The Gown is not the Body

Knowing another language means having a second soul
– Charlemagne (742-814 C.E.) –
“The limits of my language are the limits of my world. But within my language world my being is this world”.
– Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) –

As we all know, language has a double function: it is a communicative tool and it helps to define our world. But the relativistic linguistic school of last century hypothesized that language goes beyond these functions and theorized that thought is influenced by the language in which it is expressed. Or, in other words, that each language builds a mental universe in its own right.

One hundred years later, a group of linguists headed by Lara Boroditsky , has revived this hypothesis and reached the conclusion that to be able to speak a second language is more or less equivalent as having another self. If this were true, when speaking another language this cognitive process would not be a simple translation of our thoughts from our mother tongue but the result of an independent thought expressed by our own “second soul”.

Languages may or may not disguise thoughts, but can we infer from the outline of the gown the shape of the body? Since we are aware that two languages cannot be the same, does this imply that the person also thinks differently, according to the language she/he speaks? Or that a person who can speak two or more languages also can think in two or more different ways?

If this were true, it would be as if, depending on the gown you are wearing, tight or loose, the shape of your body would change. Perhaps, from the perspective of a faraway onlooker, but probably not to a careful observer or, in other words, once the garment has been taken off.

Neuro-linguists have tried to pursue this research hypothesis in three cognitive/linguistic areas: gender, colours and orientation.

The best we can say about the origin of words is that they came into existence by convention, arbitrarily, and agreed upon by its repeated use. Grammar, whether innate or acquired, is an imperfect set of rules that reflects the way thought is expressed. Is it possible that this set of rules affects the way our thoughts are thought? Let’s take the example of a 3-gender-language, German for instance, with its three genders: neuter, feminine and masculine. According to a group of neuro-linguists, when an English-born-speaker speaks German, she/he would associate a certain category of adjectives depending on the gender of the noun. For instance, since the word bridge (Die Brücke in German) is feminine, this speaker would associate to it feminine images (such as slim, fragile, bond, or grace). (It would be of further interest to explore what is feminine in German in its own right!). On another example, in Spanish, since ‘El Puente’ is of a masculine gender, it would bring to mind masculine images such as strong, robust, and solid even to German minds when they utter the word bridge in Spanish, shadowing the original feminine image of their mother tongue.

This is a more complex case. For one moment we have to exclude the influence of angle and intensity of light (depending on the latitude), eyesight and light perception and purely consider it from a linguistic point of view. In Korean, for instance, exist several standard expressions for white, some of them without exact equivalent in any other language. A bit like the several expressions Inuit people use to define snow according to their location, quality and age of the snow. Or again, in Japanese, the ‘go’ colour of traffic lights is called 青い (aoi, blue), as colours where divided between cold (blue/green) and warm (yellow/red) since ancient times.

We tend to forget that we are not very accurate either when in western languages we call ‘white wine’ the liquid of fermented grape, which is fundamentally of straw-yellow shade. Still, our use of words, however imperfect it may be, does not alter our perception of colours. Or are we unable to distinguish differences in hues just because of lack of words or our inappropriate use of adjectives?

The third cognitive category used in determining whether and by how much the language we speak influences our thought is orientation. The Guugu Yimithirr speak a language called Gangurru (from which Kangaroo), an Australian aboriginal community who does not define a position referring to themselves (as we do in western languages) but to a coordinate reference system (like North, South, East and West). In a symmetrical-specular experiment, when coordinates are your orientation tool kit, the East one time is on your right and one time is on your left, whereas when you describe a location having yourself as the point of reference, one time a given location is on our left and the next time also. Would these two different orientation systems really lead us to two different Weltanschauungen?

In its most extreme form, this hypothesis (a.k.a. Sapir-Whorf) is that the language you speak influences your thought, not only through the definition of things but also through syntax and phrase structure. Ad absurdum, this scholarly hypothesis could be the result of the language these linguists speak (sic). In other words, if this hypothesis were true, when we speak in German about gender, in Japanese about colours and in Gangurru about orientation, how to explain the fact that we remain fundamentally immune from the language biases predicted by linguists when speaking about gender, colours and orientation? (admittedly, most of us do not speak Gangurru).

