perfidy

Please excuse me. I now read that Iraqis have looted the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad, destroying or stealing an estimated 170,000 artifacts.

Well, no biggie. It's only the cradle of Western Civilization.

I have a few cents to spend in the current discussions, but I must collect my thoughts. Just a quick note for Buckethead: pursuant to your posts this weekend, you seem to suggest two things: that it takes sacrifice on the part of a country to break the bonds of tyranny; and that the US is currently the force best equipped to decide when that sacrifice should come, and in what measure. Are you then in favor of a vigorously interventionist foreign policy? You do say as much, so yes, I'm stating the obvious, but are you suggesting that the US would be right to act as the arbiter of truth, freedom, and justice for the world? Notwithstanding our position as the oldest representative democracy on the planet (a 'good thing' (tm)), that seems like as policy it would be a leetle ambitous, not to mention arrogant.

[update]Here is another article about the looting of the Iraqi Museum. This makes me want to cry like a baby. Is it because my wife is an archivist and I'm a historian? When artifacts like these disappear, a little bit of humanity's ties to our past disappear as well. Without the past-- a real, living, accurate, sweaty, noble, ignoble past-- we are cut loose from who we are, and where we came from -- we become nothing more than what we can make up out of our experiences and memories. Sometimes that's a lot. Most of the time, it's wrongheaded, futile, and a little pathetic.

What do all tyrants do first? What is the best way to justify power? What was the entire thesis of "1980"? [update: clearly I meant "1984." See tomorrow's posts to learn the thesis of "1980".] It boils down to this: If you control history, you control people. If we lose the mystifying, cryptic, illuminating, quotidian artifacts of the past, no matter how recent, we have nothing to navigate the world by but hearsay and fairy tale. Sometimes that's all even our best histories amount to, but if the things of the past are gone, we don't stand a chance. Our looking-glass gets darker all the time, and every setback in the efforts to beat back the dark just makes me sad, tired, and discouraged. Dammit anyhow.

In this article by David Brooks, I read about the connection between Nazism and Aflaq. 

MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party. The Baath party is not quite like the Communist parties. It bears stronger resemblance to the Nazi party because it is based ultimately on a burning faith in racial superiority. The revolution, in Saddam's terms, is not just a political event, as the Russian or French revolution was a political event; it is a mystical, never-ending process of struggle, ascent, and salvation. 

There was another article, but I can't find the link. The author was Iraqi. This article mentions how Nasser was a hero of Saddam's. 

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: 

Pan Arabism Nationalist concept of cultural and religious unity among Arab countries that developed after their liberation from Ottoman and European dominance. an important event was the founding in 1943 of the Baath Party, which now has branches in several countries and is the ruling party in Syria and Iraq. Another was the founding of the Arab League in 1945. Pan-Arabism's most charismatic and effective proponent was Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. Since Nasser's death, Syria's Hafiz al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi have all tried to assume his mantle.

Why would a dictatorship of the proletariat be any better than any other kind of dictatorship. Dictatorship: bad. Freedom:good.

This story, from msnbc, talks of the terror camp in the north, and of its connection to Al Quaida. This story, from AP by way of the St. Petersburg Times, talks of the training camp found by the Marines south of Baghdad. This story, from the Herald, gives some background on the Iraqi regime's connections to terrorist groups, even the fundamentalist ones. There have been several reports of possible chemical weapons stores - none confirmed as yet. However, several commentators, including this one, believe that the military is holding off on confirming reports until they are absolutely sure. One thing to keep in mind is that for the last three weeks, the American and British forces have been focused on ass-whupin', not seeking out every hidden facility in a country the size of California. As we move into the next phases of the operation, we will see more reports as military personnel either discover or are tipped off to the presence of these sites. 

I think you're a leetle too hard on Fox News. The fact that they have a bias different from what you're used to does not mean that they are less accurate. I'd put them on par with other cable news, just with a different slant. 

[wik] The Ministry of Future Perfidy would like to inform you that all the links in this post are decades stale, and have been removed.

Ba'ath Party 

When time permits, please explain precisely how you believe Aflaq, and you can throw Gamel Abdel Nassar in there as well, were influenced by the Nazis. Citations a plus. 

Weapons and Camps 

I have not heard about chemical weapons stores. The only camp I've heard about was in the north of Iraq, in nominally Kurdish/U.S. controlled territory. Please elaborate, and citations are a definite plus. If it's Fox News, I don't believe them. Ever. At all. If they told me the sky was blue on a sunny day without clouds I would think them liars. 

