formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing young people)
June, Vol. 16 No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375 610-401-0614
Editor, John Dunkle
Contraception is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to legal murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasnt jailed you yet for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Email is free, but snail-mail is free only for the PFCs. Five grand for others.
Because I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect innocent people from being tortured to death, I want to hear from folks whove been forceful and from those who defend them. Id also like to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and call it violence.
Prisoners For Christ:
1 Alcius, Marckles, SBI #546381E, Essex County Correctional Facility, 354 Doremus Ave., Newark, NJ 07105
2. Dear, Robert Lewis, CMHIP, 1600 W. 24th St., Pueblo, CO 81003
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
4. Hanson, Christopher 28105-045, FCC (Low), PO Box 9000-Low, Forest City, AR 72336
5. Holt, Gregory 129616 MSU, 2501 State Farm Rd., Tudker, AR 72168-8713
6. Klundt, Zachary Jordan 3016368, 1019 15th Street North., Great Falls, MT 59401
8. Lang, Ralph 605356, P. O. Box 233, Black River Falls, WI 54615-0233
9. Roeder, Scott 65192, ECF, PO Box 107, Ellsworth, KS 67439
10 Rogers, Bobby Joe#21292-017, USP Pollock, PO Box 2099, Pollock, La 771467
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058, US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13 Stout, Jedediah 26133-045, FCI, PO Box 9000, Forest City, AZ 72336
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, FCI PO Box 1000, Cumberland, MD 21501-1000
This computer puts on my send list the addresses of all the emails that I receive. As a result, my contacts are over five hundred and many get the newsletter who dont want it. As soon as I send this one, then, I will eliminate addresses of people Ive never heard from. So, if you want to keep getting it, most of you will have to tell me. This of course doesnt apply to the saints on the left.
Before I post Cathy Rameys argument that supports the pro-life use of force, we will look at Cals response to Kuhns anti- force argument in the May issue.
Dear John, Kathy Kuhns characterizes the pro-life movement as a "war" and draws on the position of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning justifiable war, which rejects the use of force carried out by private individuals. But Aquinas differentiates war from vengeance. According to Aquinas, vengeance (with certain criteria met) falls within the province of even the private individual, unlike war which only falls within the province of those legitimately responsible for the common good.
Aquinas held that "Fortitude disposes to vengeance by removing an obstacle thereto, namely, fear of an imminent danger." See Summa Theologica, Question 108, Article 2 ("Whether vengeance is a special virtue?"), Reply to Objection 2. Hence, under Aquinas it is possible for a private individual to display the virtue of fortitude by using vengeful force to save an innocent young person from summary execution. However, Aquinas clarifies that to be lawful the use of vengeful force must be "chiefly" directed to the good of preventing the innocent young person from being "disturbed," and not chiefly to the punishment of the would-be executioner. See Ibid., Article 1 ("Whether vengeance is lawful?").
So what constitutes an imminent danger?
The Barron's Memo is a U.S. Justice Department memorandum titled Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws and the Constitution to Contemplated Lethal Operations Against Shaykh Anwar al-Aulaqi (a U.S. citizen killed in a drone strike in Yemen). The memo is dated July 16, 2010 and was declassified and first made public June 23, 2014. The memo officially addresses the legal justification of an extrajudicial killing of an American citizen to save American lives from a continued and imminent threat. Extrajudicial means done without having obtained formal legal authorization in advance.
According to the memo, attacks upon U.S. persons can be imminent even when one does not know precisely when such attacks will occur (p. 41); to pose a continued and imminent threat to U.S. persons, it suffices that the individual continues to plot attacks intended to kill Americans (p. 21) or is engaged in continual planning and direction of attacks upon U.S. persons (p. 41); and, the extrajudicial killing of such an individual would be an act of self-defense, not an assassination (p. 28, n. 36).
Though the memo addresses a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen overseas, it does not change the meaning of imminent as it applies to domestic threats. Indeed, it would be highly contradictory to call a threat to U.S. persons or interests imminent when it comes from overseas, but not when it originates here at home in the United States.
One theory is that to allow force to prevent harms contemplated to occur days, weeks, or months in the future stretches the bounds of imminence and immediate necessity beyond the breaking point. In stark contrast, the memo presents a radically different theory which stretches the bounds of imminence and immediate necessity indefinitely.
Even if there is hope that a stay of execution will be granted by legal authorities, the death of a person scheduled for execution remains imminent as long as it is scheduled.
