
The holy martyr of the 20th century, Philoumenos the Cypriot, came from the village of Orounta of the province of Morphou. From a young age he along with his brother Elpidios were apprenticed in the sacred letters of Christ by their grandmother. They mainly studied the lives of the Saints and hymns of the Church. The Saint at the time, along with his brother, left for the Monastery of Stavrovouni and stayed there for five years. Afterwards, they both left for Jerusalem. Saint Philoumenos stayed in Jerusalem for 46 years. The Saint found a martyric death by fanatic Zionist Jews who massacred him in the evening while he was doing vespers at the Well of Jacob where he lived, a loyal guardian of the Holy Places and traditions of centuries.
The Church of Cyprus and especially the Holy Metropolis of Morphou today celebrate the memory of the martyr Saint Philoumenos the New, the Cypriot. The neomartyr was born in 1913 and was a child of George and Magdalene Hasapi or Ourountioti , and the twin brother of Archimandrite Elpidios. Even though his parents come from the village of Orounta of the metropolitan area of Morphou, they lived at the parish of St. Savvas in Nicosia, since his father had his own inn and bakery there. Together with his brother Elpidios, they showed a particular enthusiasm for prayer and read the lives of the Saints, particularly they where touched by the life of Saint John the Kalyvitis, who in some way made an impact on them, to the point of desiring to follow the life of monasticism. Also, apart from their mother, their grandmother Loxantra, had in particular influenced them in learning the ways of the Church and in developing a truly Orthodox conscience. At the age of 14 , the two brothers left for the Monastery of Stavrovouni and then left for Jerusalem, where they attended High School there. After they finished High School in 1939, Elpidios served as a priest in different places and died on 29 November 1983. Philoumenos remained in Jerusalem and in 1979 was appointed as caretaker of the Monastery of Saint Jacob's Well. While living there, on November 29, 1979, during the time when the Saint was doing vespers, he was murdered by Zionist Jews with an ax.
The week before, a group of fanatical Zionists came to the Monastery of Jacob's Well, claiming it as a Jewish holy place and demanding that all crosses and icons be removed. Of course, the Saint pointed out that the floor upon which they were standing had been built by Emperor Constantine before 331 A.D. and had served as an Orthodox Christian holy place for sixteen centuries before the Israeli State was created, and had been in Samaritan hands eight centuries before that. (The rest of the original church had been destroyed by the invasion of the Shah Khosran Parvis in the seventh century, at which time the Jews had massacred all the Christians of Jerusalem.) The group left with threats, insults and obscenities of the kind which local Christians suffer regularly. After a few days, on November 29, during a torrential downpour, a group broke into the monastery; the saint had already put on his epitrachelion for Vespers. The piecemeal chopping of the three fingers with which he made the Sign of the Cross showed that he was tortured in an attempt to make him deny his Orthodox Christian Faith. His face was cloven in the form of the Cross. The church and holy things were all defiled.
The body of the Saint was handed over to the Orthodox six days after his massacre, but retained its flexibility and was buried in the cemetery of Mount Zion. After four years, as is customary, his body was exhumed. It was found to be substantially incorrupt and had the smell of a beautiful fragrance. Then, the tomb was closed and was reopened during the Christmas of 1984, when the body was found to be partially incorrupt and was placed in a glass shrine in the northern part of the sacred Holy Altar in Mount Zion.
Hieromartyr Philoumenos was ranked among the Saints of the Church of Jerusalem on 30 August 2008, and hence then, his incorrupt body was transferred at the pilgrimage site of Saint Jacob's Well where he found martyrdom for the love of Christ. His memory is honored annually on November 29, especially in the community of Orounta with an all night long church service.
For more information on this newly-canonized Saint and Martyr of Orthodoxy, visit the following two sites:
To see a Supplication Service to St. Philoumenos conducted before his holy relics, see here.
