Instructor: Greg Soon Sensei

Modern Movement Through Martial Art Tradition (tm):
Instructor: Greg Soon Sensei

Located @ Moving Body Resources: 112 West 27th Street, 4th Floor (#402), New York, NY 10001

"You may never use the skills you Develop in Training -- for Combat, but the you will utilize the Skills you Develop Here in Your Business, Social and Personal Life." ~Greg Soon


Greg Soon Sensei is a Direct Disciple (Uchi Deshi) of Yamada Yoshimitsu and Sugano Seiichi (who where uchi deshi under the founder of Aikido Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei). His experience covers 27 years in training in the martial arts. He was a competitive foil fencer in high school and trained at the historic Times Square Boxing Gym as a youth boxer. He also studied Judo and Grappling under Olympic Judo coach Teimoc Johnston Ono.
Greg Soon's Martial Art Method and Expertise covers Body and Footwork developed through his years training as a multi-disciplined martial artist.

Friday, December 10, 2010

The Tragic Decline of Business Casual, from Business Week

From: http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/10_42/b4199094714620.htm

The Tragic Decline of Business Casual

Liberal dress policies in the office have led to terrible outfits and terrible looks. Now employers are fighting back

October 7, 2010, 5:00PM EST

Remember the late 1990s and early 2000s, when "casual Friday" was a naughty thrill? How innocent we were. In the past decade those seemingly harmless polo shirts and khakis have spawned a five-day sartorial office free-for-all that's led to low-cut jeans and "tramp stamp" tatoos. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, the most recent data available, 43 percent of workers said they regularly wore casual business attire at the office, up from 32 percent in 2002. Even scarier, the lax precedent has allowed them to make their own decisions about what's acceptable or, worse, cool.

The C-suite is striking back. A survey released in June by the Society for Human Resource Management found that only 34 percent of bosses officially permitted casual dress among employees every day—a dramatic drop from 53 percent in 2002. Some executives are hiring image consultants and fashion experts to crack down on everything from muumuus to Little House On the Prairie-style pioneer dresses. "American society has become so ridiculously casual," says Clinton Kelly, co-host of the Learning Channel's What Not to Wear. The problem, he suggests, may be the lack of office fashion role models. "Outrageous people are getting the most attention now," he says. "Kids coming out of college are watching Lady Gaga on YouTube (GOOG). They don't understand that Lady Gaga is selling albums, and they're in accounting. A meat dress just doesn't fly at the office."

Popularized in Silicon Valley, the casual office look has always had noble intentions. "At Google (GOOG) we know that being successful has little to do with what an employee is wearing," says Jordan Newman, a spokesman for the company. "We believe one can be serious and productive without a suit." That may be the case for engineers dealing with complicated algorithms. However, professional image coach Lizandra Vega remembers meeting a male worker at the New York staffing firm where she's a managing partner. He arrived for a meeting in thin white cotton slacks—and no underwear. "He was," she recalls, "hanging loose."

Even upper management isn't immune to terrible dress habits. Diane Gottsman, owner of the Protocol School of Texas, recalls teaching a business fashion workshop in Houston last year during which she met an executive "wearing a straw paperboy hat pulled sideways," she says. "He had on suspenders and black-and-white spectator shoes. He asked, 'What do you think of my look?' " Gottsman tried to be diplomatic, suggesting he take off his hat indoors. "He couldn't do that," she says. "The hat helped him with his 'swagga.'"

Workers may not like rules, but some need them. A 2002 survey by the recently shuttered department-store chain Mervyns revealed that 90 percent of office workers didn't know the difference between formal business attire, business casual, and just plain casual. However, companies such as General Electric (GE) force them to make these distinctions every day by asking that they "use good, professional judgment," as GE puts it. Ginger Burr, president of Total Image Consultants in Lynn, Mass., recalls a fashion workshop she conducted with a national bank. "We were talking about sandals," she remembers. "There seemed to be a consensus that sandals shouldn't be worn. Then this beautifully dressed female executive walked in wearing sandals, and said, 'We should be able to wear nice sandals.' When you get into personal taste, that's where it becomes tricky."

Sandy Dumont, an image consultant from Norfolk, Va., believes the biggest challenge in overhauling an office worker's wardrobe is avoiding hurt feelings. Her suggestion: Hire a professional image consultant. She was brought in to help a female employee at Rolex who was offending an executive with her "klutzy" footwear—which turned out to be orthopedic shoes. ("She had a slightly deformed foot," says Dumont.) Fearing that a confrontation would offend the woman, Dumont led her on a guided shoe-shopping spree on the company's dime.

Those accustomed to personalized business style aren't taking these changes lightly. "The uniformity of dress serves the current American business model by pressing individuals into the service of the corporate person," says Jack Tuckner, a New York employment attorney who briefly represented Debrahlee Lorenzana, a Citibank (C) employee fired earlier this year for wearing provocative clothing. "It's a largely paramilitary model that eschews independent thinkers," he says. In 2008, Tuckner was sued by a former colleague for allegedly wearing a "bondage collar" at the office. Tuckner denies the allegations. "As a fastidious dresser myself," he says, "I'd be excessively worried about unsightly neckline bulges caused by the lock."

In Britain the concept of business casual is being taken to extremes. The Naked Office, a reality TV series that made its debut in May, asked employees at several businesses to show up for work naked, ostensibly in an attempt to "explore whether flashing the flesh is the ultimate office equalizer"—and boost ratings. Seven Suphi, a behavioral change specialist and author of More Than Men and Make-Up, took part as an expert presenter on the show and says the experiment "had spectacular business results. One business secured their largest deal to date. Another is doing in a month what they previously did in a year." Let us ponder why.

In America, such a radical redefinition of office norms seems unlikely. Carolyn Hawkins, spokeswoman for the American Association of Nude Recreation in Kissimmee, Fla., says even her staff rarely comes to work in the buff. "The AANR's association headquarters is located in a downtown strip mall—no pun intended—with a storefront window," she says. "As practicality and sensitivity to our neighbors dictate, we dress for the workplace. When we return home in the evening we remove the stresses of the workday world by removing our clothes." For the moment, business casual appears to be in no danger of becoming no-pants-casual—but it's still enough to make you pine for the days of khakis and polos.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The Last Institution from July 1997 issue of Crisis Magazine.

From: http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/the-last-institution.html

The Last Institution

cathedral1

Some clichés, like some books,
seem wise when we are young. Most of the D. H. Lawrence I admired when I was twenty sounds pretty silly to me now.

I remember embracing the cliché about the inferiority of institutional religion as opposed to personal "religiousness." In those days, I bought the assumption that institutions necessarily corrupted the vision they originally served. Institutions, I thought, represented a dry husk needing to be separated from the living kernel.

I was encouraged in this deception by existentialist theologians like Paul Tillich. Tillich's famous notion of the Protestant Principle employed St. Paul's distinction between the letter and the spirit to interpret the history of the Church. In his view, the institutional Church inevitably kills the spirit of the Gospel with the letter of ecclesial regulation and clerical bureaucracy.

Hardly anyone reads Tillich anymore, but his arguments are always close at hand. A. N. Wilson, an English novelist who occasionally dabbles in religious commentary, produced a book that accuses St. Paul of corrupting the pure message of Jesus and replacing it with the institutional Church. It's ironic that a Pauline passage ultimately finds its way around to maligning the author. St. Paul, however, was too inspired to simple-mindedly champion the myth of corrupt institutions.

It's ironic, also, that amateur theologians like Wilson can reproduce bad arguments from thirty, even a hundred years ago and create a bestseller. I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts hawking a book about "demythologizing" the Scriptures, as if Rudolf Bultmann had never lived!

