By Bill Van Auken, wsws.org

Monday’s resignation of Joseph Ratzinger—Pope Benedict XVI—as head of the Catholic Church provoked statements of surprise and concern within ruling circles internationally.

These sentiments expressed by US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many others were not motivated fundamentally by any preoccupation with the personal fate of the 85-year-old Ratzinger.

Rather, what worries governments and financial elites is that the resignation is another indication of deep-going crisis within the Roman Catholic Church, one of the most critical bastions of social and political reaction worldwide.

A resignation by a sitting pope is unprecedented in the modern era. The last individual to voluntarily abdicate was Pope Celestine V, who quit after five months in 1294, declaring himself incompetent for the job. With the few exceptions of those forced out, every other pope has remained as head of the Church until death.

Ratzinger’s stated Monday that his deteriorating health had created an “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

On Tuesday, however, the Vatican spokesman clarified that “Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to resign is not due to ill health but the inevitable frailty that comes with aging.” He added, “His general health was normal for a man nearing 86 years of age.”

Speaking to reporters in Germany, the pope’s brother, George Ratzinger, also said that his brother was “relatively well.” He pointed to concerns other than health.

“Within the church a lot of things happened, which brought up troubles, for example the relationship to the Pius Brotherhood or the irregularities with the Vatican, where the butler had let known indiscretions,” he said.

The reference to the Pius Brotherhood involved the ultra-right wing Catholic order founded by the French archbishop Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre in virulent opposition to Vatican II, the ecumenical council convened in the early 1960s in an attempt by the Church hierarchy to make some adaptations to the political, social and cultural transformations of the post-World War II era.

Lefebvre and the Pius Brotherhood were identified with the most extreme forms of political reaction, defending the fascist regimes in Vichy France, Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal, as well as the military dictatorships of Jorge Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile. In France, it backed the ultra-right wing nationalist Jean-Marie le Pen and strongly opposed immigration from Muslim countries.

Ratzinger, who had participated in and initially supported Vatican II, also became a determined opponent, particularly of those within the Church who cited its decisions to promote “liberation theology” in Latin America and elsewhere. He worked to reintegrate the Pius Brotherhood into the Church, lifting the ex-communication of four of its surviving bishops in 2009.

Then in the midst of this rapprochement, the Swiss head of the Pius Brotherhood, Bishop Bernard Fellay made a public speech describing Jews as the “enemies of the Church.”

Perhaps of more serious concern in the issues raised by Ratzinger’s brother is the so-called Vatileaks scandal involving internal Vatican documents, letters and diplomatic cables that were allegedly taken by the pope’s butler and leaked to Italian journalists.

These documents pointed to financial corruption in Vatican contracts and bitter divisions over measures being taken to comply with an investigation into money laundering by the Institute for Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank.

Included in the documents was a letter warning of a plot to murder Ratzinger. Mentioned in the letter was Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy See’s secretary of state and the Vatican’s second most senior figure. Sections of the Italian media cast the letter as proof of a bitter power struggle between the Italian wing of the Church and the German and Polish wing, which has held the papacy for the past 35 years.

At his trial, the butler, Paolo Gabriele, claimed that he had leaked the documents to fight “evil and corruption.” Sentenced by an Italian court in October 2012 to 18 months in prison for theft, he was turned over to the Vatican and pardoned by the pope after two and a half months.

The scandals swirling around the Vatican bank and the Church’s finances recalled nothing so much as the exceedingly brief reign of John Paul I who died suddenly just 33 days after being selected as pope. The mysterious death has been linked to an investigation into the Vatican Bank’s relations with Banco Ambrosiano, in which it was the major shareholder. That bank, involved in illegal financial operations and linked to both the Mafia and the secret and fascistic P2 lodge, suffered a multi-billion-dollar collapse in 1982.

The other major crisis hanging over Ratzinger was the ever-growing wave of sexual abuse charges brought by people molested and raped by priests in both the US and Western Europe. The revelations of both rampant abuse of children and the systematic cover-up of these crimes by the Church hierarchy has contributed to the rising alienation of Catholics from the Church. At the same time, it has fueled the Vatican’s financial crisis, with hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly from the Church in the United States—one of the principal sources of Vatican funding—going to financial settlements with the victims.

Ratzinger not only presided over the Church’s handling of the sex abuse scandals while pope, but had been placed in charge of handling the issue by his predecessor Karol Wojtyla, “the Polish pope.” At the time, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the successor institution to the Inquisition.

His ferocious pursuit in that capacity of “liberation theologists” and anyone within the Church questioning dogma on matters such as contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, papal infallibility and celibacy for priests earned him the nicknames of “grand inquisitor” and, in German, the “Panzerkardinal.”

He was a bitter opponent not just of Marxism, but of all forms of philosophical materialism and the Enlightenment. He propagated backwardness and reaction, particularly in Europe, which he saw as the cultural heartland that was being lost to Catholicism. In the midst of the devastating economic crisis, he preached a renunciation of “materialism” and “sacrifice.”