Consequently, no more is needed to prove that a young person's execution is imminent than to show that an abortionist has abortions on his or her schedule. Inasmuch as the schedule is definite, the imminence of the execution remains definite, no matter how far off in time the scheduled execution is to take place. Hence, in view of the Barron's Memo, it is enough to believe someone has abortions on his or her schedule to believe he or she is plotting attacks intended to kill innocent young people.
The Helsinki Declaration is a successor of the Nuremberg code which was established to protect humanity from a repeat of the atrocities committed by medical professionals during the Holocaust. Article 8 of the Helsinki Declaration (2000 version) provides that "No national ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects set forth in this Declaration." (Emphasis added.) This provides international precedent for protecting human subjects despite national requirements to the contrary. Noted is that Article 10 of the latest (2013) version has removed the words "be allowed to," signaling a degradation of global concern that such protections should be enforced by conscientious persons even despite contrary national requirements.
Kuhns recites a number of peaceful gestures that have found some success in liberating Poland from communist rule and, to an extent, abortion. She says the self-defense argument cannot be used for innocent young people scheduled for execution by an abortion doctor because we need to change the laws first which permit such executions, unlike a ten-year-old whose execution the law does not permit.
But in the meantime, innocent young people will be executed without interventions of the vengeful sort which Aquinas describes. So how can there be anything peaceful, pro-life, or non-violent about letting innocent young people be executed when the means to prevent their executions is within our grasp?
Kuhn's idea sounds like "surface pacifism" to me. As a case in point, most of the work of the surface pacifists who call themselves pro-life has been directed not to vindicating the rights of innocent young people but to disentangling themselves from complicity with abortion, as if to wash the surface of the cup. For this reason, they count defunding Planned Parenthood among their great victories, even though innocent young people are executed either way, with or without their funds. Moreover, the solidarity movement she calls for is compromised by the many self-styled pro-life groups which would overturn Roe v. Wade only to let states decide abortion.
Indeed, the only thing these self-styled "peaceful" pro-lifers seem to agree on is the great political importance of washing the outside of the cup. And this makes them good bedfellows with the abortion industry, which quietly washes the cup by clearing their pews of awkward pregnancy scandals. Sincerely, Cal.
Neat email, right? I still dont like calling what Kopp, Hill, Andrews, Terry, Kuhns, I and thousands of others have done vengence. I dont think any of us break the law to get back at the perpetrators of the atrocities; rather, we break the law to stop those atrocities.
As Aquinas clarifies,
to be lawful the use of vengeful force must be "chiefly" directed to the good of preventing the innocent young person from being "disturbed," and not chiefly to the punishment of the would-be executioner. Thanks, Cal
. And the argument about which way we prolifers should go from the top down (first make all murder illegal; i.e., wash the whole cup), or from the bottom up (first make some murder illegal; i.e., start with the outside of the cup) is moot.
But I sure like how Cal clarifies imminent, a word that has stuck in my craw for eons.
Some of us say, yes, an abortionist, a serial killer, may be stopped by a bullet, a knife, an explosive, etc., but only if you get to him as he is about to kill the victim, which is a practical impossibility. That was Fr. Berards and Fr. Rothermels position.
Not all of us say that, for sure. Some, like Kuhns, say that no laws should be broken -- no trespassing, no breaking and entering, no property damage, no wounding or killing, no laws period.
As I say, in the July issue I hope to post part of Catherine Rameys powerful pro-force argument.
As I promised you last issue, heres more of Eric Rudolphs monumental White Lies. It continues from April.
Institutional racism theory assumes that free will is largely an illusion, that your fate is mostly determined by socio-economic conditions, not choices. You cannot choose whether to be a racist, or the victim of racism, any more than a plant can choose the soil in which it grows. Racism enters your white subconscious at an early age and is reinforced throughout your life by a variety of institutions and experiences that come with being a member of the privileged class. It reveals itself through a variety of behaviors that are largely unconscious and unintentional. You might think you treat everyone fairly, yet still be a racist. It takes a trained psychologist or sociologist to spot the tell-tale signs of racism. For example, British diversity consultant Anne OConnor makes her living advising schools on the use of certain colors. Ms. OConnor insists that using reactionary colors, such as white drawing paper, can poison young minds and predispose them to racism. She recommends using more greens and lavenders. In Portland, Oregon, Principal Verenice Gutierrez recently instructed her teachers to stop using the peanut butter and jelly sandwich as an example in the classroom, because it tended to exclude Somali and Hispanic students who might not eat sandwiches. In the Childrens Research Lab at the University of Texas, a team of psychologists has discovered racism in toddlers. Shown photographs of other toddlers and asked whom theyd most like to have as friends, 86 percent of white toddlers chose toddlers of their own race. To these researchers, familiarity becomes racism.