The hard facts of science have shown that in the above three areas in which the influence of languages were tested, none yielded any conclusive result, even considering a fourth area, numbers. The best-known case is the Pirahã, a language spoken by a Brazilian tribe that contains only words for one and two. These people would be unable to reliably tell the difference between four and five objects placed in a row in the same configuration. However, in the words of Daniel Everett, one of the leading researchers on this language:

“A total lack of exact quantity language did not prevent the Pirahã from accurately performing a task which relied on the exact numerical equivalence of large sets. This evidence argues against the strong Sapir- Whorfian claim that language for number creates the concept of exact quantity”.

Another notable researcher on the nature of humans, Edward O. Wilson, has, in his works, convincingly proved that people speaking languages void of words for certain colours or numbers were nonetheless able to recognize and to match colour or exact quantities of objects.

Paul Ekmann, in his studies on facial expressions, was able to demonstrate the universality of human expressions, regardless of the language spoken, by showing 17 pictures with different facial expressions to people as diverse as Samoans, Caucasians and Africans, who invariably correctly identified which expression referred to which emotion, even when their native language lacked the appropriate words or strictly defining terms.

As the poet Samuel Johnson once observed, languages seems to be a mere convention or a dress of thoughts. And all of this academic quibble would have remained confined in some obscure university department if it had not been seriously picked up by some economists.

Economics, like linguistics, cannot be considered an exact science in the sense of being predictive, but rather defined as a descriptive discipline. Unlike mathematicians, chemists, and physicians, linguists (like economists) deal with a field which we all live within and use it daily, giving us a false sense of familiarity. So much so that we feel entitled to say something about it and little matters if our arguments are not sustained by evidence.

Like linguistics, economics lacks the possibility to verify theories against counterfactual evidence or, in Popperian terms, it is not falsifiable. They both share the common trait of non-replicability of the experiment (or only under very narrow circumstances, with little general validity) and bear the sin of the researcher influencing the one-time experiment, although techniques such as RNM give the illusion of producing objective and certain data.

Economists keep on making failures on predicting the next boom or bust, the next level of inflation or what will be the consequences of any given economic decision. Over time, we should have become humbler, less arrogant and have accepted the fact that economy does not, and probably will never, attain the status of science, at least in the same sense as hard sciences do. Axel Leonjufhwud, one of the few economists that exerted some healthy self-criticism, in one of his papers, “Life among the Econ” published in 1973, warned us from the ‘Modl’  (in original) and their uselessness ‘however well crafted’. He points out that when economists  want to prove what they are looking for, they bend reality to their purpose and interpret findings to their benefit.

Peter Medawar  in his “The limits of Science” explained that the most important weakness in forecasting is the reason why economics is and will remain a mere discipline. Unfortunately, most economists not only have not noticed it yet, but still maintain the hubris of explaining to others how the world runs and of making predictions about its future. Framed around equations, based on models, these papers written by the cast of the Econ are predominant and overwhelming in quantity, hardly in quality.

On those rare occasion when a scholar puts models to a fact-based-testing, and, as it often happens, the findings contradict the model’s predictions, the holy caste of the Econ frame and segregate the evidence into a new model hastily named ‘paradox’  (in the economic literature we have counted not less than 34 paradoxes contradicting theoretical models).

In every hard science the theoretical models proven to be either false or irrelevant are thrown in the dustbin and forgotten, but not in economics. It is as if Popper’s lesson had never been learnt and Newton’s laws were still used to study Quantum Physics. The mathematical-deductive-mechanistic line of thought adopted in economics has too often failed to provide tools to understand the economic reality and continues to mould the mindset of legions of students into abstract sophistry, mainly disconnected with reality (see “Econocracy” by Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins).

The belief in econometric models is relentlessly pushing the economic world towards the abyss of risky speculative adventures. The destruction of wealth, environment, savings, and lives in the millions caused by the custodians of the accepted and unquestioned ‘economic truth’, is still firmly anchored on the three sacred pillars of: Individualism, Optimization and Equilibrium. None of them has ever taken shape in reality, in the predicted form.