In one of his last international tours, he visited both Mexico and Cuba, successfully lobbying their governments to dismantle barriers that were placed against the Catholic Church—historically the bulwark of oppression and reaction—by the revolutions in those countries. In Cuba, where the Vatican has functioned as a spearhead for the penetration of European and particularly Spanish capital, Ratzinger preached the efficacy of “market reforms.”

In the discussion of who will be Ratzinger’s successor, to be selected by the College of Cardinals made up largely of his appointees, it has been suggested that the next pope could be African.

Whether or not this happens, the suggestion itself is highly political and has an obvious precedent. In 1978, the Church tapped Wojtyla to serve as the first Polish pope at the outset of a deep-going crisis that was to lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Stalinist bureaucracies in Eastern Europe. Under Wojtyla’s papacy, the Church played an active role in this process. In particular, it worked to ensure that the powerful upsurge of Polish workers, which developed under the banner of the Solidarity movement, remained under the thumb of the Catholic Church and did not develop in an independent socialist direction.

The suggestion that an African could be picked as Ratzinger’s successor is intimately bound up with the turn by US and French imperialism and their NATO allies toward a new scramble for Africa aimed at using military force to impose neo-colonial control over the continent’s markets and resources at the expense of their rival, China.

by Stephen Lendman

In April 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI. At the time he said:

“Dear brothers and sisters. After the great Pope John Paul II, the Cardinals have elected me, a simple and humble worker in the vineyard of the lord.”

He hid his dark past. More on that below.

On February 11, he announced he’ll step down. He’s the first pope to do so since Gregory XII in 1415. Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said he “took us by surprise.”

He’s 85. His energy and health deteriorated. It did so “to the extent that (he) had to recognize (his) incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to (him),” he said.

“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom (he) declare(d) that (he’ll) renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

At 7PM on February 28, it’s official. His office will remain open until a successor is chosen.

He was born on April 16, 1927 in Bavaria. It was six years before Hitler took power. At age 14, he joined his youth movement. Doing so influenced his authoritarian character.

Post-WW II, he studied theology and philosophy. In 1951, he was appointed to the priesthood. In 1953, he earned a doctor of theology.

In 1957, he qualified as a University of Munich theology lecturer. He taught Church dogma until 1981. He rose in its hierarchy.

From 1962 – 1965, he participated in the Second Vatican Council. He served as council theologian. In 1977, he was appointed Munich archbishop and Freising.

Three months later, he was named cardinal. In 1981, John Paul II asked him to become supreme guardian of the faith in Rome.

As Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith head, he was hardline, inflexible, and uncompromising. He served as “grand inquisitor.” He rigidly enforced reactionary positions. He challenged clerics opposing them.

In 2004, the Congregation published a 37-page “Letter on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and the World.”

It defined women’s role in terms of virginity, marriage, motherhood, and supporting family male heads of households. It cited Genesis 3:16, saying:

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

He incurred opposition from many churchgoers. Most bishops objected. He waged war on liberal ideology. He drove left-of-center theologians out of the priesthood.

He rejects modernity, enlightenment, and democratic values. He deplores social struggles. His word view is authoritarian.

In 2000, he prepared a paper titled “Dominus Jesus.” John Paul II approved it. It asserted Roman Catholicism supremacy. Doing so offended Christians and non-Christians alike. It said:

“Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ, a single Catholic and apostolic Church.”

He was ordained at age 24. He’s ideologically and politically hard-right. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he opposed reform. John Allen’s book “Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith” discussed him, saying:

“Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism.”

“In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes.”

As cardinal and pope, he opposes Marxism, liberation theology, liberal morality, ordaining women, permitting priests to marry, homosexuality, masturbation, birth control, abortion, stem cell research, diluting top-down authority, and Vatican II’s softening of traditional orthodoxy on salvation outside the Church, ecumenical relations, and liturgical rites.

He enforces dogma on papal infallibility. He serves as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was the Inquisition’s successor institution.

He prohibits liberation theology. He bans, censors and/or excommunicates liberal clerics. Doing so got him nicknamed “grand inquisitor.”

Ahead of his election, he said all religions outside Roman Catholicism are “defective.” He denounced what he called “the dictatorship of relativism.”

He was Pope John Paul II’s closest theological advisor. He helped elect two previous popes. He and other pontiffs exercise dictatorial powers.

Their decrees have final say. They’re considered infallible. Pontiffs govern any way they wish. They appoint major Church hierarchy officials they prefer. They consider themselves above reproach. Others disagree for good reason.

Pedophelia scandals occasionally erupt. Times never change. Misconduct is longstanding. In 2004, John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s (JJCCJ) Professor Karen Terry et al published a report commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It was based on Catholic diocese surveys. They covered the period 1950 – 2002. They showed under age 18 molestation occurs in:

“more than 95% of dioceses and approximately 60% of religious communities.”

“Of the 195 dioceses and eparchies that participated in the study, all but seven have reported” at least one offending priest.