Apolytikion in Tone One
The offspring of Orountas, and from the root of Cyprus, and new Hieromartyr of the divine Well of Jacob, O faithful let us honor Philoumenos as a defender of our faith, and as an eternal soldier of Christ’s truth, we fervently cry out: glory to Christ Who glorified you, glory to Him Who kept you incorrupt, glory to Him who revealed you as our benefactor towards heaven.
Apolytikion in the Third Tone
Vanquisher of demons, dispeller of the powers of darkness, by thy meekness thou hast inherited the earth and reignest in the Heavens; intercede, therefore, with our Merciful God, that our souls may be saved.
On October 25 the above report was aired on Greek TV news NET which exposes the myth that the Church of Greece holds vast amounts of property in Greece. This report was done to answer a great number of critics of the Church of Greece, who believe it is a scandal for the Church to hold such vast amounts of property which supposedly can play a significant role in helping the economy of Greece if the Church sold its property.
What is the truth?
1. The number of acres belonging to Public Property = 43,598,000 acres; to Local Self-Government = 15,553,200; to the Church = 1,292,300; to various Associations = 1,098,400.
2. Of the 1,292,300 acres belonging to the Church of Greece, they are divided among the following: 367,000 are forested expanses; 735,300 are grazing ground; and only 190,000 acres are good for farming.
3. Of the 190,000 acres that are good for farming, 53% are in mountainous or hill zones - 75% of which is dry land.
4. Calculating these equations, this means that only 0.48% of the land of Greece is good agricultural land which belongs to the Church of Greece. The government has 34 times more property than the Church of Greece.
5. It is commonly believed by ecclesiastical hierarchs in Greece that whatever property the Church does own and is usable should be used for the common good of the people of Greece. This it tries to uphold.
6. One example that shows such characteristics is the Monastery of Petraki in Athens, which was granted a large amount of property (the largest ecclesiastical property in Athens) in the 17th and 18th century. Within their ownership they have established 142 schools in Attica, the orphanage of Vouliagmeni, the University of Athens, Maraslios Academy, PIKPA Voulas (Pentelis Protection of the Unborn Child Association), the National Library, Rizareios School, Metsovio Polytechnic, the Police Academy of Mesogeion Street, Sotiria Hospital, and Evangelismos Healing Center.
7. It should also be mentioned that the Church of Greece does pay taxes, with the government even now trying to tax the Church as a "charity" organization rather than a "social" institution, as was always done. See more here, here and here. The question here is whether or not the Church should pay for government corruption. Plus, with the Church earning little more than 7 million euros profit in 2008, even if taxed at 100%, would this really affect the economy of Greece all that much? Is it worth closing down dozens of programs the Church implements to help the people of Greece with this money?
Interviewed in the video are Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Metropolitan Ignatios of Dimitriados, Metropolitan Nicholas of Fthiotidos.
In three previous posts I have attempted to bring attention to the fact of Ayn Rand's rising popularity, especially among American Conservatives. See the following links for this information:
The Cult of Ayn Rand is Re-emerging
Has Modern Conservatism Become a Cult?
Ayn Rand and the American Right
To add to these posts, I would also like to submit the following articles that I found worth reading to better familiarize yourself with this influential figure within our contemporary context:
Ayn Rand Goes Mainstream
The Real Rogue Warrior: Ayn Rand, Not Sarah Palin
Ayn Rand: Conservative Heroine?
Ayn Rand's Conservative Call Echoes Today
Yet I am aware that most people do not know who Ayn Rand is nor the principles behind her Objectivist philosophy. The following are good overview sources:
Ayn Rand: Wikipedia
I highly recommend the following interview conducted by Mike Wallace with Ayn Rand in 1959. It really hits at the essence of her "selfish" philosophy in the words of the philosopher herself. Part One is here:
For the rest of this excellent interview, see Part Two and Part Three.
Evidence that Ayn Rand plays a significant role among the American Right is evident in at least two of the more vocal Conservative voices in America - Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Both have often cited Ayn Rand as a prophetic voice of our times.
Rush Limbaugh has been documented on various sites citing Ayn Rand. See here, here and here.