Racism often rears its ugly head in so-called hate crimes, they say. The definition of a hate crime follows the deterministic logic of institutional racism theory: whites attacking blacks out of racial animus, or heterosexual males attacking homosexuals, but never the reverse. The perpetrator must be a member of a privileged class while his victim must be one of the oppressed.
Other than latex paint, sandwich condiments, hate crimes, and babies, we are told that racism reveals itself in disparate impact statistics: higher incarceration rates for non-whites, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and so forth.
Disparate impact is not the result of individual white judges or white doctors consciously discriminating against non-whites; it is caused by the institutional structures of the criminal justice system or the medical system, both of which reflect the fundamental economic inequalities that exist between whites and people of color.
Curing America of racism is therefore not a simple matter of changing peoples hearts and minds. To end institutional racism, we must change Americas institutions. Any significant attempt to eradicate race, gender, and class oppression will require fundamental changes in the ways that wealth is produced and distributed in our society, Professor Rothenberg says. She argues that a genuinely egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity is essential if we are to create a society in which every individual has the chance to lead a life of health and dignity.
On the individual level, whites must adopt a guilty conscience for the crimes committed by their class. In addition, they must learn to accept a whole host of discriminatory policies needed to rectify centuries of oppression. Conversely, non-whites must adopt racial pride and be given preferential treatment through affirmative action, targeted economic development, set-asides, and income redistribution.
By punishing the oppressor class while rewarding the oppressed, we will eventually create parity. How long will the purge last? As long as it takes to eliminate disparate impact. If blacks are 13 percent of the population, then they should account for only 13 percent of the prison population. The fact that over 50 percent of all state and federal inmates are black is evidence of racism. All things being equal, people should end up with equal outcomes. Any statistical disparity indicates the presence of racism. As 13 percent of the population, blacks should also account for 13 percent of all politicians, engineers, professors, doctors, lawyers, and so on. The same formula applies to all the other oppressed groups as well. The result would be the clearest indicator, they claim, that society is on the right track to eradicating institutional oppression.
Social engineers like Wellman and Rothenberg make no secret of the fact that institutional racism theory derives from a neo-Marxist critique of capitalist society. Racism theory evolved from Karl Marxs original theory of historical materialism. Marx theorized that technological innovation and the division of labor, which produced surplus food and merchandise, led to the class system when the few discovered that they could live off the surplus labor of the many.
Civilization took shape around this basic formula of parasitic exploitation. Society divided into classes: the exploiters and the exploited. The exploiters invented private property to monopolize the means of production and pass it along to their heirs. They invented the state to keep the exploited class in subjection, its laws and courts and armies mere instruments of repression.
For the individual man, the division of labor alienated him from his species essence. Man, in effect, became enslaved by the material forces that he created but could no longer control, reduced to a unit of labor to be bought and sold like any other commodity.
Marx called this process historical materialism:
In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a particular stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond particular forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production in material life determines the social, political, and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of man that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. (Emphasis added.)
Historys driving forces therefore are technology, the productive forces, the technical division of labor, which determines the basic structure of the relations of production, Marx said. Marx referred to this as the base. Built on top of the technological-economic base is the superstructure, especially the state, all organized religion, laws, and customs. The superstructure extends over human consciousness itself, as expressed in ideas about morality, religion, philosophy, and art. In other words, all your ideas about right and wrong, God and the Devil, life and death are, in the last resort, class determined.
The class consciousness you were imbued with as a child serves your classs interests. The exploiter class consciousness, namely those beliefs and practices and attitudes used to keep members of the exploited class in subjection, Marx called classism.
Marx wrote, The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. The exploited are locked in eternal struggle with the exploiters for control of the means of production. Every mode of production develops contradictions, which eventually lead to a social revolution. Frederick Engels explains, Since the exploitation of one class by another is the basis of civilization, its whole development moves in a continuous contradiction. Every advance in production is at the same time a retrogression in the conditions of the oppressed class, that is, the great majority. Every mode of production creates the forces that will ultimately destroy it. New classes develop around the new mode of production, giving rise to new contradictions and another social revolution. So history progresses dialectically toward its final form.