To Hitler 

I obviously made up the Cheney-Rumsfeld thing. They never burned down the Capitol, nor did they invade Canada. That was a) the British b) the Fenians. 

Environmentalism 

Your brief mention of Marx in conjunction with environmentalism reminds me that I've recently been complaining about the inclusion of environmentalism into the leftist political umbrella. That's actually counter to Marxist thought. According to Marx, nature exists to be dominated by man, its resources plundered, and the cause of industrialization under the dictatorship of the proletariat advanced. Environmentalism is actually anti-Marxist. 

But of course, not every leftist is a Marxist. But every leftist should be pro-labor. Environmentalism usually runs counter to the interest of labor. Someone has to be paid to cut down trees. Therefore, if a virgin forest is slated for the chopping block, it will create jobs. If environmental restrictions make it such that a factory cannot be built somewhere, the residents of that area will have fewer jobs. Therefore, I submit that environmentalists are in fact anti-labor. They stand in the war of people having jobs. 

Environmentalists who insist on all preservation all the time, even at the expense of employment, are phony leftists. I'm generally sick of their ilk. Veganism affects no one but the vegan. The animals and animal products they don't eat will be eaten by someone else. If a vegan joins habitat for humanity and builds a house, great. But they can't say they're leftists simply because they won't eat a cheeseburger. That little tangent aside, unwavering environmentalism at the expense of labor isn't left-winged. It's just environmentalism. 

Speaking of phony leftism

And now back to false Communism. There have been Communists, but not Communism. There have been Communists since Engels. Stalin, Mao, and Castro, however, weren't three of them. The crux of the issue is global revolution. Stalin, who proclaimed that socialism in one state was legitimate, started the whole thing. On the other hand, his rival Trotsky kept trying to advance the goal of global revolution, as did Castro's associate Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. But there is no such thing, according to the strict letter of Marxist law (as written by Engels), as socialism in one state a la Stalin. The strict letter of the law is that Communism is achieved only once the national boundaries of countries have been eliminated from the map and there is only one governing body across the globe, that is, the global dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolutions start in countries, they finish in a world. 

Marx's only provision for a government was the interim between the onset of revolution and the final stage of the dialectic. During that interim, the vanguard of the proletariat was to steer matters previously tended to by governments, until the global revolution was complete, the means of production firmly in the hands of workers, and the dictatorship of the proletariat assured. Then, there was to be a withering away of the state. But Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example, conveniently forgot about the withering of the state. They did not gradually reduce the state, transferring means of production and control to the workers, but rather increased the role of the state. In other words, they did the opposite of what real Communists are supposed to do. How can anyone really be anything if they do the opposite of what members of that thing are supposed to do? For example, if I said I was a vegan and kept eating the flesh of animals and cheese, I would be doing the opposite of what vegans do, and could not therefore legitimately call myself a vegan. 

There have been Communists, but not Communism. Communists in power, like anyone in power, sought to hold on to their power, thus preventing the withering away of the state. Instead, so-called Communists in power ensured, as Rosa Luxembourg predicated, that, "the dictatorship of the proletariat would become a dictatorship over the Proletariat." Thus the prophecy was left unfulfilled, and Communism never happened. After all, Communism was part political and economic philosophy and part prophecy. Since the ultimate aim was never achieved, Communism was never achieved. Communists tried to bring it about, but they either died before they became dangerous (as in John Reed's case), were exiled and later assassinated with an mountaineer's ice pick (as with Trotsky), or were purged at some point, in numbers too great to even comprehend. 

On other matters 

I'll let other stuff go without commentary from me for now.

Even the most keen and incisive of political minds can be wrong from time to time. It is with some embarrassment and considerable sadness that I report that my previous speculations on which country would next be invaded have proved tragically wrong. The next country is, in fact, us. In these troubled times, there is one source that all thinking observers of the world scene can turn to for completely honest and truthful reporting. That source has revealed that North Korea has, for some time, been planning an invasion of the United States. The Weekly World News has reported that even now, there are thousands of North Korean operatives on our West Coast, cunningly disguised as insurance salesmen and preparing the way for the invincible, 800,000 strong Korean Army that is making its way to California by way of Hawaii in hundreds of Korean Junks. After they seize ships from the American Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, they will be unstoppable. Mike, you will finally have the opportunity to live in a communist worker's paradise. I'm afraid that I will be interned in a reservation much like those used for Indians (sic), only harsher. Most tragically, life for our canine friends is destined to be short as they are destined for the tables of our new Korean overlords.