Glenn Beck also has cited Rand numerous times, and sometimes can be seen on his television program holding up Atlas Shrugged like a Bible, so impressed is he with her economic philosophy. See also this interview he did with Yaron Brook, the Executive Director for the Ayn Rand Center on 02/17/09:
The Tea Party revolts of the Conservative Right have become intertwined with the Going Galt Movement. What is the Going Galt Movement and what does this have to do with Ayn Rand? Read the following along with a video below:
‘Going Galt’: Everyone’s Doing It!
“Going Galt” and the next Tea Party wave
Who is John Galt and What is the Going Galt Movement?
A few days ago FOX News even allowed an opinion piece titled Why Ayn Rand Still Resonates to be published. This article also reveals the growing popularity of Ayn Rand not only among the youth, but adults as well.
Not only are Conservatives influenced by Rand on the political level, but on the business level her Capitalist ideals are very appealing as well. The following two videos show her influence in this capacity. The first is produced by the Ayn Rand Institute and the second is a lecture by businessman Ed Snider, one of the founders of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is full of contradictions and unrealizable utopian ideals that it could take pages to properly critique her Objectivist philosophy and the role it could play in society through religion, politics, economics, education, morality, and other such things. To look into these critiques, I highly recommend one study the links on the following webpage, which present both personal criticisms of Ayn Rand as well as criticisms of her "Objectivist Movement".
There are also two new biographies which expose the persona and ideology of Rand which can be read about in the following review:
How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon: The perverse allure of a damaged woman
It is worth noting that although many Conservatives today endorse Ayn Rand's books, she herself would likely have critiqued them for their own political philosophies. Evidence of this can be seen on the following video she made in 1961:
One more proof how much of an INDIVIDUAL Ayn Rand desired to be.
By Vesna Peric Zimonjic
BELGRADE, November 23, 2009 (IPS) - It is not often that anything in Serbia can bring several hundred thousand people together, but that is exactly what happened Thursday when the Patriarch Pavle, head of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC), was buried in a monastery graveyard near Belgrade.
The Patriarch, aged 95, died four days earlier, on Nov. 15, after spending two years at the Military Medical Academy of Belgrade in fragile health.
The immediate reaction from top Serbian officials, such as President Boris Tadic and Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic was that they felt like "a member of our family died." They had regularly "consulted the Patriarch before any major political decision of importance for Serbia."
Four days of official mourning were proclaimed and Serbia stood still until the Patriarch’s funeral. As his body lay in the open casket in the downtown Cathedral Church of St. Michael Archangel, many thousands of mourners came to kiss the hand of "the holy man," as he was known among ordinary people, due to his modest and humble way of life.
All the recent polls say that 95 percent of Serbs declare themselves Orthodox Christians - with the influence of the SPC both on people but also on politics becoming impressive since the 1991 disintegration of former Yugoslavia.
But the death of the Patriarch, with all the expressions of public grief, solemn radio and television programmes - with presenters wearing the traditional black mourning clothes - could not prevent the brewing of controversy. The controversy surrounds the SPC itself and the Patriarch himself, since his coming to "the throne"- as his post is commonly called - in 1990.
"He was ‘a holy man’ due to his humble, simple and modest life," Belgrade University professor and analyst Zarko Korac told IPS. "But the set of events surrounding the SPC and Pavle, rouse controversy on the role of SPC in the wars of the 90s and the constitutionally secular state of Serbia now plunging into the arms of the church - with the accent of the importance of the patriarch and religion in general."
Korac was referring to the behaviour of the SPC during the wars of disintegration of the former Yugoslavia that led to deaths of more than 100,000 people - most of them Bosniak Muslims. The wars were waged between Muslims, Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs.
Patriarch Pavle came to "the throne" in 1990, before the wars started. Neither Pavle, nor his church and priests did much to change the direction of aggressive and hard-line nationalism.
The SPC priests blessed the cannons that shelled the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo for three and a half years from 1992 as well as the Kalashnikovs used to kill Muslims around Srebrenica in 1995, according to video taken at the time.
