- St. Sir Thomas More, in "A Man for All Seasons"

"Until now, we have had no experience of what the U.S. Government has so often inflicted on others. Now, at least, we have an inkling of what it feels like."

Joe Sobran

Readers are thanked for their patience in waiting for a Part II which we can only hope will prove to have been worth the wait.

Since Tuesday things in the American mind have become worse, rather than better. Confusion and blood-thirst reigns supreme, now, in this country, and there is no sign of either those twin plagues going away any time soon.

So, we're pleased to present these further thoughts in the hopes, nay with a plea, for sanity and clear-headedness in this time of unprecedented confusion.

Some further thoughts on Sanity.

Justice vs. Revenge

There is now an unprecedented thirst for blood in this country. The common people, the pundits all across the political spectrum, the politicians, the press generally - all are calling for "war" and "war now!" The question as to who is to be bombed into the 22nd century or what exactly will be accomplished by so doing is still, largely, irrelevant.

Catholics used to use phrases and terms like "just war," "chivalry," "non-combatants," and the "Peace of God and the Truce of God." Of course, those were in the good old days - days really good, and so very, very old at this point that for most they are not even a distant memory. But in man's frantic search for the relics of antiquity (Dead Sea Scrolls, Atlantis, and a host of other questionably relevant "treasures" of the past), perhaps the medieval laws governing combat should be among the things "resurrected."

"So many innocent lives lost!" goes the cry which supposedly justifies not just justice but revenge. "Nuke the bastards! Who cares if civilian lives are lost!" goes the response. Well, the point about innocent lives is at best an imprecision. Only God knows if they were innocent in the most Catholic sense of the term. Of course, the spin-masters do not use words in their Catholic sense. But it should be noted that Serbian civilian casualties are always that – “civilian casualties.” While American non-combatants are “innocents!” – and the more innocent they were, the more murderous the attacks and thus the more revenge is justified.

If the WTC attacks were truly the result of anti-American terrorism (and not the Mossad or the U.S. Govt…it's possible!), then the angst-filled aggressor should have attacked a military target in an act of open, and honorable, warfare. That the attacks were not honorable nor open makes, to some extent, the WTC victims “innocent” – innocent of involvement in a military conflict. But we normally refer to that type of innocence and the innocence of a “non-combatant.” In this vein one could even argue that the attack on the Pentagon was an attack on a legitimate military target. This is not to undervalue the lives of the men and women who serve in the country's armed forces. But it is to say that those who maintain the American military machine, which has bombed - just to casually name the ones that come to mind immediately - Iraq, Serbia, and the Sudan in the last three years, must perhaps be prepared to make "the supreme sacrifice in defense of the Constitution" which they promised to make, even if bombing those and a host of other targets has NOTHING to do with defending the Constitution - and therefore our White House and State and Defense Dept. officials are guilty of CRIMINAL imprudence and negligence for placing American lives in harm's way to spread "American values" around the reluctant globe and force them upon unwilling populations.

There can be no doubt that most of what SHOULD motivate the anger and sadness of American citizens over these attacks is the loss of civilian (vs. innocent) life in what may very well be the first skirmish in a far greater and more bloody war.

But "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" - or drop the first bomb. Loss of civilian life as a result of wartime operations is certainly not an area in which the U.S. has distinguished itself - and we cannot act surprised, shocked, and horribly offended at the thought that non-combatants often perish in the battles of modern war. We might even be able to claim the distinct honor of having taught the world a lesson on that score, a lesson which evidently Tuesday's attackers took to heart. Sherman sure taught the South a lesson as he burned a wide swath through Georgia; Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Belgrade, Baghdad, and countless other cities were unfortunate results of the style of warfare which this savage excuse for an honorable military man had ushered in at the end of America's Civil War. One might even remember the callous reaction to the death of Khadaffi's daughter as a result of the Lybia bombing - "them's the breaks," we may remember the Americans saying. Not to mention Madeleine Albright's sensitive reaction (on May 12, 1996) to comments by Lesley Stahl of CBS that 500,000 Iraqi children were killed by US sanctions in an attempt to get Saddam: "We think the price is worth it." Well, that's easy to say if it's not our children. And if we've lost all civilized sense of what is and is not allowable in a conflict. Perhaps we as a people now have a better sense of how it might feel to loose relatives and friends...relatives and friends who are being asked to pay the ultimate price in a war which they didn't intend to fight, but which their government may well have provoked.