The WWN also reported that we have seized the Garden of Eden, and are protecting it from Saddam's Republican Guard; and that the CIA is breeding man-eating flies for the war on terror.

According to this story, the middle ages were much warmer than currently. This certainly jibes with my knowledge of history - the little ice age that happened right after the middle ages certainly wasn't the result of industrialization.

Almost 8000 words in three days.

I think we will put a lot more effort into reconstruction in Iraq. Although we have lots of money, it isn't infinite. As long as Afghanistan is not home to terror training camps, it will remain peripheral. Iraq is rather more important.

I think that there is little reason to fear that the new Iraqi government will be worse than Saddam's regime. The stories that are coming out, like the big CNN "we didn't tell you this when it mattered, but…" story, among others - prove that any new regime would have to go to extreme lengths to be worse.

Also, there are reports (sorry, can't find the link) that many of the more recent civilian casualties are the result of Republican guard and secret police pushing people in front, or threatening their families if they don not attack the Americans. I don't think the increase is particularly alarming, except perhaps to CNN.

?? They say, "Here's why we're going to war: WMD, 9/11, Saddam's a repugnant fuckwit." You say, "Why are you going to war?" There doesn't have to be some fevered conspiracy amongst Jewish Neocon Operatives, to set up worldwide American Hegemony. I think they have been straight with us - and are withholding only the plan for reconstruction, and any plans for other targets.

I was referring to the anti war protestors. You explicitly deny that you protest. Therefore my attack on filthy hippies does not apply to you. I think that if we got back to the ideals of 1776 and 1787 and 1865, we'd be a lot better off. For one thing, it would mean that we'd jettisoned all the bonehead Marxist economics that are provably unworkable. And postmodernism would be gone. But, it would mean that we could keep the cool computers and rockets and stuff. 

I never said that our course of action was historically inevitable. Justifiable in terms of a pursuit of liberty or justice, but not inevitable. One important thing to remember, that many don't, is that liberty applies to individuals, not nations. Saddam denies liberty to his subjects. The Iraqi government does not have any right of liberty, that we can never interfere. I don't think that this war is outside the "American Way of Doing Things" - we used similar justifications for the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. 

And yes, your fashion sense is empeccable. You're right, "To Hitler" should be a verb. 

On Trees: thank you very much. I should hope to be in that company. But, speaking of that tree, and of the value of sacrifice, I was moved to think this: (Mike can correct me on the details) The Marxist formulation of value is that only things that labor is the only source of value. Or something close to that. If you work, that produces value, no matter what it was. It seems to ignore a lot of things that truly have value, like liberty, that we should be ready to sacrifice for. Lives are worth that. Both ours, and the enemy's. 

Mike avoided calling a Bush a Hitler, but only by doing it to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sheesh. Saddam hitlered the Baath party, then hitlered the Iraqi people, then hitlered Kuwait. He may have Goeringed, in both senses, but I'm not sure. But I would argue that he is getting Churchilled right now, just like Hitler did. (More properly Roosevelted, I guess, but I like the sound of Churchilled better.) 

Mike, Federalism nowadays is not exactly like the party platform of our first two presidents. It is a euphemism for states rights (sullied by the unfortunate association with slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) with a bit of limited governmentism. You can be a hardcore modern Federalist without accepting any of those ideas - in fact, some of them are rather incompatible with modern federalism. However, #3 is a bit overstated, #4 is backwards, and Hamilton never aimed at Burr, so we never got to find out how dangerous dueling with a Federalist is. 

Johno, the rest of federalism is rendered silly? I should beat you over the head with my annotated Federalist papers. 

Hundreds Slaughtered: The only people around this sad little planet ending things like that over the last fifty years has been the United States. Too bad we couldn't help everyone. The UN is a useless sack of shit. 

The Rave act falls under the same category as Patriot II. Biden is also a useless sack of shit. 

We got 82% of Den Beste's average monthly output? Not bad at all, considering we all have jobs. 

Taliban and Afghanistan - it's a problem, but I think that they are a leetle too backward to easily make the jump to a sane government. Afghanistan has always been more of a geographical abstraction than a nation. Hopefully, though, we can get some more assistance to them. 

To Buckethead, on space exploration - perhaps I could have saved everyone some time and said that it's expensive, and the only way that will change is if it becomes less expensive. 

To Mike on cultural differences: this may all be true, but when a Marine hears someone say, "Allah bless George Bush," it probably means he's happy to see the Marine. 

To Johno on Jeffersonbait: The reason was that, despite posting some rather lengthy pieces, I haven't actually read the page for over a week.