Priests have also played an active role in Serb volunteer units that committed numerous war crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, with the mantra of "defending the Orthodox Serbs from being eradicated by Catholic Croats and Muslims."
The SPC under Pavle has failed to distance itself from the Srebrenica massacre - where 8,000 Muslims were killed - or any other war crimes committed by Serbs who claimed to be devout Orthodox Christians.
"It is now important to see who will come next to "the throne," Korac stressed.
One of the most prominent analysts of religious matters in Serbia, Zivica Tucic, told Belgrade B92 Radio that "the choice of the next patriarch is of major importance for Serbia."
According to the church canons, the next patriarch will be elected in May next year, when the next session of all its archbishops and bishops is due to be held.
In the meantime, Archbishop Amfilohije, a prominent conservative and nationalist clergyman, has already been appointed to temporarily act as the patriarch.
"It is not only the matter of who it will be," Tucic said. "Serbia is at a turning political point - whether to continue its policy towards joining the European Union (EU) or to give up to those conservative circles that prefer the nation to remain turned toward itself."
Serbia is hoping to begin its process of joining the EU by the end of the year. This has been the political ambition of the nation ever since former wartime leader Slobodan Milosevic fell from power in 2000.
The only remaining pre-condition for such a move is the handing over of Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general accused of the massacre in Srebrenica by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. He has been in hiding since 1995, but top Serbian officials have hinted that he might be arrested by the end of the year.
"We need a patriarch that will be a visionary," Tucic said. "It should also be good that the Patriarch be a Serb from Serbia, who knows the mentality and events in Serbia proper."
He was referring to the fact that the strongest nationalists among the archbishops and bishops are those who came from Bosnia and Croatia into Serbia during the wars of the 90s - fanning nationalism and intolerance towards other ethnic groups from former Yugoslavia.
Although hundreds of thousands of Serbs from those areas have found refuge in Serbia proper since the 90s, the groups deeply differ in mentality and attitudes, which are the sources of frequent tensions between newcomers and Serbs in Serbia proper.
Serbia now has a population of 7.4 million, where more than a million people are non-Serbs - such as ethnic Hungarians in the northern Vojvodina province, Bosniak Muslims in the Sandzak region near Kosovo border, and ethnic Albanians in the Presevo valley in the south.
"We are also witnessing now the effort of state to influence events in the SPC," Belgrade university professor Vladimir Ilic told IPS. "The regime has turned the death of the patriarch and the funeral into the a state and non religious event. The President of Serbia attended the session of the Synod (the SPC government) the other day, which is all without any constitutional basis. This brings into doubt the constitutional regulation that Serbia is a secular country."
Critics of the SPC, stress that the church is too conservative, too turned to traditional values and ways of life that have nothing to do with modern life.
"The church says women belong to homes, they are here to bear children, take care of family, be modest and humble and without any influence whatsoever on the everyday modern life," sociologist Zorica Milenkovic told IPS.
"That is something coming from 17th and not 21st century. Regardless of what the SPC did or did not do in the 90s, it is essential that it now see that many centuries have passed and that life has changed," Milenkovic explained. "It is not mere or insubstantial politics it has to deal with. It is the challenge of modern times that have to be explained to the people in the appropriate way, and that is where the new head of the SPC might have an important role."
By SOPHIA KISHKOVSKY
Published: November 24, 2009
New York Times
A new two-volume history of Russia’s turbulent 20th century is being hailed inside and outside the country as a landmark contribution to the swirling debate over Russia’s past and national identity.
Written by 45 historians led by Andrei Zubov, a professor at the institute that serves as university to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the weighty history — almost 1,000 pages per volume — was published this year by AST Publishers and is already in its second printing of 10,000 copies.
Retailing at the rough equivalent of $20 a volume and titled “History of Russia. XX Century,” the books try to rise above ideologically charged clashes over Russia’s historical memory. They are critical both of czarist and Communist Russia, and incorporate the history of Russian emigration and the Russian Orthodox Church into the big picture of a chaotic, violent century. While written from a clearly Christian perspective — one author is a Russian Orthodox priest — the history avoids overt nationalism or anti-Semitism.