The dismay over the attacker's audacity in transcending all moral limits in knocking down two buildings filled with civilians, dismay so cogently expressed by Tony Blair on 14 Sep - these "hideous and foul" events showed that there were no longer any moral limits on their methods of killing or the number of victims... - is a little hard to cope with in light of the West's conscious abandonment of the medieval "rules of war." The notion that war is a necessary and even honorable thing in defense of the rights of a nation (or even the rights of God!) and therefore MUST be waged honorably, is a notion that we have willingly, purposefully, and knowingly discarded. It shouldn't come as a surprise to us that - just like the poor family store which is forced to cut wages, stiff employees, and decrease quality and customer service in order to keep up with the economic imperialism practiced by the local WalMart - other nations or individuals resort to less-than-honorable means of combat when provoked thereto by a nation that has long since itself dispensed with those honorable means.

Which brings to mind something else Americans would do well to contemplate in the wake of the WTC and the Pentagon With the exception of the Civil War, we haven't really ever been exposed to bloodshed on American soil, and certainly not at the hand of a foreign power - at least since 1812. We have never been "occupied" or had our country invaded by "peacekeepers." But for others it is a way of life. Macedonians, Serbians, Iraqis have; and that at the hands of the U.S. or its international front, NATO. Which is not to say that Macedonia, Serbia, or Iraq are flawless countries with populations that have a spotless track record. We can hear the response now - "they deserve it!" Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we're capable of sitting in judgment of just what kind of punishment these various populations may or may not deserve, it may then be a classic sign of American hubris that we cannot conceive of someone claiming the right to sit in judgment of us - whether they truly have that right or not. But ultimately the guilt or innocence of the victim populations - ours, or those that are victims of American military might - is not the point. The point is that the weeping and wailing that surrounds this event, justifiably called horrific and shocking, must ring just a bit hollow for those who live through warfare on a daily basis. Belgrade in June of 1999 looked a lot like Manhattan, and yet American sympathy for the war being waged on Belgrade against those attempting to defend themselves from Marxist and Muslim aggression in the form of the terrorist (though US-backed) KLA was non-existent. Not to mention the scenes from Palestine which are eerily similar to Washington D.C. But more on that later. If we lived in a sane country, then, we'd be shocked and appalled at the slaughter of non-combatants, and we'd live by the rules - the violation of which is the source of our anger - by ensuring, as best as reasonably possible, that our response avoided the very crime which provoked our ire. But, as we said in the last issue, this degree of introspection and logical consistence is not part of the American character today. The American mind prides itself on being anti-dogmatic, which is to say, that no Truth above the frail and fleeting world in which humans live and work exists or can be known with certainty to exist. Truth, for Americans, is made by circumstances and necessity. It's NOT true that we cannot bomb Serbia into oblivion "to weaken the Serbian spirit," as General Clark explained back in 1999, but it IS true that we will NOT accept the commission of an act of war against ourselves which claims civilian lives. This inconsistency - simply put, a "double standard" - is so characteristic of the American mentality as to be almost gut-wrenching should we stop to consider it too seriously and too intently.

The "Amen Corner"

Lest some readers think that we are over doing our assessment of the blood lust which has taken over the American people and leadership, just a few samplings should serve to illustrate our point. We also should note that in a good many of these press samplings, there are the predictable references to all kinds of things that should give the discriminating reader pause. Some of these include: sentimental reference to WWII and the "Greatest Generation," comparisons of the "terrorist foe" to Hitler, and the association of these attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon with "attacks on America and the world's commitment to freedom." The comparisons get sillier, broader, and more meaningless as the days roll by. Which is something that should alert all of us that rational thought and clear and concise thinking is NOT the order of the day. Clearly, we are being subjected to a barrage of psycho babble designed to throw us into a full scale war with someone whom we can't even identify. The consistency of the message being broadcast by "folks" (as our President says) across the political spectrum is either amazing (what a coincidence!) or eminently predictable. Too much consistency by the puppets can mean only that there is someone pulling the strings.

