When I was recently re-reading some of the writing I had done in the early nineteen-seventies, when my political philosophy first began to take shape, I came across this poem. It was written on December 28, 1973, in the midst of the Watergate crisis, and clearly shows the influence of Burnham and Orwell. Soon after I wrote it, I was to enter a period of escapism, first studying history in college, and then writing about it. By the time I came out of my ivory tower and began to take a serious look at the world around me once again, in 1990, I found that another scandal of far more serious proportions than Watergate (Iran-Contra) had taken place, the direction of the ship of state had become clear and more sinister than ever, and at least one of the "faceless ones" had emerged from obscurity, into the Oval Office... but more about that in my next blog.
The world
is swirling around me--
momentous events are occurring--
battles being fought,
battles that will change
the shape of the world
for the next thousand years.
Many voices I hear
from familiar names and faces
scratching and clawing--
calling each other names.
Panting after the sceptre,
they fight like hounds--
They lie,
and connive
And rend the world in pursuit of their game.
This ship is off course,
wildly careening,
and where is the ship's captain?
In the cabin, playing a life-or-death
game of poker with the mates--
they rock the ship with their angry cries.
And yet, the ship still moves.
And I sit
Here in my living room
amid worried voices
and wonder silently,
who does run this ship?
Who mans the controls
while our captain plays his deadly game?
Our ship moves crookedly,
swerving and swaying--
but it moves.
Whose hand is on the steering wheel?
Whose mind runs the machinery
that keeps the ship
from halting in mid-ocean?
There must be many minds--
and how silent they all are.
They do not play in our captain's card game,
but keep their minds on their machines.
They do not stop to sling mud
For if they did, all that machinery
would grind to a halt.
Who are these men?
Where lies the power?
I feel a vast network about me,
an impenetrable system of steel and concrete.
And yet,
I cannot identify the minds
that are behind it all.
Frustration I feel--
no one knows, no one knows.
We, the people of the nation
are being led down a road
that is not of our own making--
destination unknown.
Confused are we, and helpless
For we cannot fight a power
whose face we cannot see.
Who shall win the card game?
Or does it really matter?
While the players tear at each other's throats,
The men in the control room
(who never entered the game)
quietly smile.
An iron fence
is closing about my heart.
Across the city,
the clank of hammers upon steel
mourn the passing of a world,
And I greatly fear what will become of us.
Showing posts with label Orwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orwell. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
WHY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS ARE IMPOTENT TO STOP TORTURE
The true goal of torture by the United States government is not the acquisition of intelligence which can save lives. That is an established fact. From its inception, the CIA has been conducting experiments (under programs such as BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, and MKULTRA) to see if it can create a "Manchurian Candidate". Such programs used methods amounting to torture to reduce people to a state of infantile dependence so that a new identity and memory could be implanted in them by means of narco-hypnosis. The techniques they used, such as electroconvulsive treatment or ECT, severe sensory deprivation, and mind control drugs including LSD, have no conceivable use in genuine interrogation, that is to say, the quest for truth. They were used instead to create falsehood: a false identity, false memories, false confessions. The argument that during the Cold War, they served a legitimate purpose in creating the "perfect spy", are easily answered by the rhetorical question, "Would any self-respecting CIA officer voluntarily submit himself to such a regime in order to conduct more effective espionage?" Of course not. As I have argued in preceding blogs, and as is clear from Alfred McCoy's A Question of Torture and Colin Ross' The CIA Doctors, these methods were designed to be used against unwilling victims in order to make them into whatever our government wanted them to be. Recent evidence that Mohammed Al Qahtani, a member of the Guantánamo Six and client of the Center for Constitutional Rights, was subjected to this regime emerges from the fact that, according to a CCR factsheet, IV injections were forcibly administered to him during interrogation, a clear indication that he had been drugged and probably hypnotized. Of course he would not remember what he felt or experienced as a result of those injections, for the creation of amnesia surrounding the implantation of false memories is one of the goals of the CIA's PSYWAR program. The Guantánamo Six and their fellow-prisoners are probably the modern equivalent of "Manchurian candidates": CIA-manufactured terrorists.