Eminent historians in the United States and Poland who often take a critical view of Russia’s passionate, partisan discussion of history lauded its balance.
“Nothing like it has ever been published in Russia,” Richard Pipes, the Harvard University Sovietologist, wrote in an e-mail message, noting that he was trying to raise money for a translation and publication in English. “It is a remarkable work: remarkable not only for Russia but also for Western readers. For one, it has gotten away from the nationalism so common in Russian history books, according to which the Russians were always the victims of aggression, never aggressors.”
Mr. Pipes noted that it made extensive use of Western sources — rare in Russia — and praised its attention to often overlooked questions of the role of morals and religious beliefs.
Others offered similar praise.
“This is one of the most important books that came to us from Russia in the past 20 years,” said Andrzej Nowak, a historian from Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. In an e-mail message, he praised “the exemplary way” it treated sensitive topics like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; the wartime agreement between Hitler and Stalin; the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939; and the mass murder of Polish officers at Katyn.
Perhaps no issue today consumes Russians of all stripes like the debate about what Russia was, is and will be. Much as their president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, urges the need for modernization, Russians are fixated on the past, and on a quest to unite and explain, somehow, the contradictions and violence of czarist and Communist rule.
The latest manifestation of this came this month with the release of “Tsar,” a film by the director Pavel Lungin. In violent detail, it retells the 16th-century story of Ivan the Terrible and his conflict with a pious monk, and it has invited comparison to Stalin and his complicated relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, and with society over all.
An unusual combination of two priests, two journalists, a former government-minister-turned-writer and a reality-television show host recently gathered in central Moscow to hash out opinions about “Tsar.”
Ksenia Sobchak, the celebrity host of a Russian TV version of “Big Brother” and daughter of the mayor of St. Petersburg who oversaw its renaming from Leningrad in 1991, embraced the role of political and religious affairs commentator with a gusto that underscored how the history debate touches many.
Complex dictatorial rulers like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Stalin have a seductive hold over Russians, Ms. Sobchak said, “because I think authority in our country always strives to deify itself, and generally succeeds.”
By contrast, Professor Zubov used a recent presentation of his work at a Roman Catholic cultural center to emphasize that Russians needed to make up their own minds about history, and not adopt the latest spoon-fed version.
“It’s not necessary to wait for Putin, Medvedev and United Russia to make a decision to vote in the Duma,” he said. “We’re the citizens of this country. We’re its main subject. We’re not an object. We’re the subject.”
The two volumes, with their hard truths, could serve as a “textbook for repentance,” he suggested.
Mr. Zubov added that the book, which he said had been financed by people who preferred not to be named, appeared after two of Russia’s top television executives, Oleg Dobrodeyev and Aleksandr Kulistikov, approached him at the recommendation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who died in 2008.
“The moment has come to say finally whether we are with the Soviet Union and all of its deeds, or whether we are victims of the Communist regime and, correspondingly, reject its deeds as alien to us,” Mr. Zubov said in an interview in his book-lined Moscow apartment. “This moment has come and we can no longer turn our back on it.”
Georgy Mitrofanov, an Orthodox priest and academic who wrote some sections of the book devoted to the Russian Orthodox Church, said a re-evaluation of history could not solve Russia’s problems. “We are too late,” he said.
Aleksandr Arkhangelsky, a television host and columnist for RIA Novosti, a state news agency, has interviewed Father Mitrofanov and Mr. Zubov on air, and suggested that the intensifying discussions of history bode fresh turbulent times.
“Society is not satisfied,” Mr. Arkhangelsky said at the presentation. “It is looking for an answer to the question: Who were we? in the future, or to the question: Who will we be? in the past. This means that very serious times await us, because in Russia historical mass consciousness becomes acute on the eve of major changes.”