“Of the 140 religious communities” surveyed, “only 30 reported” no abuses. Doing so doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Given the reluctance of victims to come forward, it’s virtually certain many other incidences took place.

Thousands of children were harmed. Most were 11 – 17 aged boys. Hundreds of priests were involved.

The problem is global. In 2010, widespread child sexual abuse surfaced. It’s especially common in Europe, North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.

Coverup is commonplace. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was involved. As Benedict XVI, he swept abuse under the rug. He wanted wrongdoing suppressed.

On March 28, 2010, Marquette University Professor of Moral Theology Daniel C. Maguire headlined “Why Pope Benedict Must Resign,” saying:

“Pope Benedict XVI now faces a major hypocrisy test. He has been accepting resignations from bishops around the world who failed to take action against priest rapists.”

“It is now no longer in dispute that he himself is guilty of the same criminal negligence….”

“He has no moral right to hide behind Vatican walls.” Today’s “perfect storm” includes the pope, “a Vatican cardinal, two members of the Papal Apostolic Delagature, three Milwaukee archbishops, and (what’s usually overlooked) the collusion of the local police and District Attorney.”

Benedict VXI prioritized “protecting the church from scandal.” It doesn’t matter how many boys are harmed. Better them than the Church. It’s been that way for centuries.

Pedophelia is a crime against humanity. Benedict and other top Vatican officials are complicit. Putting them in the dock is warranted. Legal immunity doesn’t wash.

Wrongdoing is indefensible. So is coverup. The Vatican has centuries of skeletons in its closet. Benedict has plenty of his own.

In January 2012, Vatileaks exposed high-level corruption. Documents were leaked to Italian journalists.

In May 2012, Gianluigi Nuzzi’s book titled “His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI” revealed confidential letters and memos between him and his personal secretary, Paolo Gabriele.

Papal finances, bribes, other corruption, and abuse of power were disclosed. Benedict called accusations “exaggerated” and “gratuitous.”

Gabriele was hung out to dry. He was arrested, tried and convicted. He got 18 months in prison. He was ordered to pay legal expenses. On December 22, 2012, Benedict pardoned him. Perhaps he’d already decided to step down.

In his book “God and His Demons,” Michael Parenti confronted the religious right, saying:

“The god of the Holy Bible – so much adored in the United States and elsewhere – is ferociously vindictive, neurotically jealous, intolerant, vainglorious, punitive, wrathful, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sadistic and homicidal.”

“As they say, it’s all in the Bible. Beware of those who act in the name of such a god.”

“Were we to encounter these vicious traits in an ordinary man, we would judge him to be in need of lifelong incarceration at a maximum-security facility.”

“At the very least, we would not prattle on about how he works his wonders in mysterious ways. In fact, ‘biblical Jesus qualifies quite well as founder and forerunner of an intolerant Christianity.”

“That ‘old-time religion’ is still very much with us and having a considerable impact on U.S. political life.”

Parenti was unforgiving. He challenged iconic religious figures. He exposed their dark sides. He included Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and Tibetan Buddhism.

John Paul II “remained up to his ears in counter-revolutionary politics in Latin America and elsewhere,” he said. He “directed no critical attacks against right-wing dictatorships.” He called them “bulwarks against communist revolution.”

He intervened on behalf of Chilean despot Augusto Pinochet. At the time, he was under house arrest in London.

Mother Teresa jetted around the world “against divorce, abortion, and birth control.”

Her so-called clinics and hospitals were poorly run hospices. Medical care was lacking. Hunger and malnutrition were widespread. She could have done plenty to help but abstained.

Tibetan Buddhism’s reputed beneficence was exposed. “Religions have an age-long relationship not only with violence but also with economic exploitation,” said Parenti.

It “necessitates” violence, he added. Roman Catholicism is rife with it. It predates the Inquisition and Crusades. It’s commonplace today. So is “cashing in on heaven.”

Greed isn’t just good on Wall Street. Holy See self-enrichment comes at the expense of followers.

Religion serves reactionary political goals. “Backed by moneyed interests, the right-wing Christian media propagate free-market corporatism, militarism, and super-patriotism.”

Religion and politics mix. Roman Catholicism and other hard-right religions spread ideological extremism to mass audiences. Media scoundrels give right-of-center views air time. Liberal theologians are shut out. Fundamentalism is triumphant.

“In the mind of theocrats,” said Parenti, ” ‘religious freedom’ means the right to roll back secular culture and impose a monochromatic belief system upon everyone.”

Parenti urges fighting back, saying:

We need to “roll back the theocratic aggrandizement while strengthening our right to entertain our beliefs and disbeliefs openly and with impunity.”

“Only secular strength and organized democratic activism on our part will counter the sectarian intolerance and state-assisted tyranny of reactionary theocrats.”

Benedict XVI represents the worst of them. Expect more of the same from his successor. It’s longstanding policy. It’s the Vatican way.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/vatican-changing-of-the-guard/

By William Blum – Published February 7th, 2013
American Foreign Policy – Have our war lovers learned anything?