Tillich's complaint, like those who echo him, is really against the temporal nature of human existence. It suggests an impatience and ingratitude often mistaken for spiritual wisdom. The so-called words of wisdom go something like this: A vision suddenly discloses itself in time and necessarily fades into a corrupted shadow of itself. Therefore, time is too fluid to contain the certainty of truth -- time and eternity are like oil and water; they cannot be mixed.

Dangerous nonsense! It's like saying the family should not be an institution, that a parent's task of child-rearing should be over at birth. Or like arguing the long and tedious task of raising a child will inevitably do downhill after the joy of birth. Beyond that, it's like saying there can be no Incarnation, no Body of Christ, no Church.


The Church is the institution par excellence. The Church is the historical repository of the truth about God and man, the place where God and man share a real communion through the administration of the sacraments. The Church has been such an institution for nearly twenty centuries. Its ongoing vitalityy bears witness to the presence of the Spirit.

The Church as institution undergirds and informs all other institutions by providing the fundamental rationale for the necessity of institutions in the salvation of man.

Sadly and tragically, these days, the institutional quality of the Church stands out in sharp relief. The Church once enjoyed other institutional allies -- other religions and Christian denominations, colleges and universities, the professions of law and medicine, and various international organizations. Now the Church stands alone for life, the primacy of the family, the objectivity of truth, the natural law, and God's final sovereignty over man. In this sense, the Church has become the last institution on earth.

Some will say that I am overlooking the emerging coalition of Catholics and Christian evangelicals. I am not.

Evangelicals, however, even though they have allied together within powerful organizations (like Focus on the Family), are congenitally wary of religious institutions. For example, Southern Baptists, the world's second largest Christian denomination, insist upon the autonomy of local congregations and reject the observance of a common creed.

The institutional character of our Church is grounded in the universal celebration of the Eucharist. Nothing could give clearer voice to a Catholic's confidence in the fact of the Incarnation and the power of God to enter and to remain present in human history through his Church.

The Church does not need to be shorn from the kernel of the Gospel; St. Paul does not have to be cast aside in order to embrace Jesus.

The Church is the last institution because it continues to bear witness to the truth about human life.

Our creed and the teaching of the Magisterium have provided successive generations with a window on reality. Our witness can be loud and clear because through faith we are no longer prisoners of the dark recesses of our turbulent subjectivity.  No longer prisoners, but bearers of the Gospel light.

This column originally appeared in the July 1997 issue of Crisis Magazine.

The Bollman Hat Co.

https://www.bollman140.com/1860/hat.cfm#story.cfm

©2008 Bollman Hat Company    All rights reserved.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The Wreckers - Tennessee - Studio

The Wreckers - Tennessee

Where were you on December 8, 1980?

Where were you? I was probably watching The Flintstones on TV, until the news came on. I remember watching Nightline in our living room. I don't think I knew who John Lennon was.
http://rememberingjohnlennon.com/
Thanks for taking interest in December 8, 1980: The Day John Lennon Died. In the course of researching this book, I came across so many interesting stories about that tragic day. And I wanted to hear more. So I'm looking forward to checking in and reading your individual experiences.

The Age of Adolescense -- Never-never Land by Victor Davis Hanson Dec. 3, 2010

From: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120310PF.html

December 3, 2010
The Age of Adolescence

Pajamas Media

Never-never Land


One of the great themes of the 1960s was to "do your own thing." But usually "liberation" distilled down to creating your own rules and norms to justify allowing the appetites and passions to run free, while offering some sort of exalted cover for being either gross or mediocre — or both.

The hip generation that came of age talked about a new, perpetually youthful world that would supplant the values and aspirations of a fading bankrupt establishment (e.g., cf. Bob Dylan's "the order is rapidly fading"). And in time the promise of the sixties, in fact, did permeate the last half-century, creating a contemporary culture of perpetual adolescence, of defying norms and protocols without offering anything much in their place.

From Lady Gaga to Iranian Nukes

Witness current events. A 22-year-old PFC Bradley Manning, without much experience, knowledge, or maturity, somehow becomes a "military analyst." (I thought those were 2-star generals, RAND Ph.Ds, decorated colonels, or old Kissingerian National Security Council pros.)

And in our culture without hierarchy and requisites that title apparently allows him — in between downloading Lady Gaga music while in a combat zone in Iraq — to tap into the secret cables of the US State Department, and destroy two decades worth of diplomatic contacts, trust, and friendships.

No matter — you see poor Bradley was also upset, depressed, and he felt underappreciated. In part, that was because his drag-queen boyfriend had recently dumped him. He was, in his own words, "regularly ignored except when I had something essential then it was back to 'bring me coffee, then sweep the floor.' … [I] felt like I was an abused work horse."

Iranian nukes? North Korean missiles? Again, no problem. Bradley, you see, was depressed and in response had the desire and the power to change the global order. (Or in 60s parlance, "who is to say that Bradley doesn't have the right to shut down the diplomatic world?") Even Bob Dylan would be impressed with how "the times they are a-changin'."

Wikicoward

Next, enter one Julian Assange — himself on the lam, avoiding a little sexy horseplay that the uptight Swedish authorities for some reason deemed thus far sexual battery and molestation. Jason is also angry at "them," the Western world that does horrific things like guarantees enough affluence and security for those like Julian to jet about at will without any visible means of support. In the tradition of sixties nihilism, Julian, of course, tries to gussy up his destructive egotistical angst into some sort of cosmic humane call for more transparency and nice behavior on the part of the US State Department and military.

In more earthly terms that means he is supposed to be something more than a two-bit computer punk that he is, one who would be terrified to extend his online liberationist creed to Iranian mullahs, Chinese communists, Hezbollah terrorists, or Russian gang lords. The latter do far more to trample the human spirit than does any Western nation, but they also at times tend to decapitate, blow up, or jail permanently any would-be Julian who dares to cross them.

Anti-Christ

While this is all going on, we have the spectacle of brave curators at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery offering us for Christmas season a new exhibit [1], emblematic of this current post-"piss-Christ"/Andres Serrano age of art.

Its title is coyly encrypted in postmodern bipolarity: "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." And the exhibition apparently is full of Mapplethorpe-inspired gay-related imagery and offers us an image of Jesus being swarmed over by ants. Clever, brave, bold, shocking. Or in the words of the overseers of the federally-subsidized National Portrait Gallery, such artistic courage proves how the gallery is now "committed to showing how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America's promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity."

But once more all that verbiage turns out to be just sixties-ish lingo for about the same old, same old:

  1. Abject cowardice — since if a theme were really religious intolerance, why not portray Mohammed in lieu of Christ, inasmuch as contemporary Islam is far more intolerant of gays and liberated women than the so-called Christian West. Such a video might better exhibit just how "committed" these federal artistic bureaucrats were to "equality, inclusion, and social justice."
  2. Mediocrity — dressing up talentless soft-core pornographic expression with federal catch-phrases and subsidies ensures a venue for junk art that most otherwise would neither pay to see nor ever exhibit.
  3. Politics — all this is supposedly sort of revolutionary, full of neat phrases like "committed," "struggle for justice," "full inheritance," "equality," "inclusion," and "social dignity," and all the empty vocabulary that mostly upscale white nerds like a Bill Ayers employ when they want to tweak and embarrass the gullible liberals who support and pay for their nonsense.

EU Too

On a more global front, we are seeing the children of the sixties deal with debt, as in adolescents buying things even when their parents say they cannot afford them. Sometimes we euphemistically call the binge spending "Keynesian," sometimes "stimulus," sometimes "borrowing." Then when we cannot do it anymore, we look for a "bailout." That means if you are California, a parent like the federal government should print some money; if Greece or Portugal, parents intervene like those automaton Germanic tribes up north who cluelessly love to work rather than enjoy cappuccino from 1-3 each afternoon.