Why is it then that the anti-torture movement persists in maintaining that torture "doesn't work"? For indeed that is the constant refrain of organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. Quite obviously torture works if one's goal is an evil one. And if the goal of torture by our government is not the acquisition of intelligence, then the argument that "torture doesn't work" for that purpose is quite irrelevant. Not only that, it gives our opponents far too much credit in assuming that they are simply overzealous interrogators angry about the events of 9/11 and desperate to ferret out facts which will prevent another such catastrophe. In fact, they are far more sinister than that, as evil as Hitler and vastly more powerful and cunning. Why will anti-torture activists not face this reality? I think because of their background in the tradition of pacifism and civil disobedience. Ingrained in many people of my generation is the notion that if they themselves behave morally, they can somehow shame their opponents into doing the same. This requires opponents which have a conscience and a basic sense of decency. To recognize that the opponents we are facing today have neither is to realize that whether we are sincere or insincere, whether we approach them in a nonviolent manner or with Molotov cocktails, whether we aim at the restoration of the U.S. Constitution or the erection of some secular or religious utopia, they will be equally likely to target us as they have anyone who opposes them. And that is a frightening possibility.
The U.S. executive branch as it exists today is the most powerful government which has ever existed. In addition to the most sophisticated methods of drawing forth false confessions, it also possesses the most lethal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction-- nuclear, space, and other weapons (such as scalar) which most people have never heard of. Thus it represents the most dangerous force with which the mankind has ever had to contend. Every conscientious individual in the world, and every nation which has any self-respect, has to live with the fact that it is faced with a terrible choice. It can kowtow to this force and lose all its freedom and dignity, in the process permitting the outrageous abuses to continue. Or it can oppose it, at the risk of essentially committing suicide. That is to say, the nation which fights back against the United States will most likely be destroyed, and the individual-- American or foreign, who opposes its government will be killed or forced to take his own life lest he be subject to its tortures. This is a prospect that most human rights activists today evidently cannot face. And if they do not face it, they will inevitably lose. In order to win, they must face the fact that they may have to give up their lives. For in our fight against the face of the perfect totalitarianism which is taking shape in this country-- more effective than that of the Nazis or the Stalinists-- death can be a victory. As O'Brien says in Orwell's 1984: "We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we can never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation." When I first read this as a teenager in the nineteen-sixties (I have read it many times since), I vowed that if I were ever faced with such a situation I would essentially stage a kamikaze attack upon Big Brother, fighting back in a manner which would ensure my instant death, so that the forces of repression could not transform me into a turncoat of their own making. And I still think that is the best solution.
This is not that we necessarily have to die. But we must be prepared to do so because our enemy is utterly vicious, ruthless and without scruple. This is war, and as much as one wishes to live, in a war one must be prepared to die. Pollyannish and pacifistic notions of "shaming" one's opponents into reform will only earn their laughter. They could not be happier when their opponents stick to the tired old argument that "torture does not work" because then they know that they have succeeded in deceiving them as to their true purpose. They also know that it works very well if the goal is to produce an empty shell of a human being into which they can pour their own filth. Let us make it clear that we are wise to them, and intend to fight the real enemy with every means at our disposal, not set up some innocuous "straw man" in order to reassure ourselves. If the choice is between arguing ineffectually against torture and thus ensuring our continued survival, and waging an effective battle against the Monster in Washington DC at the risk of our lives, let us choose to fight and die free!!!
Why is it then that the anti-torture movement persists in maintaining that torture "doesn't work"? For indeed that is the constant refrain of organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. Quite obviously torture works if one's goal is an evil one. And if the goal of torture by our government is not the acquisition of intelligence, then the argument that "torture doesn't work" for that purpose is quite irrelevant. Not only that, it gives our opponents far too much credit in assuming that they are simply overzealous interrogators angry about the events of 9/11 and desperate to ferret out facts which will prevent another such catastrophe. In fact, they are far more sinister than that, as evil as Hitler and vastly more powerful and cunning. Why will anti-torture activists not face this reality? I think because of their background in the tradition of pacifism and civil disobedience. Ingrained in many people of my generation is the notion that if they themselves behave morally, they can somehow shame their opponents into doing the same. This requires opponents which have a conscience and a basic sense of decency. To recognize that the opponents we are facing today have neither is to realize that whether we are sincere or insincere, whether we approach them in a nonviolent manner or with Molotov cocktails, whether we aim at the restoration of the U.S. Constitution or the erection of some secular or religious utopia, they will be equally likely to target us as they have anyone who opposes them. And that is a frightening possibility.