(quotes follow the colons...THIS IS A LONG, THOROUGH SUMMARY. IF AND WHEN THE READER HAS HAD ENOUGH, HE IS INVITED TO SKIP PAST THE PRESS SAMPLING AND CONTINUE READING...)

- The President: This enemy attacked not just our people but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world...We will rally the world...This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail. [Is the "good" the ruthless financial might embodied by the WTC or the callous force of arms employed by the Pentagon for the advancement of the U.S.'s diplomatic agenda?]

...and again at the national "prayer" service: In every generation, the worl d has produced enemies of human freedom...They have attacked America because we are freedom's home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time... Our responsibility to history is already clear...To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. [Rid the world of evil! Well now, does that require Congressional authorization? What it does require is a Constitutional Amendment, because the 1st amendment guarantees that in this great nation good and evil are whatever you want them to be. And it is of course perfectly evident that we were attacked because we defend freedom. Of course. The freedom of every nation to follow America's lead and do whatever she wants them too. The Palestinians were, no doubt, very impressed with our attempt to rid the world of evil and defend freedom by walking our of a U.N.-sponsored conference which threatened to condemn Zionism and Racism.]

- Colin Powell: this was an assault not just on America but on civilization. [If this is true it was an attack on civilization, it was an attack on Jewish civilization, and an attack on the twin pillars of money and physical force...two things which the Jews have used against the Christian world for centuries. That is a civilization NOT worth defending. It would be hard to demonstrate otherwise, i.e., that it was an attack on Apple Pie and Motherhood, which is what America USED TO stand for.]

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: "They were not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." [One wonders what values the WTC and Pentagon are supposed to represent?]

- Hilary on the Senate floor: We also stand united behind our resolve -- as this resolution so clearly states -- to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of these tragic acts. You know, New York was not an accidental choice for these madmen, these terrorists, and these instruments of evil. They deliberately chose to strike at a city, which is a global city -- it is the city of the Twenty First century, it epitomizes who we are as Americans. And so this in a very real sense was an attack on America, on our values, on our power, and on who we are as a people. [Answer us this, dear obnoxious Senator from New York: If NYC is a GLOBAL city, why is this being billed as an ATTACK ON AMERICA? Do Americans really want the instruments of global power in their country (WTC, U.N., etc.), and if so, has world domination gotten itself so ingrained into the American mind that it is now part of our character? If so, it is part of our character well worth expunging, even if to do so required pain and suffering. An "attack on our power" - most certainly. But is it a legitimate power in the first place?]

- Kissinger and McCain have both called this "an act of war," and Kissinger was talking about retaliatory attacks even before there was (and is) ANY idea of where or whom to attack.

- Fox news used this neat phrase in a recent broadcast: "the fallen pillars of liberty, trade, and defense." One wonders if the victims of U.S. military might and/or imperialist capitalism have the impression that they are the twin pillars of liberty.

Meanwhile, the neo-conservative establishment, which is substantially Jewish (not a trivial fact), fell in step with an overwhelming show of support for letting loose the dogs of war, and a consistent line about how much this would help America to sympathize with poor Israel:

- the FrontPageMag.com headline of Thursday or Friday suggested that our government's ban on government sponsored assassinations be revoked. This would be an impressive display of defense of the rule of law. In Catholic circles assassination is referred to as murder, but god forbid we Catholic have any influence in politics.

- Cal Thomas: It brings into clear focus the state of war that has existed for some time between America and those who oppose our values and way of life. [This "way of life" business is such a joke. What possible connection is there between the WTC and the average American way of life?]

- Geo. Will: The acrid and unexpungeable odor of terrorism, which has hung over Israel for many years, is now a fact of American life. Yesterday morning Americans were drawn into the world that Israelis live in every day...The terrorists' targets yesterday were symbols not just of American power but also its virtues. The twin towers of the World Trade Center are, like Manhattan itself, architectural expressions of the vigor of American civilization. The Pentagon is a symbol of America's ability and determination to project and defend democratic values. These targets have drawn, like gathered lightning, the anger of the enemies of civilization. Those enemies are always out there. [These remarks are mind-blowing in their ignorance. It is touching that we are reminded of the plight of the Israelis in light of what they did and continue to do to the Palestinians with the blessing of that "symbol" which is supposed to represent "America's ability and determination to project and defend democratic values." Which is altogether another tragically humorous statement, unless the projection of democracy is routinely and ironically carried out without regard for whether the people upon whom this democracy is being imposed want it in the first place.]