The EU, after all, was a utopian sixties-style project to the core — multicultural (we can by fiat make all cultures equal); nonjudgmental (lifestyles in Greece are just "different" not more laid back or, I dare say lazier, than in northern Europe); dishonest (why be tied down by "their" archaic notions of percentages of GDP, when creative bookkeeping is a revolutionary tool to help the helpless?) — and thus bound to fail. What kept such an anti-democratic, anti-free market, anti-sovereign ruling elite so powerful for so long?

A number of things: free, US-subsidized defense that gave them 2-3% of GDP for social spending right off the top; German industry and greed that, in a two-decade shell game, kept making the money to export luxury goods and machine tools to those who bought on credit at cheap interest with no ability to pay anyone back; shared cheap anti-American rhetoric that replaced former unifying commonalities like Christendom and Western civilization; the work of prior generations who rebuilt Europe through thrift and sacrifice after the war and passed on a workable economy and new infrastructure.

Parents, Please?

Unfortunately, our parents are dead. So who cleans up the messes?

Former Yale Law Dean Harold Koh (author of Can the President Be Torturer in Chief?) now works for Obama and is no longer suing to close Guantanamo, but writing briefs to protect ongoing Predator drone attacks, and shaking a finger at Julian Assange to stop it. Hillary Clinton ("suspension of disbelief") is angry that Bradley Manning leaked information that her subordinates were told to spy on the UN (My God, the UN, no less!).

"not pleased" either.

©2010 Victor Davis Hanson

An Existential Dilemma by Victor Davis Hanson Dec. 8, 2010

From: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120810PF.html

December 8, 2010
An Existential Dilemma

NRO's The Corner


Unemployment is at 9.8 percent, and the figure is even higher when the long-term unemployed and dispirited are added in. What does President Obama do now?

He has already tried massive government spending, borrowing $3 trillion in just 22 months in order to stimulate the economy. He has extended unemployment insurance, taken over corporations, and expanded entitlements — the sort of things the EU countries did that led them to their present reckoning. And yet such infusions of printed money and entitlements have not restored job growth.

Meanwhile, his original economic team — Orszag, Romer, Summers — is leaving or gone. The voters don't believe we are in a real recovery, as the largest midterm correction since 1938 reminds us. He can get no help from his left-wing base — they demand more deficit spending, higher taxes, and more "stimulus," which the president knows would only stall the recovery and alienate the Democrats even more from the electorate.

And yet to adopt free-market remedies — lower taxes, massive spending cuts, less regulation — would require the president to abandon his base, reject 30 years of his own ideological activism, and endure hysterical criticism during the waiting period while those tough-medicine measures kicked in. An equally intolerable solution.

So I guess we're left with the present stasis: Obama will sorta-kinda be forced now and then to concede a point or two to the Republicans, who still do not have the legislative clout to pass rather than merely block legislation. He will vote present a lot, and count on (a) the natural resiliency of the economy to kick back in, especially when business is assured that his own policies are now frozen and cannot be expanded, and (b) Republican budget-cutting to be unpopular, especially when demagogued in them/us class-warfare terms.

And when the Lala-land liberal base gets angry, Obama can privately and quite correctly remind them that he is the best they are going to get, inasmuch as the voters want less of them, not more, all while publicly making flashy liberal appointments and updated hope-and-change speeches on symbolic issues — appearing all the more radical in direct proportion to the insignificance of the appointment or policy.

In other words, the president counts on the fact that his policies have not damaged the economy too much to prevent its partial recovery, and he hopes that he can play ad hoc politics as things get better, taking credit for the good while blaming the opposition for their heartlessness in trimming the budget.

Who knows, it might work for a while.

© 2010 Victor Davis Hanson

C.S. Lewis, the Screwtape Letters -- Screwtape on Pleasure

Screwtape on Pleasure

From: http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/screwtape-on-pleasure.html



A former student of mine, now teaching seniors in a public high school, told me that she briefly reads out loud each day. One book she read was C. S. Lewis's saga of the devil's mind, The Screwtape Letters. I knew that I had a copy, but I had only read parts of it, so I decided to imitate by reading a daily chapter.

I earlier recalled Screwtape's advice to Wormwood, a minor devil assigned to keep a young atheist corrupted. Screwtape told him to watch his reading, for "the young atheist cannot be too careful of the books he reads." Every time I think of that passage, I laugh. Atheists have to be careful lest their open minds corrupt their closed doctrine. Lewis himself is a dangerous read for an atheist; so is Chesterton. Catholics don't usually have the reverse problem. We like to read the atheists to brush up on our logic with their frequent lack of it.

In the Ninth Letter, Screwtape advises Wormwood about how a devil ought (or ought not) to handle pleasure. The classic discussion of pleasure is in Aristotle. Basically, he tells us that every human activity, including thinking, has its own proper pleasure. Pleasure is intrinsic to the act in which it occurs, the pleasure of seeing or smelling. We would want to see or smell even if no pleasure went along with it. The rightness or wrongness of pleasure depends on the rightness or wrongness of the act in which it occurs. The pleasure, as such, is always good, part of the good of creation itself.

Thus, when we do something for the pleasure in the act instead of the intrinsic purpose of the act (its own end), we shift our attention away from what is really going on. In effect, we choose to make pleasure our immediate end, not the act's end in which it occurs. This is as true when we drink beer as if it is not also a food or use contraceptives to "enjoy" the pleasure of sex but ignore the act's own inner purpose.

Just how we manage to do these things is also found in Aristotle. Basically, we use our will to select what we want to do. We suppress a consideration of what the act is about to focus on its pleasure. Then we give a thousand "reasons" why it is all right to do so.

With such background in mind, Screwtape explains to Wormwood why even the devils have to be careful with pleasure. It is much trickier than they realize. The devil is initially in the business not of eradicating pleasure, but of skewering or diminishing it, changing its meaning, isolating it so that, as Aristotle stated, it cannot "blossom" to enhance the normal act for which it is designed.

So Screwtape first advises Wormwood: "Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground." (The Enemy here is God; "we" are the devils.) This is Genesis! Devils can sometimes tell the truth. The fact is -- and this bothers them -- normal pleasure is God-given. This is "mere Christianity," to use Lewis's phrase. The devils know their catechism.

Screwtape admits that the devils manage to win many souls over with the pleasure tactic. Still, "He [God] invented it." By themselves, devils have not managed to produce a single pleasure. What the devils can do -- and this is Screwtape's advice -- is to take those pleasures that "the Enemy [God] has forbidden" (i.e., the Commandments) in the wrong ways, at the wrong times, or in the wrong degrees.

Thus, the devils "always try to work away from natural conditions of any pleasure, to that in which it is less natural, less redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable." What an extraordinary sentence! That sentence alone exposes the folly of most of our favorite sins. And, on top of it all, every mis-location of pleasure ends up being precisely "less pleasurable." This ironic insight is simply the empirical experience of most people, if they would but admit it.

So what Screwtape concludes, rather philosophically, is this: "An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula." The decrease in pleasure is proportion to the deviation of the act from its natural purpose. To accomplish this little deception is, in the devil's view, "better style." The word "style" is in italics in Lewis. How perfect -- the "style" pages!

The great diabolic ambition is "to get a man's soul and give him nothing in return." Screwtape claims this latter feat "gladdens Our Father's [Satan's] heart." What a perfect ending! The logic of the improper use of pleasure is, finally, no pleasure at all. This too is the modern world.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Useful Idiots: BBC World Service


7 July, 2010 - 09:44 GMT
Mao

The phrase 'useful idiots', supposedly Lenin's, refers to Westerners duped into saying good things about bad regimes.

In political jargon it was used to describe Soviet sympathisers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them.

Useful idiots, in a broader sense, refers to Western journalists, travellers and intellectuals who gave their blessing – often with evangelistic fervour – to tyrannies and tyrants, thereby convincing politicians and public that utopias rather than Belsens thrived.

In part one John Sweeney looks at Stalin's Western apologists.

In part two he explores how present day stories of human rights abuses across the world are still rewritten.