The praiseworthy attempt to free economy from its own narrow and self-imposed bounds has led some notable scholars to look for other interpretative models. Behavioural researches have given us some important insights in the irrationality of human behaviour, such as Dan Ariel or Daniel Kahneman. Others as Georgescu-Rogen and René Passet have taken inspiration from Biology.
Following the seductive but unverifiable idea that the language you speak determines what you think, linguistic economists like Keith Chen have tried to explain our propensity to save by the use of a language model.

Following a distinction made Swedish linguist, Professor Östen Dahl in the year 2000, linguists make a distinction between futureless and futured language. The hypothesis is that if you speak a futureless language you tend to be a profligate person. If you speak  a futured language you would be a thrifty person. A futureless language is a language like Chinese, void of the future tense (at least in a western language sense); a futured language instead is a language which forms the future tense by auxiliaries and suffixes, like Slavic ones; or by inflections, as in neo-Latin languages. According to this interpretation, this would be a sufficient reason to explain the different propensities to save.

How would then a speaker of a futureless language convey the idea of ‘I will go’ or ‘I am going to go’? Let’s not be fooled. The body of the thoughts is still there, only the gown is different: ‘in one hour’, ‘tomorrow’, ‘in the future’, etc. are all expression used by futureless languages to indicate the future. Only the set of rules of these languages works differently from western grammar rules. (Besides, Chinese does have auxiliaries to indicate something imminent or very likely: 要yao, want; 会 hui, will; or, in the written language, particles to mark the future tense即ji, 将jiang).

We have already shown how the effect of a language on our thoughts is difficult to demonstrate, even without considering the impossibility in determining the line of division between futureless and futured among the currently 7000 spoken. But even accepting for the sake of the discussion that a distinction between futureless and futured languages could be made, how would this hypothesis withstand reality?

Here below two charts taken from one of the studies on the hypothesized language-saving connection:

Above, the saving rates for 35 countries, from Luxembourg with more than 40% to Greece with just 10% of the GDP.

If we look at the data over a span of 25 years (1985-2010), UK and Italy have a gap of more than 8% points. Despite this difference in saving rates, not only both languages are futured (in the sense expressed previously) but they are also linguistically very near. According to the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of language (p. 375, 1980 ed.), they have an inter-lingual distance based on pronunciation, spelling, orthography, grammar and vocabulary which is the closest (in religious terms is similar to the proximity between the Anglican and the Roman Church), followed by Spanish, German, French and Russian. Why do people speaking a language falling in the same linguistic category (in this case futured) would display different saving patterns? Or, just to take an even more striking example, why would three linguistically identical countries like Ireland, Australia and UK have more than 10% points difference in their saving rates?

One among many contradictory points which this theory does not explain is that in the previous 30 years, and not considered in the above graphs, from 1955 to 1985, Italians (speaking a futured language) had attained saving level comparable to Japanese, speakers of a futureless language. Why do people speaking languages falling in two different linguistic categories (futureless and futured) would then display similar saving patterns?

In his General Theory (1936), John Maynard Keynes had already explained the psychological motives, the social mores and the economic conditions conducive to the prevailing saving rates.
Will our new generation of economists call Keynes’s model ‘the saving paradox’?


a comment to an article by Andrew Browne published in the Wall Street Journal on 12th June 2015 

We should sincerely thank Mr. Browne for his article published by WSJ on June 12th, 2015. As our memories of the Cold War hysteria have been fading away, the author reminds us of our leader’s myopia and, since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, the almost necessity to be able to find a new “enemy” we (or rather they) were so desperately looking for.

Which better candidate than China to replace former USSR, by depicting it as a powerful country poised to conquer the world? China can, at pleasure, be labeled as “red”, “communist”, “dictatorial”, “imperialist” or a “Frankenstein” just when our military spending urgently needs again a raison d’être and a new well-defined scapegoat after our own mess in the Middle East.