Over the past four decades, of all the reasons people over a certain age have given for their becoming radicalized against US foreign policy, the Vietnam War has easily been the one most often cited. And I myself am the best example of this that you could find. I sometimes think that if the war lovers who run the United States had known of this in advance they might have had serious second thoughts about starting that great historical folly and war crime.

At other times, however, I have the thought that our dear war lovers have had 40 years to take this lesson to heart, and during this time what did they do? They did Salvador and Nicaragua, and Angola and Grenada. They did Panama and Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and Iraq. And in 2012 American President Barack Obama saw fit to declare that the Vietnam War was “one of the most extraordinary stories of bravery and integrity in the annals of military history”. 1

So, have they learned nothing? When it comes to following international law, is the United States like a failed state? The Somalia of international law? Well, if they were perfectly frank, the war lovers would insist that the purpose of all these interventions, and many others like them, was to keep the atheists out of power – the non-believers in America’s god-given right to rule the world – or to at least make life as difficult as possible for them. And thus the interventions were successful; nothing to apologize for; even the Vietnam War achieved its purpose of preventing that country from becoming a good development option for Asia, a socialist alternative to the capitalist model; precisely the same reason for Washington’s endless hostility toward Cuba in Latin America; and Cuba has indeed inspired numerous atheists and their alternatives for a better world.

If they were even more honest, the war lovers might quote George Kennan, the legendary State Department strategist, who wrote prophetically during the Cold War: “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” 2

But after all these years, after decades of American militarism – though not a day passes without some government official or media acolyte expressing his admiration and gratitude for “our brave boys” – cracks in the American edifice can be seen. Some of the war lovers, and their TV groupies would have us believe that they have actually learned something. One of the first was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in February 2011: “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”

And here’s former Secretary of State George Shultz speaking before the prestigious Council of Foreign Relations last month (January 29): “Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be the template for how we go about” dealing with threats of terrorism.

A few days earlier the very establishment and conservative Economist magazine declared: “The best-intentioned foreign intervention is bound to bog its armies down in endless wars fighting invisible enemies to help ungrateful locals.”

However, none of these people are in power. And does history offer any example of a highly militaristic power – without extreme coercion – seeing the error of its ways? One of my readers, who prefers to remain anonymous, wrote to me recently:

It is my opinion that the German and Japanese people only relinquished their imperial culture and mindset when they were bombed back to the stone age at the end of WWII. Something similar is the only cure for the same pathology that now is embedded into the very social fabric of the USA. The USA is a full-blown pathological society now. There is no other cure. No amount of articles on the Internet pointing out the hypocrisies or war crimes will do it.

So, while the United States is busy building bases and anti-missile sites in Europe, Asia and Africa, deploying space-based and other hi-tech weapons systems, trying to surround Russia, China, Iran and any other atheist that threatens American world hegemony, and firing drone missiles all over the Middle East I’m busy playing games on the Internet. What can I say? In theory at least, there is another force besides the terrible bombing mentioned above that can stop the American empire, and that is the American people. I’ll continue trying to educate them. Too bad I won’t live long enough to see the glorious transformation.

Afghanistan: Manufacturing the American Legacy

“A decade ago, playing music could get you maimed in Afghanistan. Today, a youth ensemble is traveling to the Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall. And it even includes girls.”

Thus reads the sub-heading of a Washington Post story of February 3 about an orchestra of 48 Afghan young people who attended music school in a country where the Taliban have tried to silence both women and music. “The Afghan Youth Orchestra is more than a development project,” the article informs us. For “the school’s many international donors, it serves as a powerful symbol of successful reconstruction in Afghanistan. And by performing in Washington and New York, the seats of U.S. political and financial power, the orchestra hopes to showcase what a decade of investment has achieved.”

“The U.S. State Department, the World Bank, the Carnegie Corporation and Afghanistan’s Ministry of Education have invested heavily in the tour. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul awarded nearly $350,000 footing most of the estimated $500,000 cost. For international donors, the tour symbolizes progress in a country crippled by war.”

The State Department’s director of communications and public diplomacy for Afghanistan and Pakistan declares: “We wanted Americans to understand the difference their tax dollars have made in building a better future for young people, which translates into reduced threats from extremists in the region.”

“There’s a lot of weariness in the U.S. and cynicism about Afghanistan,” said William Harvey, an American violinist who teaches at the school, where 35 of 141 students are girls. “What are we doing there? What can be achieved? These concerts answer those questions in the strongest way possible: Cooperation between Afghanistan and the international community has made it safe for young girls and boys to learn music.”