Part One

Useful Idiots - Part One Listen 22 mins

In 1952 Doris Lessing, a British writer who has since won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was part of a delegation visiting the Soviet Union.

Her memories of the trip are clear and unforgiving:

"I was taken around and shown things as a 'useful idiot'... that's what my role was. I can't understand why I was so gullible."

She was not the only one. The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw and American journalist Walter Duranty were some of those people who also visited the Soviet Union.

They mingled with political leaders, were escorted into the countryside by Joseph Stalin's secret police, and returned home to speak and write of 'a land of hope' with 'evils retreating before the spread of communism'.

However as stories mounted of mass murder and starvation in parts of Russia and the Ukraine, reporters such as Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge investigated and reported on 'the creation of one enormous Belsen'.

Duranty responded with an article in the New York Times headed 'Story of the famine is bunk', and got an exclusive interview with Stalin.

Soon after, Jones died and Muggeridge's career nose-dived. Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer.

How can intellectual curiosity transform into active promotion of a dangerous lie? Why so many 'useful idiots'?

First broadcast on 4 August 2010

Part Two

Useful Idiots - Part Two Listen 22 mins

The journalist and historian Jonathan Mirsky, who has written extensively on China, describes former leader Chairman Mao as:

"He had an enormous impact on China – but he was a monster… and…responsible for the deaths of 40 million people."

But the veteran British politician Tony Benn argues that Mao played a significant role in building China's global importance and economic power - and that his actions - both good and bad - must be seen in historical context.

From Mao's China, General Pinochet's Chile, Apartheid-controlled South Africa, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, to President Ahmadinejad's Iran, why – and how – have so many supposedly intelligent people been manipulated by dictators into saying good things about bad regimes?

First broadcast on 11 August 2010


~ Via Mobile ~

Reprint: Waking Up From the Pill -- NY Magazine

From NY Magazine: http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/69789/

Waking Up From the Pill

Fifty years ago, birth-control pills gave women control of their bodies, while making it easy to forget their basic biology—until in some cases, it's too late.


On a cold night in mid-October, a couple hundred bejeweled women in gowns file into the Pierre with their dates for a very special 50th-birthday party. Before retiring to a three-hour lobster-and-steak dinner in the hotel's main ballroom, they collect oversize spoons of foie gras as Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" blasts from overhead speakers in a robin's-egg-blue reception room, with a bar festooned with the kind of miniature silver stars that teachers give exemplary students. Neat stacks of East Village party napkins with illustrations of women in vintage clothing rest next to rows of Champagne glasses, each with a different quip at the bottom: "Let's ignore our mother's well-meant advice," says one; "She thought of him fondly as 'Plan B,' " says another; and a wide-eyed Lucille Ball covers her mouth with a yellow-gloved hand in shock at some mishap on the next, asking, "Has anyone seen my hormones?" In the middle of the room, on a tall pedestal, there's an enormous cake, with lettering that spells out ONE SMALL PILL. ONE GIANT LEAP FOR WOMANKIND. ONE MONUMENTAL MOMENT IN HISTORY.

Yes, the birth-control pill, approved by the FDA in 1960, is the "birthday girl" at tonight's gala, which is sponsored by Israeli company Teva Pharmaceutical, the biggest maker of generic drugs in the world. Medications don't usually have their own black-tie events—there aren't galas for antibiotics, or chemotherapy, or blood thinners—but the Pill, after all, is so much more than just a pill. It's magic, a trick of science that managed in one fell swoop to wipe away centuries of female oppression, overly exhausting baby-making, and just marrying the wrong guy way too early. "The Pill created the most profound change in human history," declares Kelli Conlin, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, grabbing the mike on a small stage draped with black curtains dotted with a larger version of the same silver stars from the bar. "Today, we operate on a simple premise—that every little girl should be able to grow up to be anything she wants, and she can only do so if she has the ability to chart her own reproductive destiny."

A series of toasts follows, from Kate White, the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, who talks about "vajayjays," to Dr. Ruth, who, though considerably shrunken from her heyday in the mid-eighties, still giddily declares that tonight's event is "better than sex!" Even the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger has stopped by to collect his award, an "honorable mention." "What a treat!" says Alexander Sanger, jumping onstage. "You know, Margaret thought two or, at the outside, three children was the exact right number. Now I'm fourth of six. When my mom told Margaret the news, there was a long pause as she did the math. Then she said, 'You've disgraced me. I'm going to Europe.' " The crowd laughs loudly. "And let me add one thing," says Sanger, his voice rising triumphantly. "I think it's time we had a male Pill also. I'd like to be around for that pill's 50th birthday!"

It's an endless parade of speakers, actually, with the hullabaloo lasting until 10 p.m., including a slideshow of female icons—Jackie O., Wonder Woman, Murphy Brown, Hillary, Oprah, Sarah Palin—and a constant stream of jokes from buoyant mistress of ceremonies Cybill Shepherd, in a red off-the-shoulder pantsuit that could be from her Moonlighting days. "When I grew up in Tennessee, everything I learned about sex my mother told me," she says, wiggling this way and that. "She said, 'It's disgusting, and you'll hate it, and whatever you do, don't do it before you get married.' Did I mention 'disgusting'?" She shakes her head. "Nevertheless, I became sexually active as a teenager. One day, my mom took me to my family doctor. He wrote something on a prescription pad and said, 'Take one of these every day, and all your periods will be regular.' " She laughs heartily. "What a thrill! He didn't even tell me it was birth control."

Shepherd pauses for dramatic effect. "Can you imagine how different my life would have been if I hadn't gotten the Pill?" she says. "In the South in the sixties, you had limited choices—you could be a wife, a mother, a nurse, or a teacher. If you were really lucky, Miss America." She cocks her head. "Wasn't I Miss America? There's a lot I can't remember. Oh, right, Model of the Year." Soon, she passes the mike to The Daily Show's Samantha Bee, who raises yet another glass. "Today, even though we have pills for everything—to make you calm, make you sleep, and engorge your genitals beyond comprehension—you, the Pill, are so important," says Bee. "So here's to my tiny daily dose of freedom, and also estrogen and progesterone. A combination of the three, really." She smiles, a little bit knowingly. "Interestingly, it's the freedom that causes the bloating."


Even if it is laid on a little thick, there's no question that these women are right: The Pill changed the world. These days, women's twenties are as free and fabulous as they can be, a time of boundless freedom and experimentation, of easily trying on and discarding identities, careers, partners. The Pill, which is the most popular form of contraception in the U.S., is still the symbol of that freedom. As a young woman, you feel chic throwing that light plastic pack of dainty pills into your handbag, its retro pastel-colored wheel design or neat snap-to-close box sandwiched between lipstick and cell phone, keys and compact. It's easy to believe the assurances of the guests at the Pierre gala that the Pill holds the answers to empowerment and career success, to say nothing of sexual liberation—the ability to have sex in the same way that guys always have, without guilt, fear, or strings attached. The Pill is part of what makes one a modern woman, conferring adulthood and cool with the swipe of a doctor's pen. "I started taking the Pill when I was a freshman in college, before I even was having sex," says Sahara, 33. "Everyone else was doing it, so I wanted to do it, too."

The Pill is so ingrained in our culture today that girls go on it in college, even high school, and stay on it for five, ten, fifteen, even twenty years. It's not at all out of the ordinary for a woman to be on the Pill from ages 18 to 35, her prime childbearing years. While it is remarkably safe, almost like taking a vitamin, that's a long time to turn one's body into an efficient little non-procreative machine. The Pill (and other hormonal methods of birth control, like the patch and the ring) basically tricks your body into thinking it's pregnant. The medicine takes control of your reproductive processes, pulsing progesterone and estrogen to suppress ovulation. On the Pill, every woman's cycle is exactly the same, at 28 days, even though that is rarely the case in nature, where the majority of periods occur every 26 to 32 days but can take up to 40 or even 50 days. This is a nice effect, but it's not real. And there's a cost to this illusion, one that the women at the Pierre weren't discussing.