New York Times

The more conservative broadsheet described the mood of the nation as one preparing for war. "The marble halls of Washington resounded with talk of war," it said.

The Wall Street Journal conveniently tugged on the WWII heartstrings plus the demon-image of Hitler to stir up sympathy for the "war," with this Op-Ed headline on the 12th: "We Beat Hitler, We Can Vanquish This Foe, Too" by Mark Helprin.

And the Washington Post's Robert Kagan had this to say:

One can only hope that America can respond to yesterday's monstrous attack on American soil -- an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor --with the same moral clarity and courage as our grandfathers did. Not by asking what we have done to bring on the wrath of inhuman murderers. Not by figuring out ways to reason with, or try to appease those who have spilled our blood. Not by engaging in an extended legal effort to arraign, try and convict killers, as if they were criminals and not warriors. But by doing the only thing we now can do: Go to war with those who have launched this awful war against us. Over the past few years there has been a nostalgic celebration of "The Greatest Generation" -- the generation that fought for America and for humanity in the Second World War. There's no need for nostalgia now.

That challenge is before us again. The question today is whether this generation of Americans is made of the same stuff.

Please let us make no mistake this time: We are at war now. We have suffered the first, devastating strike. Certainly, it is not the last.

The only question is whether we will now take this war seriously, as seriously as any war we have ever fought, whether we will conduct it with the intensity and perseverance it requires. Let's not be daunted by the mysterious and partially hidden identity of our attackers. It will soon become obvious that only a few terrorist organizations are capable of carrying out such a massive and coordinated strike. We should pour the resources necessary into a global effort to hunt them down and capture or kill them. It will become apparent that those organizations could not have operated without the assistance of some governments, governments with a long record of hostility to the United States and an equally long record of support for terrorism. We should now immediately begin building up our conventional military forces to prepare for what will inevitably and rapidly escalate into confrontation and quite possibly war with one or more of those powers.

Well, it can't really be better expressed than that, now can it. Two criminal attacks and it is a "war against America." Therefore we should respond in kind, and in our outrage over the slaughter of civilians we should accept the fact - maybe even desire it - that some of "their" civilians will be slaughtered. And furthermore this is our chance to do what our ancestors did when they defeated Hitler, and, by the way, as we all know, there can be no question whatsoever about the fact that the Americans were the great "liberators" of Europe (despite Tehran and Yalta, despite our alliance with the Soviets, despite the orders to American generals in Germany at the end of the war to FORBID the passage of Germans from East to West in an attempt to flee Bolshevism before the country was carved up by its new masters, despite Dresden, despite Hiroshima, despite Roosevelt's knowledge of Pearl Harbor - what a great historical period to want to imitate!). Oh yeah, and Israel sure will appreciate the sympathy from our having declared bloodthirsty "war" on all terrorists and their countries - which are, strangely enough, all Arab. What an extremely neat and clean package, this response to the WTC and Pentagon attacks. It almost reads like a screenplay.

What is most under attack, and remains so even to this very moment, is the possibility of a sane response, a Catholic one.

1. A just and measured response is either "treasonous" or it stinks of “pacifism.” 2. The notion that the criminals should be caught, tried, and convicted, like others are treated when we are not "at war," and even as the "actors" on the stage of the NWO are treated (a la Milosevic and his "trial") is thought to be appeasement and compromise. And the suggestion is conveniently dispensed with because, of course, we are at war (how quickly we forget). 3. The suggestion that we, as a nation, take this unique opportunity to examine our collective conscience about how we "run" the world, and how we behave as a nation in the eyes of God, is a non-starter, and it too borders on treason "during this grave time of national crisis!"

<No, the "great stereopticon," as Weaver called the Press, has done its duty. There will be no debate about our country's behavior. There will be no discussion about whether or not we earned God's wrath due to any number of public and official sins. There will be no contemplation of behaving like civilized people while we go to war, purportedly to defend civilization