The U.S. executive branch as it exists today is the most powerful government which has ever existed. In addition to the most sophisticated methods of drawing forth false confessions, it also possesses the most lethal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction-- nuclear, space, and other weapons (such as scalar) which most people have never heard of. Thus it represents the most dangerous force with which the mankind has ever had to contend. Every conscientious individual in the world, and every nation which has any self-respect, has to live with the fact that it is faced with a terrible choice. It can kowtow to this force and lose all its freedom and dignity, in the process permitting the outrageous abuses to continue. Or it can oppose it, at the risk of essentially committing suicide. That is to say, the nation which fights back against the United States will most likely be destroyed, and the individual-- American or foreign, who opposes its government will be killed or forced to take his own life lest he be subject to its tortures. This is a prospect that most human rights activists today evidently cannot face. And if they do not face it, they will inevitably lose. In order to win, they must face the fact that they may have to give up their lives. For in our fight against the face of the perfect totalitarianism which is taking shape in this country-- more effective than that of the Nazis or the Stalinists-- death can be a victory. As O'Brien says in Orwell's 1984: "We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we can never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation." When I first read this as a teenager in the nineteen-sixties (I have read it many times since), I vowed that if I were ever faced with such a situation I would essentially stage a kamikaze attack upon Big Brother, fighting back in a manner which would ensure my instant death, so that the forces of repression could not transform me into a turncoat of their own making. And I still think that is the best solution.
This is not that we necessarily have to die. But we must be prepared to do so because our enemy is utterly vicious, ruthless and without scruple. This is war, and as much as one wishes to live, in a war one must be prepared to die. Pollyannish and pacifistic notions of "shaming" one's opponents into reform will only earn their laughter. They could not be happier when their opponents stick to the tired old argument that "torture does not work" because then they know that they have succeeded in deceiving them as to their true purpose. They also know that it works very well if the goal is to produce an empty shell of a human being into which they can pour their own filth. Let us make it clear that we are wise to them, and intend to fight the real enemy with every means at our disposal, not set up some innocuous "straw man" in order to reassure ourselves. If the choice is between arguing ineffectually against torture and thus ensuring our continued survival, and waging an effective battle against the Monster in Washington DC at the risk of our lives, let us choose to fight and die free!!!
Friday, January 11, 2008
ORWELL WAS BOTH RIGHT AND WRONG
George Orwell's classic 1984 is a work which has probably exercised more influence upon me than any other. I read it first in high school and a couple more times when I was in my twenties. Then I blissfully forgot about it through my college years and later, immersed as I was in pre-modern historical issues, while the trends he predicted were inexorably moving toward their realization. Since 9/11, having been forced to recognize what century I'm living in, I have re-discovered its relevance.