The fact is that the Pill, while giving women control of their bodies for the first time in history, allowed them to forget about the biological realities of being female until it was, in some cases, too late. It changed the narrative of women's lives, so that it was much easier to put off having children until all the fun had been had (or financial pressures lessened). Until the past couple of decades, even most die-hard feminists were still married at 25 and pregnant by 28, so they never had to deal with fertility problems, since a tiny percentage of women experience problems conceiving before the age of 28. Now many New York women have shifted their attempts at conception back about ten years. And the experience of trying to get pregnant at that age amounts to a new stage in women's lives, a kind of second adolescence. For many, this passage into childbearing—a Gail Sheehy–esque one, with its own secrets and rituals—is as fraught a time as the one before was carefree.

Suddenly, one anxiety—Am I pregnant?—is replaced by another: Can I get pregnant? The days of gobbling down the Pill and running out to CVS at 3 a.m. for a pregnancy test recede in the distance, replaced by a new set of obsessions. The Pill didn't create the field of infertility medicine, but it turned it into an enormous industry. Inadvertently, indirectly, infertility has become the Pill's primary side effect.

And ironically, this most basic of women's issues is one that traditional feminism has a very hard time processing—the notion that this freedom might have a cost is thought to be so dangerous it shouldn't be mentioned. Earlier this decade, there was an outcry when the American Society for Reproductive Medicine commissioned an ad campaign on New York City buses featuring a baby bottle fashioned as an upside-down hourglass (around the same time, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist, made headlines with a suggestion that women would be better off having their kids in their twenties and entering the workforce a half-dozen or so years later). The National Organization for Women called the city bus ads a "scare campaign." NOW's president even wrote an editorial claiming that "women are, once again, made to feel anxious about their bodies and guilty about their choices."


The Pill should be defended from attacks. An absurd fight is beginning on Capitol Hill to try to boot it from the category of "preventative care" in the health-care bill—"as though the Pill isn't the very definition of preventative care," says Vanessa Cullins, vice-president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood, drily. In its intimacy, the Pill and its consequences are hard to talk about in public: The publicist for the Pierre gala confesses that she's never had a harder time booking celebrities for an event than this one, and the stars that do attend, like AnnaLynne McCord, of the CW's 90210, can be heard wondering what they should say on the red carpet. "Should I be honest about this?" McCord whispers to her publicist before confessing publicly that she went, alone, to Planned Parenthood for birth-control pills against her family's wishes at age 17. "I don't want any of my fans to go through what I had to go through," says McCord, blinking rapidly. "So tweet me, guys, if you want to talk."

But there's also no reason not to talk about the more complex changes long-term use of the Pill has wrought, instead of finger-pointing over compromising women's choices. After all, these days, there's not as much pressure to procreate as one may imagine. Most mothers, who were at least tangentially part of feminism's early waves, know better than to stress women out about when they're having children, even if an aunt puts her foot in her mouth from time to time. And, of course, bosses would rather women were around all the time, thumbing their BlackBerrys in the off-hours. "There's a strain of feminist thought that's still trapped in the mind-set that the male patriarchy wants women pregnant and has been withholding things like abortion and contraception from them because of it," says Liza Mundy, author of Everything Conceivable, a comprehensive book about fertility treatments in America. "To me, that's a laughably simplistic view of the world."

The whole point of the Pill from the beginning has been population control. Even though America was consuming more than 50 percent of the world's resources in the late fifties (with 6 percent of the world's population), eugenicist fears of the developing world's excessive procreation ran rampant during the Cold War. According to Andrea Tone's fascinating history of contraception in America, Devices and Desires, Cold War–era birth-control proponents used the terms family planning, birth control, and population control interchangeably. Women's rights weren't the primary impetus to approve the Pill, but they were part of the package, too, of course. "The Pill symbolized the redemption of science," writes Tone, "showing it capable of developing a technology to stabilize a world order that it simultaneously threatened to destroy."

The Pill wasn't the world's first attempt at contraception. Egyptians fashioned vaginal suppositories for themselves out of crocodile dung and gum, West Africans used plugs of crushed root, and Greeks in classical times coated their cervices with olive oil. Casanova even wore condoms made of animal intestines, though he reported that he was revolted by "shut[ting] myself up in a piece of dead skin to prove I am perfectly alive." Some women even relied on the rhythm method, though they had the science wrong: For years, the medical community thought ovulation occurred during menstruation. It wasn't until the twenties that everyone realized that women are fertile in the middle of their cycle, not at the end.

In nineteenth-century America, home-brewed abortifacients made from pennyroyal were eventually replaced by an amazing array of contraceptives made from Charles Goodyear's vulcanization technology, like mass-produced condoms, IUDs, and "womb veils," as diaphragms were called at the time. But this freedom was not to last for long. By the 1870s, in the midst of the burgeoning social-purity movement, the delivery of contraception through the mail was abolished, and there were crackdowns on prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, enforced by the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, backed by powerful New Yorkers like J. Pierpont Morgan and Samuel Colgate. These laws remained in force from 1873 till 1918, during which time women relied primarily on a black market of diaphragms and cervical caps. Then in the fifties, Sanger recruited a scientists at work on infertility problems to help her achieve her dream, the Pill.

When the Pill was finally approved in 1960, American women embraced it immediately. In the sixties, the high doses of estrogen in the original pills may have been responsible for a disturbing spate of blood clots and the size of many women's bosoms—the sale of C-cup bras increased 50 percent during the decade, as many Joans and Peggys popped their medicine—but these days, there are few blood clots with most pills and rare side effects with the "mini-Pill," made only of progesterone. It's unfortunate that the Pill doesn't protect against STDs, but as a matter of medicine, it's a triumph, with very few serious drawbacks.


Some versions of the Pill even reduce acne, soften the experience of painful periods, and significantly decrease the chance of endometrial and ovarian cancer (when a woman ovulates less, her cells divide less). This October, Bayer, the biggest maker of contraceptives in the world, even came out with Beyaz, a Pill that includes the same folic acid that women who are trying to conceive are supposed to take every day to reduce the incidence of some birth defects—just in case the Pill doesn't work. But forget a male Pill: With the high cost of clinical trials, the lack of interest in upending cultural norms, and the need to make a pill with zero side effects (after all, this Pill is being taken by a man), this formulation hasn't gone much beyond forays in the mid-sixties, when a male Pill, tested in Oregon prisons, turned men's eyeballs red when combined with alcohol.

With the pill's relative safety today, it's suprising that so many women still complain of side effects. Women's blogs like Jezebel are swarming with women who attribute a whole host of side effects and medical problems to the Pill, most of which are most likely unrelated (though there may be some loss of libido with the Pill, which ties up the body's free testosterone). Earlier this decade, when women were offered the chance to eliminate menstruation with extended-cycle pills like Seasonale and Seasonique, which promise the visit of "Aunt Flo" only four times a year, not many women chose to take it. (The period a woman gets on the Pill is artificial—it's just the withdrawal of the Pill's hormones—and there is no medical reason for it.) That's amazing: Who would have ever imagined that women would turn down the chance to abolish periods?

The reason for this may be that women are half-consciously rebelling against the artificiality of the Pill's regime. Removal from one's true biological processes was more appealing in the Mad Men era, when machines were going to save the world and pills could fix everything, even the ennui of housewives. But for the wheatgrass-and-yoga generation, there's something about taking a pill every day that's insulting to one's sense of self, as an accomplished, adult woman. "I feel like I've gotten a message over the years that the less I have to do with the nitty-gritty biological stuff of being a woman, the better, and that's a weird message," says Sophia, 35, who was on the Pill for fourteen years. "In my ninth-grade health class, I remember the teacher saying, 'You can get pregnant any day of the month, so always use protection,' and I kind of knew that wasn't true, but because I was on the Pill, I never really cared about finding out the right answer. The Pill takes a certain knowledge away from you, and that knowledge is empowering."