America’s engagement with China looks rather as a “clumsy containment” at best, a failed attempt to rein in what we perceive as a potential threat. It has perhaps been forgotten that not later than in 1997, the US Gov’t was begging China to devalue CNY to help the ailing SE Asian economies when the IMF and World Bank medicines were not delivering the promised effects. A plead reversed only a few years later when the US dollar-denominated exports started dwindling.

At that time Mr. Lawrence Summer managed to stop Japan from creating a 100 billion Asian Monetary Fund. This time, sorry for him and Mr. Henry Paulson, the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) is the creation of a less malleable, independently minded country. How has this been possible? Is the “American Lake” shrinking? Someone else wants to build her own sphere of influence? Is there again someone interfering with our hegemonic plans of world domination? We need to be ready to go great lengths ‘to do what needs to be done’ to re-establish our core values (and interests)! We thought to be the only one to displace local population as the British did for the US on Diego Garcia (1968-1973), or trod on someone else’s territory and sea, and build whatever we deem appropriate (as we have planned to do in Henoko Bay, Okinawa). We established 700 military bases (but there are probably a few we have lost count of) and we will not tolerate any country to build not one of her own, even few hundred nautical miles from her coast.

Mr. Browne recalls a phrase uttered by Nixon in 1967 that America has “to persuade China that it must change” and five years later during his famous trip in 1972 that “by opening China, we will turn the communist giant into a diplomatic partner [to isolate the Soviets] one that would adopt America’s values and maybe even its system of democracy” (and eventually buy American goods, as XVIII century Manchester’s spinning and milling entrepreneurs were thinking –‘if only every Chinese would make their robe an inch longer …’).

In the article we read about today’s disappointment in the U.S., heightened by the fact that engagement with China has promised so much and progressed so far [little] and that the ideological gap hasn’t narrowed at all. A hubris and haughtiness only second to Mr. Thomas Friedman.

Myopia does not affect only politicians, but also their scribblers. China has always followed her own ways. Before it was communism with Chinese characteristics, today is Capitalisme à la Chinoise. When Nixon ever wrote that “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors” it tells a lot about how poorly he was informed and about his inability to discern what was really happening in those days, caught as China was in the midst of her Cultural Revolution.

Since China has opened her door, unlike the USA, who has been bullying Middle Eastern nations with pre-emptive wars, she pre-empted an economic clash with her SE Asian neighbours, inviting them to join a period of unheard prosperity for a fifth of humanity. The recent creation of AIIB is only the last step in the creation of a Western-free-sphere of co-prosperity.

But what would happen if we would let this going on? If China continues in her benign expansion it could reverse the course of history laid down for us by the Almighty (and by us). Something unexpected could reverse our Divine plans.
Just imagine for a moment, for whatever reason, the indigenous population of Hawaii declares independence from the USA. China could promptly support it, send her fleet, sell hundreds of warplanes and other weapon systems to a country which is fighting for her independence and freedom (sounds familiar with Taiwan?). How could we possibly tolerate it, since we and only we are the predestined country, the chosen one, the one which reveres at every cash transaction the only and unmistakable God of ours with our prayer printed on our beloved bucks (“IN GOD WE TRUST”)?

We must prevent doomsday, when China will strike an alliance with Mexico and place her warships (including an aircraft carrier), a dozen thousand soldiers, and a bunch of atomic bombs on the island of Guadalupe, Baja California (the distance between Okinawa and Wenzhou is of 390 nautical miles, while Guadalupe from Los Angeles is about 300 miles away).

Mr. Browne writes about the fact that “the optimistic prospects of transforming an ancient civilization through engagement, followed by deep disillusion, has been the pattern ever since early Jesuit missionaries sought to convert the Chinese to Christianity. Those envoys adopted the gowns of the Mandarin class, grew long beards and even couched their gospel message in Confucian terms to make it more palatable. The 17th-century German priest Adam Schall got as far as becoming the chief astronomer of the Qing dynasty but fell from favour and the Jesuits were later expelled”.

Well then, shall we conclude that if the Chinese do not want to learn from us by hook, perhaps by crook?