Orwell's achievement was so great because he based his work on James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution . It was Burnham who first predicted that the societies of the future would be ruled by faceless bureaucrats, not the showy military "man on horseback" or the charismatic demagogues our Founding Fathers feared. If only they could have read his book! For without his insights-- which were not yet possible in the eighteenth century-- the Founders constructed a nation which they thought was protected from both these types, but which was in fact defenseless against the new type of ruler. They foresaw the Imperial Presidency and the influence of Big Money. But they did not foresee, nor provide any protections, against the type of institution which would make the victory of these evils possible, despite all their precautions. They did not foresee that when dictatorship came to the United States, it would come under cover of a largely anonymous and unelected civilian bureaucracy. The prototype of that bureaucracy was born in this country in 1947, two years before Orwell's death, as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Over the past sixty years, it has been increasing its power and practicing the techniques of despotic control in Third World countries. And now, following a spectacular "terrorist attack" wich was probably staged by itself (see Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11: Synthetic Terror and David Ray Griffin, 9/11 and the American Empire: The Intellectuals Speak Out)it is bringing those techniques home. Of course it is not alone-- we now have a vast intelligence bureaucracy, both military and civilian, which, supported by the big corporations, actually rules this country. Presidential elections have become a mere game like the world series, with no relevance to our future-- whoever wins the policies will remain the same, for they are not made by the president, but rather the president is made by and must answer to an elite more powerful than the nominal head of the executive branch. Homeland Security is the vehicle by which an that elite plans to seize total control over this nation: if one wants to know the terrifying details of what it has in store for us, one should read Douglas Valentine's essay, "When the Phoenix Comes Home to Roost", available over the net.
Where Orwell was wrong, as Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago, was in concluding that the worst threat to freedom would come from the Left. Despite its many atrocities and initial success, Communism was not a good vehicle for an enduring totalitarianism for three reasons. First of all, it possessed an unworkable economic system which was bound to fail in the end. This economic system rested in turn on a misperception of human nature, an ignorance of the ineradicable influence of greed. It also underestimated the appeal of power for its own sake, and failed to see that its leaders would be corrupted by excessive power whether or not they had renounced the struggle for economic gain (which in fact they rarely did). But its most serious misjudgement was its inability to grasp the power of tribalistic loyalties, be they racial, ethnic, religious or whatever, over human behavior. The most admirable aspect of Communism was its belief in the brotherhood of Man-- at least the working man-- as expressed in the Internationale. But this was also its greatest weakness. For in fact humans, like all social animals, are programmed to fight for their own group against all other groups. that is why the form of totalitarianism with the most promise for the future is fascism. Today's fascism-- a peculiarly American brand-- does not express itself, as Mussolini's and Hitler's did, by endless parades of goose-stepping soldiers. But the ubiquitous flags with which Albert Speer adorned Nazi rallies are there, every time I walk down my own suburban street. They are hung out not by order of the state, but by individuals who, having been born into a democracy, have freely given their support to policies which are slowly but inexorably killing that democracy. They indicate the extent of public support for the torture and the murder of people who are not "like us"-- not "Americans" as the average American defines that term.
From writing my biography of Albert Speer, I have come to see how effectively the primitive tribal instincts of the average man and woman can be manipulated by a dictatorship to support a policy of brutality and genocide. I have seen how an elite, concerned above all with the perpetuation of its own power, can convince people to surrender their own freedom for the sake of a chimerical "security" and superiority over groups they conceive of as foreign (even if, like German Jews and American Muslims, they are little different from themselves). For three years I immersed myself in the writing of this book, little noticing what was going on around me, although the staged attacks of 9/11 had occurred during those years. When I emerged from my ivory tower, I was shocked to find that the very thing I had been writing about was happening here, that our government was appealing to the lowest common instincts of the man and woman in the street, the hatred of the "other", in exactly the same way the Nazis had, although the trappings were different, less militaristic and more suited to American tastes. After all, we like to think of ourselves as nice guys. We would never accept a doctrine which openly preaches the idea of a master race conquering all the others, and our elite is shrewd enough to know that's it's a good idea to have friends among every ethnic group, if nothing else so that it will have someone to blame for so-called "terrorist attacks". It is also shrewd enough to know that it must accept a certain number of people who are not white, Anglo-Saxon or male into its ranks, and so it has. But in fact, its tribalism is every bit as vicious as that of the Nazis, even though the American nation can hardly be conceived of as a Volk, an ethnically homogenous group. The reaction of the American public to the continuing disclosures of the use of torture-- even in cases where the acquisition of intelligence is not the goal-- has been a mixture of superficial indignation and indifference, or perhaps something worse than indifference. Our ruling elite knows human nature so well that it is possible to buy T-shirts proclaiming "I'd rather be torturing detainees" over the net. And when I go out in public with my button displaying the famous "hooded man", with the caption "Got Freedom?" as a protest against torture, I have not once received either a supportive compliment or an expression of discomfort at this symbol of suffering.