The Pill didn't create the field of infertility medicine, but it turned it into an enormous industry.

Consequently, a cult market has cropped up catering to women in the process of rediscovering their bodies when they go off the Pill. There are ovulation kits, though they carry a hefty price tag ($30 for a pack of seven tests, while Viagra is covered by health insurance—how revolting), and Whole Foods carries a set of plastic beads with colors that indicate when a woman is fertile and when not, called CycleBeads, a collaboration between a private company and Georgetown's Institute for Reproductive Health. CycleBeads use a twelve-day "fertile window," because even though an egg is able to be fertilized for only 24 hours, sperm can last up to five days inside a woman's reproductive tract—though a more realistic estimate of a woman's true fertility window is more like three days, certainly for women whose fertility is declining because of age.

But the most popular new natural method is the Fertility Awareness Method (FAM)—a more sophisticated version of the rhythm method—which was popularized by fertility guru Toni Weschler, a mellow, soft-spoken 55-year-old from Seattle. "Oh, I'm not a guru," she says, calling from the West Coast. "I'm just a regular Josephina." Weschler doesn't have any kids—"I am an unadulterated weenie," she says, giggling, "I can't deal with a splinter, so I don't know how I would handle taking care of a kid who banged his head"—but she's devoted herself to helping women start their families or just get in touch with their bodies. In some ways, her 400-page book Taking Charge of Your Fertility has become the Our Bodies, Ourselves for our time. Alternately silly, whimsical, and exhaustingly specific, the book was published fifteen years ago and is ranked higher by customers on Amazon than all other books except the third and fourth Harry Potters.

Weschler's method is precise, though it requires some organization. Every day, women have to take their temperature first thing in the morning with a basal body thermometer and then monitor their "cervical mucus," which, in addition to being a great name for a riot-grrrl group, is one of the best signals of impending ovulation (monitoring your "cervical position," which Weschler advises doing in a squatting position, is optional). All this information is written down on "the chart," a piece of paper with a series of boxes that looks like a primitive Excel document. Cervical mucus (or fluid, the word that Weschler prefers) means that estrogen has risen dramatically and ovulation is about to occur. A rise in temperature tells a woman that she has ovulated. A sudden drop means a period is about to begin.

"There's no reason for girls to have to worry about getting their period in gym class at school, or for women to be worried about wearing their white pants," says Weschler. "There is no mystery here. If you take your temperature, you will know when you've ovulated and when you get your period." She sighs. "Think about a woman who gets pregnant accidentally when she's on the Pill, because she missed a few pills: How come she doesn't know that if she feels a lot of fluid, which I like to call 'egg-white cervical fluid,' her estrogen is rising, and one of the eggs hasn't been suppressed? In fact, she's about to release it. For no other reason, all women should know that, so they can say, 'Oh, dear, my estrogen seems to be rising, something is wrong.' "

You're not going to find anyone, male or female, who isn't a little grossed out by the words egg-white cervical fluid, but it's just basic biology. "The egg-white stuff is just my body preparing for ovulation, which is the time to hop into bed," says Barrie, 35, a FAM enthusiast. "It's the glue that transports the sperm into my uterus."

To arrive at the stage when one stops taking the Pill and starts timing one's ovulations is to enter a new and anxious universe. After that, if you're unlucky, you may enter a kind of medical and bureaucratic purgatory of doctors' waiting rooms and insurance companies and worries that's very far indeed from the freedom you enjoyed before.

On the Pill, it's easy to forget the truths about biology. Specifically, that as much as athleticism or taut cheekbones are, fertility is a gift of youth. The body that you wake up with after fifteen or more years on the Pill is, in significant ways, not the one you started out with. With age, body rhythms change. Cystic conditions, endometriosis, and a whole host of complicated ailments are more common. And whatever "irregularities" a woman may have experienced in her teenage years before going on the Pill will likely be around when she goes off it. "Some women who come off the Pill in their thirties are surprised that it takes a few cycles to get their periods back, or that they may have very long cycles, or cycles without ovulation," says Jill Blakeway, founder of acupuncture center Yinova near Union Square and a co-author of the cult book Making Babies. "The Pill didn't create these problems: In most cases, the problems were there all the time, but because they were on the Pill, these women were never motivated to deal with them. And now they have a time issue."

But the biggest issue for aging women, of course, is that over time, their stockpile of eggs becomes depleted, and the ones they still have are not of top quality. Fifty percent of women over 35 will fail to get pregnant over the course of eight months, and after that the odds keep dropping.

And as it turns out, it's difficult to predict how hard it will be for any given woman to conceive. "We don't completely know what determines who is fertile and who is not," says Dr. Jamie Grifo, the compassionate, plainspoken program director of NYU Langone's Fertility Center. "The only test is trying to get pregnant and getting pregnant. That's it."

For women who have spent so much of their lives pressing the off button on their bodies while on the Pill, it's upsetting to learn that there's no magic pill that causes instant impregnation. (The same is not the case for men: With the advent, in the nineties, of a technology that can fertilize an egg with a single sperm, almost every man can be a father.) In fact, fertility doctors have a surprisingly small suite of options for women who are having trouble conceiving—and very few that don't involve the risk of multiple births. There's Clomid, a neurological drug that encourages ovulation and can trick a woman's body into making more than one egg a month; a bioengineered follicle-stimulating hormone, originally synthesized from the urine of postmenopausal nuns, which also makes the body produce multiple eggs; and in vitro fertilization (IVF), or test-tube babies, which has been the gold standard of infertility treatments since 1978 (the British doctor who pioneered it received the Nobel Prize this year).

IVF has never been more effective than it is today, but cycle by cycle, it still fails more than it succeeds. NYU has one of the best IVF programs in New York—the other is the Weill Cornell Medical Center, part of New York–Presbyterian—and its success rates put it near the top in the country. But a look at these rates should give one pause. In a single cycle of IVF, about 64 percent of 30-year-old women wound up with a child. At 35, 47 percent were successful; at 40, only 28 percent; at 43, only 13 percent; and at 44 and over, it's 2 percent.

Many women try IVF four or five times, hoping for a successful cycle; even when it is unlikely, getting pregnant becomes an obsession. Insurance companies rarely cover the costs, which run up to about $15,000 per cycle including medication—a shortsighted policy, as they are on the hook for covering any preterm costs for multiple births, which are much more likely when financially struggling patients transfer three or more embryos in hopes of finally achieving success. Patients also need to factor in possible costs for donor eggs, surrogates, or adoption, which usually runs into the tens of thousands. Adoption is also a more difficult prospect now than it has ever been in American history, with far fewer infants available to adopt these days, since China, Vietnam, and Guatemala are effectively closing their borders (like Angie and Brad, many parents are turning to Ethiopia).

All of these decisions involve heartbreak and stress, and it's easier to pretend that the clock isn't ticking. "I've got 44-year-olds who show up in my office after trying two months and say, 'I don't understand, my gynecologist told me I was fine,' " says Grifo. "Now, he didn't say, 'You're going to be fertile forever.' But they didn't hear that part—they heard the part where he said they're healthy. And for these women, if IVF doesn't work, it's very hard to recover. They have to grieve and mourn and make a life. These women, the 44-year-olds, are the ones that struggle the most, because they are so angry. And they're angry at one person, but they won't admit it. They're angry at themselves."

Sexual freedom is a fantastic thing, worth paying a lot for. But it's not anti-feminist to want to be clearer about exactly what is being paid. Anger, regret, repeated miscarriages, the financial strain of assisted reproductive technologies, and the inevitable damage to careers and relationships in one's thirties and forties that all this involve deserve to be weighed and discussed. The next stage in feminism, in fact, may be to come to terms, without guilt trips or defensiveness, with issues like this.