In Marxs day (mid-19th century) the mode of production was early capitalism. European society was roughly divided into the bourgeois (exploiter) classes, those who profit by surplus labor, including industrial and commercial capitalists and land owners; and on the other side, the proletariat (exploited) classes, the sellers of their labor, wage earners, and small farmers. Marx claimed that contradictions were already developing within capitalism; a social revolution lay just around the corner. To stay competitive, capitalists must improve their efficiency and produce more goods at lower costs. And wages rise even as workers are forced to work longer hours. To combat rising wages, capitalists lay off workers and introduce labor-saving machinery.
This tends to lower profits as capitalists cannot exploit the surplus labor of machines. New machines are needed, but technological innovation cannot keep pace. Working conditions worsen as capitalists put more of their capital into production and squeeze every last ounce of labor from the workers.
Their wages depressed, the workers cannot purchase the surplus goods on the market, causing more layoffs and a business slowdown (slump).
Capitalism produces an endless cycle of booms and slumps. Eventually, the slumps become so severe that the overworked, impoverished workers will revolt, first in Western Europe (Germany, England, and France) where the capitalist mode of production is most advanced, then spread across the entire world.
The workers in the factories are already situated to seize the means of production. Once accomplished, they will set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, whose task it will be to liquidate the last remnant of the bourgeois class.
Unlike previous social revolutions, the coming conflagration will be the last. With the means of production now in the hands of the proletariat, all class differences will disappear. Since it was nothing more than an instrument of class oppression, the state will likewise wither away. The people will administer the means of production directly. Other than that, there will be no need for laws or government, as crime and poverty will disappear, too. Marx said communism transcends alienation, forever ending the subjection of man by his own works, and man by other men. Under communism, man will finally recover his species essence and enjoy true freedom forever and ever. Amen.
Marx and his followers referred to historical materialism as the laws of history. It was just like the laws of physics. Predicting the advent of communism was like predicting an eclipse. History was inexorably marching toward communism. Those who recognized this fact were said to be on the right side of history.
Marxs predictions never came true. Instead of collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions, capitalism went on to produce unprecedented wealth and prosperity, lifting billions of people out of poverty. Working conditions improved, wages increased, and nowhere did revolution occur in the manner Marx predicted, as a spontaneous uprising of the whole working class, followed by an egalitarian Utopia without laws or government.
It was a devastating blow to the true believers when the working class refused to accept its role as historys chosen people. To the orthodox Marxist, the laws of history had elected the proletariat to lead mankind into Paradise.
Scientific socialism, as Marx called communism, was an emergent of working class consciousness. The revolution couldnt occur unless the proletariat led it; socialism couldnt be built unless the proletariat laid its foundation.
In reality, Marxism was a cult of middle class intellectuals. Marx himself never had an extended conversation with an actual worker. He never set foot in an actual factory. He spent his entire life in libraries reading over dry statistics.
Places where communism did take power (Russia, China, the Third World) were invariably technologically backward, the last countries where Marxs theory predicted socialism occurring. Still in the feudal mode of production, these societies first had to develop an industrial capitalist base along with a proper proletariat before transitioning to scientific socialism, according to the theory. Russian and Chinese socialism looked nothing like the egalitarian paradise described in The Communist Manifesto.
Party elites ruled through terror, secrecy, and propaganda. A philosophy whose stated goal was to liberate mankind from repression and alienation ended up creating the most repressive and alienating societies in history. One might think that Marxisms practical failure would cause its true believers to renounce their faith. Not so. If the facts of science and history and economics proved Marx wrong, So much the worse for the facts! Marxist Georg Lukács said.
After World War I, socialism, formerly an international movement, split into two basic groups: revolutionaries and gradualists. Outside the west, revolutionaries such as V.I. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung went about trying to build socialism through murder and repression, while gradualists in Western Europe and America worked for the piecemeal acceptance of socialism from within capitalist society. Weve already examined Fabianism and progressivism, forms of gradualist socialism, how they played a prominent role in the birth control movement. Neo-Marxism was another successful form of gradualism.
Herbert Marcuse, a seminal neo-Marxist thinker, shared Lukács contempt for the facts. He said we need to get over fact worship. Marcuse became a prominent figure in the Frankfurt School, a group of German communist academics (Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm,
Wilhelm Reich) who escaped Nazi Germany in the 1930s and set up a school at Columbia University in New York. (tbc)
Quote of the Day: "If slavery was still legal, plantation owners would sell euthanized Negroes for body parts, just like Planned Parenthood." Cal
To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoners name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001. Ask the non-feds how they may receive money check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me