How many of these people displaying flags or stickers saying "We support our troops" give a thought to the real victims? How many Americans who read 1984 (probably as an assignment in college, for why else would they read a work of serious political criticism?) recognize in Winston the real counterpart of the thousands now imprisoned by our government in its so-called "War on Terror"? How many realize that the methods that the CIA and its clones are using against foreigners will soon be turned against American Muslims and dissidents? As Judge Howe says in the film Judgement at Nuremberg, "A nation is not a rock. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult." When it came to slavery, the closest analogy to the present gulag of secret prisons, the American people showed what they stood for. They were willing to fight a bloody Civil War to end it. But something has happened to us since then. For most Americans will not even lift a voice of dissent against the outrages of today, let alone take up arms. We have become a nation of moral cowards. As for me, I can hardly sleep at night when I think of the agonies of the victims and hear their screams in my nightmares. I cannot help but think of the words which Orwell put into the mouth of O'Brien when he was torturing Winston, which express so well the mentality of our ruling elite: "Power is not a means, it is an end... Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. The old civilizations were founded upon love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement... If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face-- forever."
I love the American Constitution and the ideals upon which this nation was founded. But when I walk down the street and see all those flags and stickers, can I be blamed for seeing the swastika banners with which Nuremberg was draped during Nazi rallies? Is it surprising that the sight of the Stars and Stripes, once so dear to me, now makes me sick? For what Jefferson said concerning slavery holds true here as well: "God has no attribute which can take side with us in this contest."
Orwell's achievement was so great because he based his work on James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution . It was Burnham who first predicted that the societies of the future would be ruled by faceless bureaucrats, not the showy military "man on horseback" or the charismatic demagogues our Founding Fathers feared. If only they could have read his book! For without his insights-- which were not yet possible in the eighteenth century-- the Founders constructed a nation which they thought was protected from both these types, but which was in fact defenseless against the new type of ruler. They foresaw the Imperial Presidency and the influence of Big Money. But they did not foresee, nor provide any protections, against the type of institution which would make the victory of these evils possible, despite all their precautions. They did not foresee that when dictatorship came to the United States, it would come under cover of a largely anonymous and unelected civilian bureaucracy. The prototype of that bureaucracy was born in this country in 1947, two years before Orwell's death, as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Over the past sixty years, it has been increasing its power and practicing the techniques of despotic control in Third World countries. And now, following a spectacular "terrorist attack" wich was probably staged by itself (see Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11: Synthetic Terror and David Ray Griffin, 9/11 and the American Empire: The Intellectuals Speak Out)it is bringing those techniques home. Of course it is not alone-- we now have a vast intelligence bureaucracy, both military and civilian, which, supported by the big corporations, actually rules this country. Presidential elections have become a mere game like the world series, with no relevance to our future-- whoever wins the policies will remain the same, for they are not made by the president, but rather the president is made by and must answer to an elite more powerful than the nominal head of the executive branch. Homeland Security is the vehicle by which an that elite plans to seize total control over this nation: if one wants to know the terrifying details of what it has in store for us, one should read Douglas Valentine's essay, "When the Phoenix Comes Home to Roost", available over the net.
Where Orwell was wrong, as Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago, was in concluding that the worst threat to freedom would come from the Left. Despite its many atrocities and initial success, Communism was not a good vehicle for an enduring totalitarianism for three reasons. First of all, it possessed an unworkable economic system which was bound to fail in the end. This economic system rested in turn on a misperception of human nature, an ignorance of the ineradicable influence of greed. It also underestimated the appeal of power for its own sake, and failed to see that its leaders would be corrupted by excessive power whether or not they had renounced the struggle for economic gain (which in fact they rarely did). But its most serious misjudgement was its inability to grasp the power of tribalistic loyalties, be they racial, ethnic, religious or whatever, over human behavior. The most admirable aspect of Communism was its belief in the brotherhood of Man-- at least the working man-- as expressed in the Internationale. But this was also its greatest weakness. For in fact humans, like all social animals, are programmed to fight for their own group against all other groups. that is why the form of totalitarianism with the most promise for the future is fascism. Today's fascism-- a peculiarly American brand-- does not express itself, as Mussolini's and Hitler's did, by endless parades of goose-stepping soldiers. But the ubiquitous flags with which Albert Speer adorned Nazi rallies are there, every time I walk down my own suburban street. They are hung out not by order of the state, but by individuals who, having been born into a democracy, have freely given their support to policies which are slowly but inexorably killing that democracy. They indicate the extent of public support for the torture and the murder of people who are not "like us"-- not "Americans" as the average American defines that term.