Choice is a more accurate word when the chooser—us—is aware of all the possible consequences of taking different possible paths. But reality has a hard time getting into these areas, let alone the Brave New World of infertility medicine. Women have certainly come a long way—and this, a sense of reality about these most fundamental of issues, may be the next stage. "The fear of reproductive-rights groups is that if you regulate or say no to procedures like reducing a twin to a singleton after IVF, or whether extra embryos should be thawed, it will chip away at the fundamental concept of choice when it comes to abortion," says Liza Mundy, the author. "These groups might want to say no to some of these, like sex selection of embryos, because that might privilege boy babies or girl babies. But if they say no to sex selection, does that mean they're not pro-choice?" She sighs. "The easiest thing for them to do is not engage with any of this."

The Pill may seem to promise eternal youth, but doctors have only middling odds of recapturing fertility when a woman has crossed into early middle age. There's an easy answer to this conundrum, even though it's a little weird: freezing eggs in one's twenties. The technology has come a long way in the past five years, and women with frozen eggs now have a very good shot at successfully thawing and implanting them later in life. In 2009, NYU had a baby born from a woman who froze her eggs at 38, and it's now posting the same rates of success with frozen eggs as it does with embryos frozen during IVF.

That may be the world to which many are heading—even more medicalized and technologized, where all women freeze their eggs and submit to assisted reproductive technologies, and with it, more complicated choices and questions that bioethecists love to hash over. Even Carl Djerassi, one of the inventors of the Pill (before he became a Stanford professor, playwright, and sci-fi novelist), has suggested that all forms of birth control will eventually become obsolete and the Pill "will end up in a museum." In his imaginings, girls and boys will deposit their eggs and sperm in a reproductive bank to be frozen at 20 or so and then get sterilized. They'll want to do this because genetic diagnoses of embryos will become increasingly sophisticated, and no one will want to risk having a child with birth defects, let alone a child of an unpreferred gender or one predisposed to a hairy back. When these people want to have children, either one or six, at 30 or 60 years old, they'll make a withdrawal from the bank.

But that's a long-term vision, a place that few of us will ever see—even if we want to. In the shorter term, Djerassi once wrote, "many a woman in our affluent society may conclude that the determination of when and whether she is ovulating should be a routine matter of personal information to which she is entitled as a matter of course."

Now he tells us.


The United States is a Marxist Country by Fr. John A. Hardon

The Influence of Marxism in the United States Today

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

From: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Communism/Communism_002.htm

As the title of our conference indicates, we plan to cover two areas of an immense subject: first, to see something of what is Marxism, and then reflect on its influence in the United States.

On a personal note, I should say that I began reading Karl Marx at the age of fourteen. I have taught graduate courses in Marxism; and have given lectures in Moscow on two lengthy occasions. Most personally, members of my own family have died under Communism in the profession of their Catholic faith.

What is Marxism?

In order to do justice in answering this question, suppose we identify what I consider the fifteen principal marks of Marxism, You might compare them to the four marks of the Church founded by Christ. Marxism is a godless religion in which its leaders believe, shall I say, with a faith comparable to that of believing Christians.

The best single source to understand Marxism is the Communist Manifesto. The best single analysis of Marxism is the encyclical on Atheistic Communism by Pope Pius XI in which he identifies Marxism as a "Utopian Messianism,"

1. Messianic Ideal. According to Karl Marx, mankind should look forward to the attainment of a Messianic society in this world, which is the highest ideal toward which the human race can tend. The attainment of such a society presumes man's perfectibility, and is based on the belief that the human desire for happiness will be fulfilled on earth in some future period of history.

2. Equality and Fraternity. This idyllic society will be distinguished by the practice of perfect equality and fraternity among its members. It will be the last stage in a series of five stages of human development, reflecting the original state of man in a tribal and communitarian society, namely slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. In the first three of these stages, men exploit one another; in the fourth (socialism) they are passing through an interval of adjustment; and in the fifth (communism) the classless society is achieved.

3. Economic Progress Through Marxism. Confirmation of the myth of Marxism is the remarkable material progress already attained in places where its ideology has been put into practice. It is, therefore, no longer a merely speculative position but an established fact that a Marxist philosophy succeeds where others had failed.

4. Dialectical and Historical Materialism. According to all its philosophers, Marxism is founded on two kinds of materialism, the dialectical and historical. It is materialism because it claims there exists only one reality, matter. It is dialectical because through the interaction of opposing material forces all apparently higher forms of being evolve – first life, then sentient beings, and finally man. It is historical because, now that man exists, human history follows the same evolving pattern towards higher perfection, but uniquely through the interaction of the material (economic) forces of society.

5. Accelerating Progress Through Conflict. Consistent with its stress on dialectics, Marxism holds that the progress of humanity toward its predicted goal is accelerated by human conflict. Hence the role of revolution as a necessary means of fostering social development and the importance of sharpening the antagonisms which already exist or can be stimulated between various classes of society.

6. Marxist Deviation. There is only one "grave sin" in Marxian morality. It is committed by those who deviate from the ideal of relentless revolution. Within the Marxist camp, left and right are measured by the degree of departure from or conformity to this need for violence as the precondition for an eventual warless society.

7. Primacy of the Group. The individual in a Marxian society surrenders his personal rights in favor of the group. He does this, after long indoctrination, on the conviction that part of the contribution toward the eventual rise of a classless commonwealth is the complete sacrifice of his own personality,

8. Equality Among People. In man's relations with other individuals, Marxism holds that only absolute equality is legitimate. It rejects all civil and ecclesiastical authority as grounded on the will of God, and denies any innate authority of parents over their children. What people call authority or subordination is derived from the community as its source and only foundation.

9. Denial of All Property Rights. Not without reason did Marx and Engels state in their Communist Manifesto that "The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." They meant it to be taken in absolute literalness. In Marxian ethics, no individual should be granted any rights over material goods or the means of production. This is because history has shown that private property is the universal source of further wealth, and personal possession gives one man power over another. All forms of private property, therefore, must be eliminated because they are the origin of every economic enslavement.

10. The Artificial Institutions of Marriage and the Family. Since Marxism denies any sacred or spiritual character to human life beyond the merely economic, it logically claims that marriage and the family are purely civil and, in fact, merely artificial institutions. They are the outcome of an outmoded economic system. There are no moral bonds of marriage. There are only such privileges as the collectivity may see fit to grant persons to mate and procreate, for the sake of the collectivity and subject to its conditions. An indissoluble marriage bond may be humored by the state, but it has no inherent rights before the civil law.

11. The Emancipation of Women. Marxism is especially characterized by its rejection of any link that binds women to the family and the home. Women's emancipation is proclaimed as a cardinal principle of the socialist interim that will usher in the classless society of the future. Women are to be first encouraged and then, if need be, compelled to withdraw from the family and the care of children. These are regularly stigmatized "bourgeois" activities, Liberated from household chores and the rearing of a family through thousands of childcare centers, women are to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as men.

12. No Parental Rights in Education. Correlative with the function of women as robots (Russian for "work"), the collectivity assumes the total responsibility for the education and training of children. The euphemistic statement in the Manifesto, "Free education for all children in public schools," has been implemented to mean that the state alone has the right to educate. In practice, this has further meant that the state, and not the parents, has the exclusive prerogative to determine who shall teach, under what curriculum, with what textbooks, and how the matter is communicated. The previous mandate of the Manifesto (number 10) should be joined with another mandate (number 6), that is, "Centralization of the means of communication. . . in the hands of the state."

13. Economics, the Basis of Society. In the Marxian scheme of society, economics is the fundamental law of human existence. It is not freedom, or human rights, or a divinely established moral order, or the pursuit of happiness, or the service of God, but uniquely the advancement of the economic system. Greater production of material goods, more efficiently, in a more collectivized manner – this is the bedrock of a society's well being. This must be given precedence over everything else; as everything else mentioned must be subordinated to technological productivity.