We ought to know better and instead ask ourselves on what ground should China (or any other country for that matter) adopt America’s values or system. Do we ever ask ourselves which values or system are we talking about? Is America really democratic, where few clans (the Kennedy’s, the Bush’s, the Clinton’s) dominate the political scene? A country where the entry fee to a political race is a six-digit figure, powerful lobbies write the laws for senators and congressmen, and 0.1% of the population (about 300,000 people) have as much as 90% of US national wealth (out of a total population of 318 million, 2014 census). Isn’t America a country based on a moral plane founded on racism, wealth discrimination, hypocrisy, arrogance and bullish attitude towards the weak? Isn’t America the country of predatory behaviour, of the “quick buck”, where you can bet on someone else’s death, pay her or his insurance and cash in when she or he dies (see “What money can’t buy” by Michael Sandel)?

In their conquest of the West, white Americans have not thought twice about exterminating the natives and enslaving millions to work for them. Why should China become more like us? Isn’t she the longest and uninterrupted great living civilization? Han Chinese during their long history have assimilated other people in their own civilization-state system. The government, run by bureaucrats selected through a meritocratic process, permeates society, is not a part of it. It certainly smacks of paternalism, with its pros and cons, but it is administered like a family, not like a corporation (“What is good for GM is good for America”). Can we really teach her something on the corrupted American Way of Life?

Yes, indeed: once in a while, please, do not copy us!

Thomas Ruehling



Over Spring Break in Florida, a young college co-ed lay unconscious on the beach. She was then gang raped in broad daylight, watched by hundreds of male and female college students—who did absolutely nothing to help this defenseless young lady. Not a single college student even called the police. This is an atrocity—and every observer that day participated in it. It is a shame they must live with for the rest of their lives. And it is a shame America must live with as well..

This is a parable about what happens when sexual mores are thrown to the wind, and sex ceases to be a sacred act between a husband and wife; when faith lapses; when Judaeo-Christian morality is dispensed with. Then the unthinkable occurs. Sodom and Gomorrah rise from the ashes and pollute man, woman, and city . That this publically sanctioned rape occurred in the Bible Belt testifies to the ineffectuality, if not the demise, of Christianity.

What has happened is that we have placed a premium on Movies, Internet, Cell Phones, Sports, Reality TV, boxing, wrestling, and Mixed Martial Arts, while at the same time allowing the Judaeo-Christian faith to take a back seat. How many Christian families do you know that read Scripture together and pray together? I don’t know any. The number of skeptics (19%) now equals the number of people who pray four or more times a week. That bodes ill for our future. Our faith, which has helped make western culture the envy of the world, is now imperiled. And the US is among the most “religious” of nations, too.

There are many reasons why Christianity no longer influences: corporations are open seven days a week; the hypocrisy of right-wing “Christian” Republicans, who care more about profit than about people; the lack of study of the Bible in school; the absurdity of the fundamentalist’s anti-science campaign; the sway of the MI-Complex; a general lack of literacy; the arrogance of youth; a sensationalist, often anti-Christian bias in the media (Huffington, for example); a church generally anti-intellectual; et al.

For all these reasons and more, our culture has lost its moral compass and its spiritual ties to God. Daily we witness unthinkably horrible crimes unheard of a generation ago. Families are being rent apart by poverty amidst class oppression, intolerance, and prejudice. Police brutality and racism are commonplace. The black family today is virtually non-existent. 79% of juveniles in prison now are young black men. Civility is only a memory. The people à la Lincoln no longer rule, but the richest 1%, who care only about enriching themselves. Instead of JFK’s “What can you do for your country”, we have the Hobbesian “every man against his brother”—the natural

result of abandoning Christianity and worshipping Mammon, sensuality, power, looks, and fame.

Long ago this decline was predicted—eg, by Toynbee and Spengler and Sorokin. Toynbee and Sorokin wrote about this 50 years ago or more. They believe that only a religious awakening can halt our cultural degeneration and promote reason, goodness, and a love of truth. The time is ripe for it, but who is there today who can start a culturally effective Awakening, which at the same time emphasizes and utilizes reason and science? For the sake of our culture, he or she had better step forward soon. Our nation has entered into another Civil War—and our nation’s future hangs in the balance.