From writing my biography of Albert Speer, I have come to see how effectively the primitive tribal instincts of the average man and woman can be manipulated by a dictatorship to support a policy of brutality and genocide. I have seen how an elite, concerned above all with the perpetuation of its own power, can convince people to surrender their own freedom for the sake of a chimerical "security" and superiority over groups they conceive of as foreign (even if, like German Jews and American Muslims, they are little different from themselves). For three years I immersed myself in the writing of this book, little noticing what was going on around me, although the staged attacks of 9/11 had occurred during those years. When I emerged from my ivory tower, I was shocked to find that the very thing I had been writing about was happening here, that our government was appealing to the lowest common instincts of the man and woman in the street, the hatred of the "other", in exactly the same way the Nazis had, although the trappings were different, less militaristic and more suited to American tastes. After all, we like to think of ourselves as nice guys. We would never accept a doctrine which openly preaches the idea of a master race conquering all the others, and our elite is shrewd enough to know that's it's a good idea to have friends among every ethnic group, if nothing else so that it will have someone to blame for so-called "terrorist attacks". It is also shrewd enough to know that it must accept a certain number of people who are not white, Anglo-Saxon or male into its ranks, and so it has. But in fact, its tribalism is every bit as vicious as that of the Nazis, even though the American nation can hardly be conceived of as a Volk, an ethnically homogenous group. The reaction of the American public to the continuing disclosures of the use of torture-- even in cases where the acquisition of intelligence is not the goal-- has been a mixture of superficial indignation and indifference, or perhaps something worse than indifference. Our ruling elite knows human nature so well that it is possible to buy T-shirts proclaiming "I'd rather be torturing detainees" over the net. And when I go out in public with my button displaying the famous "hooded man", with the caption "Got Freedom?" as a protest against torture, I have not once received either a supportive compliment or an expression of discomfort at this symbol of suffering.
How many of these people displaying flags or stickers saying "We support our troops" give a thought to the real victims? How many Americans who read 1984 (probably as an assignment in college, for why else would they read a work of serious political criticism?) recognize in Winston the real counterpart of the thousands now imprisoned by our government in its so-called "War on Terror"? How many realize that the methods that the CIA and its clones are using against foreigners will soon be turned against American Muslims and dissidents? As Judge Howe says in the film Judgement at Nuremberg, "A nation is not a rock. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult." When it came to slavery, the closest analogy to the present gulag of secret prisons, the American people showed what they stood for. They were willing to fight a bloody Civil War to end it. But something has happened to us since then. For most Americans will not even lift a voice of dissent against the outrages of today, let alone take up arms. We have become a nation of moral cowards. As for me, I can hardly sleep at night when I think of the agonies of the victims and hear their screams in my nightmares. I cannot help but think of the words which Orwell put into the mouth of O'Brien when he was torturing Winston, which express so well the mentality of our ruling elite: "Power is not a means, it is an end... Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. The old civilizations were founded upon love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement... If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stepping on a human face-- forever."
I love the American Constitution and the ideals upon which this nation was founded. But when I walk down the street and see all those flags and stickers, can I be blamed for seeing the swastika banners with which Nuremberg was draped during Nazi rallies? Is it surprising that the sight of the Stars and Stripes, once so dear to me, now makes me sick? For what Jefferson said concerning slavery holds true here as well: "God has no attribute which can take side with us in this contest."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