14. The Collectivity Controls the Individual. Six of the ten principal "measures" of the Manifesto affirm in clear language how completely Marxism sees the individual as a tool in the hands of the state: "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; abolition of all rights of inheritance; centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of... an exclusive monopoly; centralization of the means of... transport in the hands of the State; extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; equal liability of all to labor; establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." State totalitarianism could not be more complete or the subjugation of individual to the "common plan" devised by the collectivity.

15. Disappearance of the State. According to Marxist predictions, this tyrannical enslavement to the State is the necessary radical surgery which must be performed on society in order to give birth to a new society – never before dreamed possible in the history of mankind. Synonyms are accumulated to describe this prophetic vision. It will be a society in which "the public power will lose its political character"; a society in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." For the time being, during the period of socialism, the state dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary. But, by means of the Marxist revolution, the proletariat will be "abolished in its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association" in which all conflicts are gone.

The United States is a Marxist Country

In the light of what we have just seen, can anyone doubt that the United States has been deeply infected by Marxism. However, I believe we can say even more. Our country is a Marxist nation, Dare I say still more? The United States of America is the most powerful Marxist country in the world.

This thesis deserves not just another lecture, or even just a semester of class. It should be the bedrock of our understanding of what the Vicar of Christ is telling us. As we come to the close of the twentieth century, we are seeing the gravest crisis in the history of Christianity. In my judgment, at the center of this crisis is the deep penetration of Marxism into our beloved country.

In order to do some justice to a gigantic subject, let me just choose two of the fifteen hallmarks of Marxism, and see how deeply they have penetrated American society. I focus on the emancipation of women and the denial of parental rights in education.

Emancipation of Women. Also known as women's liberation, the emancipation of women has become a major revolution in the United States. Its avowed purpose is to free women from the discrimination to which they have been subject in civil society and in political legislation. It argues from a massive discrimination of women by men, and urges women to revolt against men. The best known proponent of this ideology was Nikolai Lenin, a disciple of Karl Marx, who urged that, "The success of a revolution depends upon the degree of participation by women." On these terms, women's liberation is simply part of the larger struggle for the eventual creation of a classless society.

The range of women's liberation in our country is as broad as American geography and as deep as our present-day American culture. Perhaps the best way to see how widely feminism has penetrated our society is to quote some typical statements of feminists who call themselves Catholic but have been seduced by Marxism.

  • Bearing and raising one's children ...have very little to do with shaping the future and still less with finding one's own identity. On the contrary, as the same range of potential ability exists for women as for men, the problem of finding their identity is precisely the same – it lies in their work outside the home – a woman cannot find identity through others – her husband, her children. She cannot find it in the dull routine of housework. The only way for a woman ...to find herself, to know herself as a person, is by creative work of her own.

  • Women are not to find ways to use their full capacities and work creatively within the structure set by marriage and motherhood. It is marriage and motherhood which must be adapted to the structure of one's work life.

  • Although the new wave of feminist theology is only twenty years old, it has already developed a broad base of critical scriptural studies, revisionist church history, historical systematic theology, as well as work in ethics arid pastoral psychology, upon which to base a comprehensive rethinking of tradition.

  • Of particular importance ...is the patriarchal bias of Scripture. It is one thing to critique the tradition as flawed, but on what basis can one speak of Scripture as distorted by sexist bias and still regarded as an authoritative source of revelation?

  • Women have opted ...to seek an egalitarian society that existed before the rise of patriarchy and that ancient religions centered in the Goddess reflect this prepatriarchal society ....They believe, in the groups persecuted by Christianity, such as medieval witches, which Christian inquisitors falsely described as "devil worshippers." Thus these women ,..see themselves as reviving an ancient feminist religion.

Thus the litany of feminist quotations could go on for literally hundreds of volumes that are currently in print. What has been the result in the United States? Inclusive language in the liturgy is only a minor effect of Marxist feminism which has penetrated the Catholic Church. In one diocese after another, women, dare I say it, are in charge. One of the most devastating effects of this radical feminism has been the breakdown of literally tens of thousands of once dedicated religious women who decided they were sick and tired of being dominated by a male hierarchy, especially by a male Bishop of Rome. I think it is worth quoting from the Foreword to Donna Steichen's book Ungodly Rage.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta has said, "Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness." This book is about darkness. Its pages document one of the most devastating religious epidemics of our, or any other, time – an infectious and communicable disease of the human spirit for which there is no easy cure, and which afflicts not only the "carriers", but nearly all religious believers – including our children, the future of the human race and the future of the Church. The book should be read attentively by all who are concerned about or responsible for the religious welfare and spiritual development of others.
This disease, the source of the "ungodly rage" of the title, has a name: "feminism".

It is no wonder that Pope John Paul II urged American bishops to combat what he termed a "bitter, ideological" feminism among some American Catholic women, which he said has led to "forms of nature worship and the celebration of myths and symbols" usurping the practice and celebration of the Christian faith. The ordination of women to the priesthood is infallibly excluded by the Catholic faith. Yet it is being widely promoted in some high, professedly Catholic circles as evidence of the Marxist mentality in our country.

Denial of Parental Rights in Education. Some years ago, I had the privilege of publishing a thirty page Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia. The opening paragraph of this document stated:

The Soviet school, as an instrument for the Communist education of the rising generation, can, as a matter of principle, take up no other attitude towards religion than one of irreconcilable opposition; for Communist education has as its philosophical basis Marxism, and Marxism is irreconcilably hostile to religion. "Marxism is materialism," says V. I. Lenin; "as such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as the materialism of the Encyclopaedists of the eighteenth century or the materialism of Feuerbach."

How has this philosophy penetrated the United States? So deeply that most Americans have only the faintest idea of what is going on in our schools. William Foster, former American chairman of the Communist party, wrote in Toward a Soviet America that he wanted the "cultural revolution" to be advanced under the aegis of a national department of education.

That is exactly what the National Education Association lobbied for during the 1976 presidential campaign, and a Department of Education is exactly what the American president gave the union in gratitude for its support.

Foster wrote that the Department of Education should be "revolutionized, cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology – The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society."

What happened to parents' rights to educate their children? In less than a quarter century, these rights have been lost by most parents in the United States. Most of the once Catholic schools in America have been closed. This manuscript is being written in an empty Catholic school, once taught by dedicated women religious who have been beguiled by Marxian ideology.

Parents who courageously teach their children at home are being subjected to inhuman pressures, not only by State but by Church authorities.

Some time ago, I was asked by Rome to write a series of articles on John Dewey, the atheistic genius who is commonly regarded as the father of American education. According to Dewey, the idea of "God" represents a unification of ideal values that is essentially imaginative. In other words, God does not exist, except as a projection of our imagination.

That is why religion, which believes in the existence of a personal God is excluded by American law from public schools. That is also why Catholic schools in our country have been deprived of any government support. According to Dewey, it is a mistake to think that in the United States we have separation of Church and State. No, says Dewey, in America we have the subordination of Church to State.

On these premises, what is left of parents' rights in the education of their children? Nothing, except what a Marxist government allows the parents to teach.

I would like to close with a paraphrase of what Pope Pius XI told us in his classic encyclical on Communism. He was speaking to professed Christians. Specifically, he was addressing "those of our children who are more or less tainted with the Communist plague. We earnestly exhort them to hear the voice of their loving Father. We pray the Lord to enlighten them that they may abandon the slippery path which will precipitate one and all to ruin and catastrophe. We pray that they may recognize that Jesus Christ our Lord is their only Savior, `for there is no other name in heaven given to man whereby we must be saved. "'

I join my prayer with that of the Bishop of Rome, that Jesus will save our beloved country, which has become so deeply infected by the plague of Marxism.

Copyright © 2003 Inter Mirifica