Saturday, November 28, 2009
CHAPTER ONE: WAR IS A RACKET
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
CHAPTER TWO: WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?
The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something?
How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year. Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000. little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather. For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.
But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam. There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.
Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.
There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.
CHAPTER THREE: WHO PAYS THE BILLS?
Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.
That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.
Napoleon once said, "All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."
So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.
Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.
CHAPTER FOUR: HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!
WELL, it's a racket, all right.
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –
yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn't they?
They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.
CHAPTER FIVE: TO HELL WITH WAR!
I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.
TO HELL WITH WAR!
The BBC News (#1, #2) has been reporting about this flap some are calling “Climategate.” Captured emails appear to indicate that the Climate Research Unit that feeds data to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deliberately suppressed data that undermined the consensus about human-caused global warming. Michael Egnor summarized the scandal on Evolution News:
"A week ago, hackers released 160 mb of emails, data, and computer code from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data extends back a decade, and rather clearly documents an astonishing pattern of manipulation of evidence, concealment of doubts about whether the validity of global warming, destruction of data not favorable to global warming, fantasizing violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, and a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. The data reveal extensive scientific misconduct and even criminal fraud in the top echelons of the pro-global warming scientific community."
The scandal is being reported on TV news, in newspapers, and radio. Some are comparing it to the video embarrassments at ACORN. The internet is on fire with blogs (example), jokes and cartoons – prompting a flood of investigations and commentaries (example in the Wall Street Journal). While AGW advocates are scrambling to re-interpret the emails and gloss over the implications, as popular science journalist (and consensus science ally) Chris Mooney attempted to do in quotes in the Michael Egnor piece, outrage and ridicule are growing in the public – illustrated by a viral music video on YouTube that says Al Gore and the perpetrators belong in jail. AGW skeptics (often dubbed “denialists” by the consensus) are feeling vindicated; some are on the warpath, calling for investigations and indictments.
This week in Evolution News, Michael Egnor has been applying the lessons of this scandal to the Darwinist consensus (see also here). He noted that British AGW skeptic Christopher Monckton has called the climatologists caught with their pants down as criminals, and that the scandal should make us angry (Evolution News). Like Michael Crichton, Egnor pointed out the inherent oxymoron in “consensus science.” He said, “Invocation of ‘consensus science’ is merely a tactic to insulate bad science from scrutiny. ‘Consensus science’ is to science as money-laundering is to finance.”
When power corrupts, it corrupts in a big way. What is important is what this scandal reveals about the possibility that virtually the whole scientific world can be wrong and downright complicit in criminal cover-ups – in spite of the supposed protections against such things in the peer-review process and the assumed self-correcting nature of science. If this can happen with one of the biggest scientific consensuses (yes, that’s the plural, not consensi) of the last decade, why not ask these same questions about the Darwinists, who similarly use political clout to suppress criticisms of its consensus?
The only climate that may be warming now is the climate of public distrust of big science. This is a bad time for the Darwinists to emphasize their talking point that “all scientists accept evolution.” Now read Michael Egnor’s latest scathing rebuke of the scandal that includes, among reasons for getting really angry, a quote by a scientist calling other scientists to get on the right side of history before “The reputation of science – and of many scientists – will be damaged severely.”
By St. Nikolai Velimirovich
Submit yourself to the will of God and do not pry too closely into God's judgments, for you can lose your mind. The judgments of God are innumerable and unfathomable.
A monk in the wilderness, imagining that he had attained perfection, prayed to God that He would reveal to him His various judgments in the lives of men. God put the thought in his mind to go to a distant place to inquire of a spiritual elder concerning this.
However, while the monk was on his way, an angel of God in the form of an ordinary man joined him, saying that he too wanted to go to that elder. Thus traveling together, they came upon the house of a God-fearing man, who treated them well, giving them to eat from a silver platter. When they had eaten, the angel took the platter and threw it into the sea. The monk found this both amazing and unjust, but he remained silent.