There can be no question that for the sad country of Afghanistan all this is welcome news. There can also be little doubt that a beleaguered and defensive US foreign policy establishment will seek to squeeze out as much favorable publicity as possible from these events. On the issue of the severe oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan, defenders of the US occupation of that desperate land would have you believe that the United States is the last great hope of those poor females. However, you will not be reminded that in the 1980s the United States played an indispensable role in the overthrow of a secular and relatively progressive Afghan government, one which endeavored to grant women much more freedom than they’ll ever have under the current Karzai-US government, more probably than ever again. Here are some excerpts from a 1986 US Army manual on Afghanistan discussing the policies of this government concerning women:

“provisions of complete freedom of choice of marriage partner, and fixation of the minimum age at marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men”
“abolished forced marriages”
“bring [women] out of seclusion, and initiate social programs”
“extensive literacy programs, especially for women”
“putting girls and boys in the same classroom”;
“concerned with changing gender roles and giving women a more active role in politics”. 3

The US-led overthrow of this government paved the way for the coming to power of Islamic fundamentalist forces, which led directly to the awful Taliban. And why did the United States in its infinite wisdom choose to do such a thing? Because the Afghan government was allied with the Soviet Union and Washington wanted to draw the Russians into a hopeless military quagmire – “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War”, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser. 4

The women of Afghanistan will never know how the campaign to raise them to the status of full human beings would have turned out, but this, some might argue, is but a small price to pay for a marvelous Cold War victory.

Guantánamo Bay

People on the left never tire of calling for the closing of the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The fact that President Obama made the closing a promise of his 2008 campaign and repeated it again in the White House, while the prison still remains in operation, is seen as a serious betrayal. But each time I read about this I’m struck by the same thought: The horror of Guantánamo is not its being open, not its mere existence. Its horror lies in its being the site of more than 10 years of terrible abuse of human beings. If the prison is closed and all its inmates are moved to another prison, and the abuses continue, what would have been accomplished? How would the cause of human rights be benefitted? I think that activists should focus on the abuses, regardless of the location.

The War on Terror – They’re really getting serious about it now

For disseminating classified materials that exposed war crimes, Julian Assange is now honored as an official terrorist as only America can honor. We Shall Never Forget 9/11, Vol. II: The True Faces of Evil – Terror, a graphic coloring novel for children, which comes with several pages of perforated, detachable “terrorist trading cards”. Published by Really Big Coloring Books Inc. in St. Louis, the cards include Assange, Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Ted Kaczynski, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Bill Ayers, and others. 5

Superpower – the film

Starring Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Michel Chossudovksy, Karen Kwiatowski (Pentagon “defector”), William Blum, Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita), Kathy Kelly, and many others: https://vimeo.com/55141496 (enter password when prompted: barbarasteegmuller) – 2 hours long.

New Book and talk

The eagerly awaited (I can name at least three people) new book by William Blum is here at last. “America’s Deadliest Export – Democracy: The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else” is made up of essays which are a combination of new and old; combined, updated, expanded; many first appeared in one form or another in the Anti-Empire Report, or on my website, at various times during the past ten years or so.

As mentioned in the book, activists like myself are sometimes scoffed at for saying the same old things to the same old people; just spinning our wheels, we’re told, “preaching to the choir” or “preaching to the converted”. But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign policy tells me it just ain’t so. From the questions and comments I regularly get from my audiences, via email and in person, I can plainly see that there are numerous significant information gaps and misconceptions in the choir’s thinking, often leaving them unable to see through the newest government lie or propaganda trick; they’re unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that illuminates the present; or knowing the facts but unable to apply them at the appropriate moment; vulnerable to being led astray by the next person who offers a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe; and, perhaps worst of all, many of them suffer pathetically from an over-abundance of conspiracy thinking, often carrying a justified suspicion or idea to a ridiculous level; virtually nothing is taken at face value.

The choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened to be better able to influence others, to be better activists.

To order a signed copy directly from me you can go to my website: http://killinghope.org.

I’ll be speaking about the new book at Politics and Prose bookstore, 5015 Connecticut Ave., NW, in Washington, DC, Saturday, March 2 at 1 pm.

Notes

May 28, 2012, speaking at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington ↩
George Kennan, Wikipedia entry ↩
US Department of the Army, Afghanistan, A Country Study (1986), pp.121, 128, 130, 223, 232 (Library of Congress Call Number DS351.5 .A34 1986) ↩
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Wikipedia entry ↩
View the press release; see the cards ↩
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to this website.

Peter Schwarz, wsws.org

Eighty years ago, on January 30, 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed the leader of the Nazis, Adolf Hitler, as German chancellor. In the ensuing twelve years, the Hitler regime committed crimes never previously witnessed by mankind. It smashed the organized labor movement, subjected the country to a totalitarian dictatorship, destroyed Europe in an unprovoked war of aggression, and murdered millions of Jews, Roma and other minorities.

January 30, 1933 was a historic turning point. Before then, barbarism and anti-Semitism had been considered traits of economic and cultural backwardness. In 1933, however, the elite of a country that was highly developed both economically and culturally handed over power to a barbaric anti-Semite whose party relied on the dregs of society.

The source of this development lay in the irresolvable contradictions of German and international capitalism. The consequences of World War I and the onset of the global economic crisis in 1929 had ruined broad layers of the working class and middle class. German society was deeply divided; democracy existed only in name. The Weimar Republic survived on the basis of emergency decrees and presidential cabinets as it headed towards a social explosion.