Len Sive Jr.


My hypothesis has proven true.

The wrenching of sex out of its life- and biblical-context, as conservative as that may sound, is, I believe, nevertheless the correct view in the diagnosis and therapy of our culture’s obsession with sex. Our cultural separation of sex from its natural context of marriage has weakened our culture intellectually and spiritually. The violation of this God-given understanding of the nature and reality of sex has caused untold damage to countless numbers of people, has fueled a sex trade and sex-slavery, driven the divorce rate sky-high, led to an epidemic of college and high school rapes, including by teachers both male and female, left countless numbers of people dissatisfied sexually, and cheapened an inestimably valuable gift from God which ought to bring two people together in rarified physical intimacy. And—it is the means by which we establish a family, which is, or ought to be, the most valued aspect of our sensate Life.

In my research, I focused on two questions: How does the Internet contribute to our sexual malaise? and Is there a remedy for our sexual malaise?

The first question, for me, has a clear answer: the Internet promotes sexuality apart from marriage simply by offering a surfer an infinite number of sex websites, which are predicated upon separating flesh from spirit, pleasure from commitment, and the “I” from the “We” in marriage. Through video and photo, sex is treated as a thing-in-itself rather than as an act embedded in an emotional and spiritual context apart from which sex becomes superficial, obsessive, and tragic in its manifestations. But the media too—all of which maintain an Internet presence—are obsessed with sex and the body. It is impossible today to find media which refuse to cater to sexuality. As a consequence, kids are caught up in sex in a deeply harmful way. It is this omnipresent sexuality in our culture that fuels child porn, sex-slavery, inappropriate teacher-student relationships, and a general confusion today about what the function of sex is in human society.

This trend began more visibly with Kinsey in the 50’s, the women’s movement in the 60’s, the hippie/counterculture in the 60’s and 70’s, the cultural acceptance of a couple living together unmarried from the 60’s, the sexualization of the media (talk shows, reality TV, etc) from the late 70’s, the gay/lesbian revolution in the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, the ordination of clergy who are not celibate (if single) in the 90’s, and a general hyper-sexualized social media-aided culture created, and fed, by the Internet since its inception.

I wrote an article last year about how even in some elementary schools inappropriate discussions of a person’s sexuality have entered into their education. (For example, asking a student in class what kind of sex he or she has engaged in.) Indeed, sex is now so generally pervasive in society, and so ubiquitous in all the media, that one hardly questions its presence.

Sex in context is, as I see it, so clearly the issue that I am in wonder that this fact hasn’t completely permeated society. In my researches, the lack of context meant that the couple could not truly appreciate the sex act. What are some of the factors that make up context? Age, marital status, personality, and religion.

Age: Sex in the modern world is not meant for young people. Marital status: Sex is meant for people who are married, i.e., are in a committed, life-long relationship. Personality: Sex depends on people who are mature; who are sensitive, caring, and giving. Sex is meant to be one of many factors in our development as a human being. The sexual act is meant to be the cement to bind the two more closely together. It was never meant to be the essence, or the entirety, of the relationship; it only assists the relationship. All true relationships are founded on depth of personality, including depth of intellect—something our culture despises. Religion: It ought to sanctify sex rather than, so often, condemn it. God created us as (inter alia) sexual beings. But—in context, as only one factor in human life and personality.

This in-context is particularly important in the black community, where single-parent households are the overwhelming parental model. It is an issue the black community continues to ignore, with tragic results. One-third of all black men will have spent time in jail during their lifetime; 58% of juveniles sentenced to prison are black. That this isn’t taken up as a crusade by the black church is simply incomprehensible.

Ironically, blacks are willfully doing to their culture what Southern slave owners did. In the 1800’s in the South, relationships were interfered with on a massive scale, by owners raping their female slaves, having mistresses, or just breaking up the family and/or relationships for economic or punitive reasons.