The second day they came upon the house of another hospitable man who cordially received and treated them as kinsmen. Before leaving, that man brought out his only son for the travelers to bless. The angel of God then took the child by the throat and strangled him.
The monk was greatly angered and asked the angel who he was, and why he had committed such misdeeds. The angel meekly replied to him: "The first man was pleasing to God in all things and had nothing in his house that was attained by injustice except that silver platter. By God's judgment, I threw that stolen platter away, so that the man would be righteous before God in all things. The other man was pleasing to God and had nothing in his house that would bring down the wrath of God except his son, who - had he matured - would have become a great criminal and a demonic vessel. Therefore, by God's judgment, I strangled that child in time to save his soul, for the sake of his father's goodness, and to save the father from many miseries. Behold, such are the mysteries and the unfathomable judgments of God. And you, elder, should return to your cell and not strive vainly by inquiring into that which is in the authority of the One God."
Friday, November 27, 2009
James, the glorious Great Martyr of Christ, was from Persia. He lived during the years of the pious Kings Arcadius and Honorius, the sons of Theodosius the Great, who ruled in the year 395 A.D. He lived in Veethiavan of Persia, situated in the land of Elouzeesion. Then, Isdigerdis I and Bahram V, his son, ruled over the Persians. They were cruel and pitiless men. They forced the Christians (whomever they found) to worship, as they did, the senseless idols.
Now James was a lord of merit, notable and of good service to the nation. He was honored and beloved by all, as he was wealthy, knowledgeable and virtuous. Wherefore, he was considered first in the palace, and the king exceedingly loved him. He bestowed on him great importance and abundant gifts. So much did Isdigerdis and his son Bahram love James, that they did not wish to be separated even one hour from him. They displayed such favor, that they had him as a brother, for he was well-mannered and his family prominent. But this was so that they could cunningly lure him to impiety. For James was a Christian from childhood just as were his parents and wife, both pious and faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. So, these villains tried hard to estrange him with gifts and gratuities. They chose to be good-natured and discreet, and to persuade him with benefits and flatteries, rather than with threats and torments. However, this marvelous James, who resisted at first, was defeated by the many generous favors of the ruler, and, alas!, he was captured. He denied the most sweet Christ and worshipped the demons, and became one in spirit with the king.
But do not frown; hearken and strengthen your heart, and attend to this. Because just as one drop of water drips continually onto the hard marble to perforate it, so also many gifts and favors are able to convert the gratified soul with ease and quickness; thus, did the ever-memorable one have the solid rock of his faith hollowed out. But listen to his end to receive exultation and joy, that God (Who foreknows and foresees) does not overlook but straightens the fallen and illuminates the way of the blind.
It was circulated around the land that James had denied Christ. This news came into the ears of his mother and spouse, who were wounded in their hearts upon hearing these unexpected words. Since they were not present to censure his tongue, they sent him a letter, saying thus:
"It was not proper to your nobility to exchange falsehood for the truth; to defraud the faith for the honor of men and temporary rewards, which pass by as a dream and disperse like smoke; and to love the perishable and temporary kingdom, and abandon immortality and eternity. For this violation you would elect to be cast into the inextinguishable fire and endless torment? You, who are unworthy of His love, denied Christ, in order to gain one worm-eaten man? O the mindlessness! What are you able to benefit by them, when you go together into torment? We have been greatly distressed by you and pour forth many tears and, with all our hearts, we pray to the true God not to desert you, as He is compassionate, but to receive your return. So recognize the mischief that you have created to become a son of darkness, instead of light, which you were formerly. Recover and revert again to godliness. And, if you do not repent speedily, know this: you no longer have any relation with us. But we wish to be as strangers and foreigners to you, and you will inherit nothing from us, so as to be completely separated from our society. Because not one particle has the light with the darkness, and the faithful with the faithless. So make a good return. Whereas, you departed badly; but the Master, Whom you denied, will receive you with open arms and rejoicing. If you disdain our advice and tears, when you reach the divine trial, you will be punished in torments endlessly and your crying will be in vain."