Under these conditions, Hindenburg decided to entrust Hitler with the reins of government. The Nazis were needed to crush the workers’ movement. They had mass support among desperate layers of the petty-bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletariat, which they mobilized against the organized labor movement. The destruction of the labor movement was the prerequisite for the preparation of the war of conquest that German business so urgently demanded.

Hindenburg’s decision was supported by the heads of the army, by big business and by the bourgeois parties. Hitler did not have to conquer power; it was handed to him by the ruling elite. The claim, however, that the majority of Germans supported Hitler is patently false.

In the last election before the handover of power, held in November of 1932, the two major workers’ parties, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Communist Party (KPD), received half a million more votes than Hitler’s NSDAP. The workers hated the Nazis. Not only did they vote against Hitler, they wanted to fight him. But their leaders proved incapable of conducting such a struggle.

The SPD, which had crushed the proletarian revolution of 1918-19, had no intention of mobilizing the workers. The party took refuge behind the state, which it claimed would tame the Nazis. It encouraged illusions in the police and in the army and Hindenburg, whom the SPD backed in the Reichstag election of 1932. Nine months later, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor.

The social democratic-dominated unions went even further. The General Federation of German Trade Unions (ADGB) professed its loyalty to the new regime and demonstrated on May 1, 1933 under the swastika. All to no avail. On May 2, the Nazis stormed the union headquarters.

The key to stopping Hitler rested in the hands of the Communist Party, which had been founded in 1919 in response to the rightward turn of the SPD. Under the influence of Stalin, however, the KPD pursued a disastrous policy. It refused to make any distinction between National Socialists and Social Democrats, designating the latter as “social fascists.” The KPD leadership strictly refused to conclude a defensive alliance with the SPD against the Nazis.

Leon Trotsky and his followers fought tirelessly for such a united front, and were bitterly persecuted by the Stalinists. The Stalinist policy assumed an ultra-left form, but in fact it concealed the refusal of the Communist Party to undertake any struggle to expose the SPD leadership, win over social democratic workers and mount a serious struggle to oppose Hitler.
“No policy of the Communist Party could, of course, have transformed the Social Democracy into a party of the revolution,” Trotsky wrote in May 1933. “But neither was that the aim. It was necessary to exploit to the limit the contradiction between reformism and fascism—in order to weaken fascism, at the same time weakening reformism by exposing to the workers the incapacity of the Social Democratic leadership. These two tasks fused naturally into one. The policy of the Comintern bureaucracy led to the opposite result: the capitulation of the reformists served the interests of fascism and not of Communism; the Social Democratic workers remained with their leaders; the Communist workers lost faith in themselves and in the leadership.”

Trotsky drew far-reaching conclusions from the disastrous defeat of the German working class. Up until that point, the Left Opposition led by Trotsky fought for a political reorientation of the Communist parties and the Communist International. But following the refusal of the Communist International to draw any lessons from the German catastrophe and its prohibition of any discussion amongst its members of the disastrous policies of the KPD, such an orientation was no longer possible.

“An organization which was not roused by the thunder of fascism” Trotsky declared, “demonstrates thereby that it is dead and that nothing can ever revive it. To say this openly and publicly is our direct duty toward the proletariat and its future.” The task was no longer to reform the Comintern, but to build new communist parties and a new International.

Trotsky met with fierce resistance from centrist groups, which shared some of his criticisms of Stalinism but declared that the establishment of a new International was premature. Such a step, they argued, was possible only on the basis of a fresh upsurge of the revolutionary movement.

Trotsky decisively rejected such arguments. “Marxists, however, are not fatalists,” he wrote. “They do not unload upon the historical process those very tasks which the historical process has posed before them… Without a fused and steeled revolutionary party, a socialist revolution is inconceivable.”

These words once again take on burning and immediate significance. The international crisis of capitalism, which has worsened dramatically since the financial crisis of 2008, places explosive class struggles on the agenda. In Egypt, Greece, Portugal and Spain workers are rebelling on a daily basis against the brutal austerity measures and political attacks being carried out by their governments. The governments resort in response to authoritarian methods and encourage the growth of fascist organizations, such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the National Front in France, and Jobbik in Hungary.

A host of pseudo-leftist organizations together with the trade unions are doing everything in their power to lead the struggles of workers into a dead end and defend bourgeois rule. The most urgent task today is to build a new revolutionary leadership that unites workers internationally and mobilizes them in the struggle for workers’ power and the construction of a socialist society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Peter Schwarz writes for the World Socialist Web Site, an offshoot of the SEP (Socialist Equality Party), which he naturally endorses as a solution to the crises outlined in the essay.

by Stephen Lendman

Chavez remains hospitalized. He’s recovering from complicated cancer surgery. It’s his fourth in 18 months. His scheduled January 10 inauguration was postponed. Venezuelans turned out en masse. Tens of thousands gathered outside Caracas’ Palacio de Miraflores. It’s Chavez’s official workplace. Many others rallied throughout the capital. Red-shirted supporters were everywhere. Sound trucks aired Chavez campaign music.