There is so much domestic violence in society in part because of our emphasis on sexuality. People come together for sex rather than out of an interest in personality. Hence the relationship lacks one or more of the key factors mentioned above. But without these factors the relationship can’t be put on a mature footing. A major reason I undertook to research and write this article is because I feel that an easy attitude towards sex also makes violence more prevalent, a hypothesis I can’t, however, prove. Still. Statistics can be compelling. 1 in 10 men and 3 in 10 women were raped last year. 1 in 3 female homicides are by a current or former partner. Children who come from families where there is violence suffer abuse or neglect at high rates (30-60%). Boys who witness or themselves have suffered from violence become abusers themselves. Half of all men and women have experienced psychological aggression. Parents and relatives are hurting our young today, scaring them physically, mentally, and emotionally, because the parent(s) should never have had a child in the first place. The low graduation rates from high school, let alone college, also contribute to this malaise of emotionally scarred/immature kids having kids, whom they in turn scar. It is a serious social problem. Can we fix it?

Most people who read this article will be scornful—and dismissive— of my conclusions. Some may even say “It isn’t possible to be celibate before marriage; it’s not part of human nature.” But if one’s faith is sincere, if one wants to change one’s behavior, and if one believes that chastity before marriage is vitally important both for the couple and for society-at-large, then I believe one will be enabled to be chaste.

Unfortunately, our society no longer values marriage, fidelity, chastity, purity of heart and mind, or the intellectual or cultural life—and yet these factors are absolutely essential, in my opinion, to having a happy, fulfilled, committed marital relationship. In vain will one search for these things on TV or in the movies. All one has to do is turn to Fox or Huffington or

“celebrity” web-sites to see how cheapened sex has become (along with the news, one might add). They can’t let a single day go by without bringing in sex somehow. “Sex sells.” Yes, unfortunately it does, to the detriment of society.

God created sex to be part of a life-long, committed relationship, which is meant to be mature, giving, and forgiving. The relationship ideally should also have an intellectual component (since only humans have reason in the degree that we do); this strengthens the relationship, deepens it, and provides different venues for conversation. It is a component which our society never mentions, even though it is one of the strongest ties binding two people together. Ideas matter. Period.

The only way that I see for society to move beyond its sex obsession as well as its penchant for domestic violence is for a return to (intelligent, compassionate, wise) religion. This will not strike many people as very progressive, I’m afraid. It is, however—like it or not—the foundation of our western morality. It is also the only thing which I am aware of that can make us alter our life’s path, and bring to our souls the depth and height of God’s love by which lives are changed.

Christ promised those who believed in his name that we can become new creatures. If our society is to be redeemed—to reduce rape, sexual slavery, promiscuity, not to mention aggression (physical and psychological), domestic violence, crime, etc.,–I believe that only the fullness of religious conversion can remake us in His image. With God, all things are possible. Man sins, but God redeems, and glorifies.

Len Sive Jr.


“No man can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Mt. 6:24)

Putin ordered the hit on Nemtsov as he has done on seven others: Paul Khlebnikov, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya Estemirova, Anastasiya Baburova, Stanislav Markelov. Putin, the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world, is nothing but a serial killer. He would have done Stalin proud as a KGB-politician where reason, commonsense, honesty, incorruptibility and freedom of speech are eschewed for the more brutal political arts of deception, corruption, dishonesty, propaganda, and murder. It is baggage Russians just can’t seem to get rid of. From its founding under Peter the Great to the present day, Christian morality has had little or nothing to do with Russian governance. Power alone is worshipped. Truth, Goodness, Wisdom, Temperance, Simplicity—these have had no influence on Russian life whatsoever. The only honest leader Russia has seen in many centuries was himself a victim of these evil forces—Mikhail Gorbachev.