People danced. The mood was celebratory. Air Force jets flew overhead. Vendors sold Bolivarian memorabilia. Chavez and Simon Bolivar photos were displayed. Their images adorned shirts. Signs read “I am Chavez.” “Chavez is the heart of the people.” Other Chavistas expressed support their way.  “Today we are all Chavez,” people said. They symbolically took the oath of office in his absence.

Chavismo without Chavez expressed mass support in his absence. A recording aired him singing the national anthem. He ended saying “Long live the Bolivarian Revolution.” “Who said Chavez is absent,” former Paraguay President Fernando Lugo said. Obama conspired with right-wing Paraguayan politicians to oust him. Junta power replaced him. Venezuelans are resolute not to let it happen to them.

Evo Morales urged more popular support. “My friends,” he said, “the situation of our brother Hugo Chavez is not only a concern of the Venezuelan people, but of all those who are a part of this struggle.” “The best tribute and solidarity with Chavez is unity. Let’s keep unity between our countries….This gathering of Chavez supporters is really enviable.” It reflects Venezuelans’ “capacity for mobilization.”

Other leaders and dignitaries expressed similar support. Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, called Thursday’s rally “the largest concentration of people (he’d) ever addressed in (his) life.” Nationwide television aired it. Millions watched or rallied nationwide.

Dominican President Eliud Williams said “We are fervently supporting Venezuela, and we are here to say to our friend (Vice President Nicolas) Maduro that although your leader is going through a difficult time, you can count on Dominica as a reliable friend.” El Salvador’s Vice President Salvador Sanchez Ceren said “Venezuela converted itself into (a) guiding light for Latin America that the Cuban Revolution was in the 1960s.”

Uruguayan President Jose Mujica told Venezuelan television “You hardly see this sort of solidarity anywhere in the world.” It’s seen nowhere like in Venezuela. Americans can’t imagine popular support on this scale. It’s real. People have reason to rally. Doing so gives thanks for unmatched social justice. Maduro rallied supporters passionately. He accused opposition forces of trying to exploit events their way.

“They are trying to manipulate and opportunistically take advantage of the circumstances of Chavez’s situation in order to destabilize the country,” he stressed. “Yet however they come after us, we always beat them. Here we are ready to continue with this revolution. Make no mistake. Here the people have demonstrated their strength.” He galvanized supporters “to send a shout of gigantic love on the count of three” to Chavez. Thousands raised their hands. In unison they said: “I swear by the Bolivarian Constitution that I will defend (Chavez’s presidency) in the streets, with reason, with trust, and with the strength and intelligence of a people that have liberated themselves from the yoke of the bourgeoisie.”

If popular sentiment could heal, Chavez would be well and home. The power of popular support lifts him. He knows how Venezuelans feel. He hopes he’ll be well enough to return soon. World class medical care helps him. Chavistas rallied supportively in his absence. La Prensa headlined “Venezuelan grassroots support President Chavez, saying: Mass support was impressive. It rallied impressively across the country. It extended well beyond the capital. A “common denominator of support” was expressed.

Regional leaders attended. They included Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Uruguay’s Jose Mujica, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Surinam’s Desi Bouterse, and Dominca’s Eliud Williams. Representatives from 30 organizations came. Twenty-seven regional countries sent theirs. Prime ministers, vice-chancellors, and other ministers attended. Council of Ministers Vice President Diaz-Canel Bermudez headed Cuba’s delegation. Russia, China, and other nations expressed support. So did social movement and union leaders. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff reiterated support for Chavez and the Venezuelan people. Other Brazilian politicians joined her. Brazilian Landless Movement and Committee Brazil with Chavez leaders expressed support. Communist Party of Brazil head Renata Aline extended solidarity with Chavez and the Venezuelan people. So did Confederation of Workers of Brazil leader Paulo Vinicius. Brazilians and Venezuelans have faith in Chavez, he said. Bolivarianism reflects Latin American change.

Journalist Carlos Almeida stressed “the historical role of the president of Venezuela.” It “achieved the unity of the military and civilian sectors.” Revolutionary change followed. He highlighted the urgency to defeat America’s hegemonic ambitions. Washington can’t leave well enough alone. It wants unchallenged global resource control. All options are employed to get it.

Scoundrel media had their say. Reuters headlined “Venezuela’s sick Chavez misses own inauguration bash.” Supporters rallied in his absence. AP headlined “Venezuela Holds Symbolic Inauguration for Chavez.” “Venezuela gathered foreign allies and tens of thousands of exuberant supporters to celebrate a new term for a leader too ill to return home for a real swearing-in.” “Nearly everyone wore red. Swelling crowd(s) spilled from the main avenue onto side streets.”

Opposition lawmaker Maria Corina Machado represents Venezuela’s lunatic fringe right wing. She’s allied with dark Washington elements. She depends on them for financial support. AP quoted her. She turned truth on its head. She claimed postponing Chavez’s inauguration constituted a “well-aimed coup against the Venezuelan Constitution.” She said “It’s being directed from Cuba, and by Cubans.” She gets quoted instead of denounced.

The New York Times headlined “A Celebration That Accentuated an Absence.” Chavez’s “silence spoke loudest of all.” He hasn’t “been seen or heard from directly in a month.” He’s ill. He’s struggling to recover. Complicated surgery healing takes time. The Washington Post headlined “Ailing Hugo Chavez’s inauguration proceeds symbolically in Venezuela.” “The show must go on….and so it” did. “Fiery revolutionary speeches” were delivered. Chavez couldn’t give his own. Others filled in for him. Opposition leaders were “powerless to head off the day’s events, which only underscored Chavez’s continued hold on power.”

He didn’t seize it. He earned it responsibly. Venezuelans love him. They turned out supportively en masse. They do it often. They do it because they mean it. January 10 was special. Washington Post comments were largely low key. They stopped short of reigning on Chavez’s parade. The Wall Street Journal headlined “New Chavez Term Celebrated – Without Him.”

Inaugural partying “kick(ed) off his fourth term.” He remains hospitalized in Havana. “Political theater bordered on the surreal.” Americans never show support for leaders like Venezuelans. Why should they? There’s no reason to celebrate. The Journal said rallying “had a clever political purpose.” It boosted support for Maduro. It helped other Bolivarian officials. Chavismo reflects more than one man. Popular sentiment shows it. It’s part of Venezuela’s culture. Opposition elements were quoted. So were unnamed right wing analysts. They tried but couldn’t spoil Chavez’s day. On January 6, the Journal’s Mary O’Grady weighed in. Her columns spurn truth. They feature outrageous misinformation. She’s waged war on Chavez for years. She entirely lacks credibility.

It’s astonishing anyone takes her seriously. She writes nothing worth reading. Vicious diatribes substitute for legitimate commentaries and analysis. She’s paid to lie.She writes the Journal’s America’s column. She knows nothing about the region. It shows in what she says. She calls Chavez the “kook from Caracas.” She headlined “Venezuela After Chavez.” Is he “dead or alive,” she asked? “Inquiring Venezuelans want to know.” She falsely claimed failing to show up for swearing-in violates constitutional law. She knows nothing about what it says. If she did, she wouldn’t explain.

Chavismo reflects the “cult of his personality,” she claimed. He “polarized the country.” His “passing (will) be more than merely disruptive.” She falsely says Chavistas are vulnerable. Rival infighting contests for power. “More than one member of (Chavez’s) inner circle wants his job.”

Cuba is “trying to fashion a Venezuelan ‘junta’ that would pull the various factions together and preserve chavismo.” Cuba “decided that to do that, (Chavez) – dead or alive – must be retained as ‘president.’ ” O’Grady’s commentaries have no basis in fact. She makes stuff up. It’s red meat for right-wing ideologues. It pleases her boss. Murdoch demands lies, damn lies, demagoguery, and O’Grady-style agitprop. She dutifully delivers. Venezuela’s growth is among the highest in Latin America. She says it’s in “shambles.” She blames Chavismo. She claims Chavez makes Pinochet look heroic. She deplores Bolivarian social justice. She features managed news misinformation. Doing so spurns truth. She wouldn’t recognize it if jumped up and bit her. She’s acclimated to lying. Truth and full disclosure seem strange. She can’t admit Bolivarian success. American-style governance pales by comparison.

Chavismo works. It reflects popular sentiment. It’s institutionalized. It’s more than about one man. O’Grady can’t admit it. She’s mindless about important Venezuelan allies. China, Russia, Brazil, and others consider Venezuela an important partner. It’s too important to lose. Relationships are mutually beneficial. They oppose Washington’s hegemonic ambitions. They support multipolar world cooperation. Venezuelans love Chavez for raising living standards. He prioritizes social justice. Venezuela’s most disadvantaged come first. They get vital benefits Americans can’t imagine. They won’t tolerate dark forces ending them.

They’ll put their bodies on the line to keep them. Doing so enhances preserving them. Bolivarian-committed leaders assure it. They’re more than a match for O’Grady diatribes and venom. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Venezuelans get plenty. It separates truth from fiction. It distinguishes between right and wrong. Venezuelans aren’t about to sacrifice cherished benefits. Bolivarianism is polar opposite fake US democracy. Life, liberty, and promoting the general welfare have meaning. Equity and justice are real. Participatory democracy works. People choose what’s best for them. Money power has no say.  Constitutional law prohibits top down rule. It matters because it’s enforced. Venezuelans decide how they’re led.

Americans have no say whatever. Duopoly power shuts them out. Bipartisan complicity wages war on social justice. Wealth, power, privilege and dominance matter most. So does America’s imperium. Which country would you rather live in?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/chavismo-in-venezuela/