The root problem is the Orthodox Church. Historically, it has made a pact with the devil. The Kremlin says “Don’t enter politics, and as a reward we’ll let you continue to hold your (poorly) attended services. Just don’t mix politics and religion—and your future will be secure .” To which the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, historically, has willingly and obediently responded with an enthusiastic Yes! And so, in exchange for a bit of earthly power, the Russian Orthodox Church has closed its eyes to oppression, corruption, cruelty, dishonesty, and murderous domestic and foreign policies. Instead of allowing religion to change the hearts of men, so that a new society can emerge, one devoted to the entire nation’s spiritual and material well-being, it has allowed evil to flourish, mistakenly thinking that its true power comes from man and not from God.

Without strict morality, no government—or church—can lead its people well and truly. We in America like to point fingers at other countries or leaders while ignoring the overwhelming stench of corruption everywhere present. The Republican Party, for example, is brazenly corrupt, being nothing but the hand-maiden of the 1% richest in the land. (As one example, it has sided with Corporate America in its campaign against the idea of climate change, so corporations won’t have to spend money to eliminate pollution. The welfare of the US and the world counts for nothing here. Naturally the biggest polluters reward their servants handsomely come re-election time. And so it goes in American politics.) Moreover, the only religion that seems to gain adherents today in America is the religion of complicity with evil, the religion of gross ignorance, and the religion that talks of Christ but in practice embraces the (d)evil in the guise of Avarice, which issues into mere Power—power to serve the richest 1%.

Russia, situated as she is between the East and West, could have proved to be inestimably powerful in a good way as a mediating force between two different, and often competing, world-views. Instead, her rulers—evil almost to a man (or woman)—have thought only in terms of increasing their own mundane power and wealth. Sadly, the Russian Orthodox Church could have played a world-historic role in Russia as the guarantor of Virtue and Wisdom, with all that that implies politically. Instead, it sold its soul to the devil for a handshake and little more.

Len Sive Jr.


11“I want to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

–President John F. Kennedy


The recent release of many CIA documents by the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee detail: 1) the CIA’s secret and systematic use of torture after 9/11; 2) the CIA’s repeated denials that it was using torture; and 3) the CIA’s testimony before Congress, the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, and the American people that these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were highly successful in obtaining vitally important information about terrorist activity, and thus justifies its (continued) use. But there is only one problem: What the CIA said is not true! As we can now read in the newly-released documents by the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, torture was in fact used for many years after 9/11, though its use was a well-guarded secret; and that little valuable information was gained by means of these “enhanced  interrogation techniques.”

As if this weren’t enough—to cast further doubt on the CIA and how it operates, John Brennan, its current director, knowingly violated  the Constitution’s  separation of powers clause by having the CIA (the executive branch)  spy on the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee  (the legislative branch) by hacking into its computers. When the committee revealed to the American people that the CIA was spying on Congress, Brennan publically and forcefully denied it. “Nothing,” he emphatically told Congress, “could be further from the truth.” “We wouldn’t do that.”  Yet it turns out that the CIA did in fact do it—and not only so, but that it was Brennan himself who ordered the hacking of the Committee’s computers in the first place!  So Brennan, it now appears, has been lying all along. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, and above all he lied to the American public. To highlight his contempt for Congress, he has refused to co-operate with the Committee by turning over the names of those agents involved in the planning and execution of the break-in. Unfortunately for our country, deceit, lies, and non-compliance by the CIA are simply business as usual. One can now perhaps better appreciate Kennedy’s anger and frustration towards an agency that believes and acts as if it is above the law.

President Truman himself, who created the CIA in 1947, slowly began to worry about its focus on clandestine operations. But it was not until the assassination of JFK that he finally took steps to share his concerns openly with the American people. One month after Kennedy’s murder, Truman aired his concerns.  “For some time,” he wrote, “I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment [intelligence gathering and assessment]. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government (emphasis mine). This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.” Offering the only effective remedy he could think of, Truman urged that the CIA’s “operational duties” be “terminated.” Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA, was livid with rage. In a stormy private meeting, Dulles tried to persuade Truman to retract his statement. But Truman stood his ground. Dulles, acting with complete disregard for truth and legality, then forged a retraction by Truman and slipped it into an official file!  Luckily, Truman found out about it and wrote a second letter reiterating his concerns about the CIA. But that Dulles would forge a letter by a president of the United States, with absolute disregard for the truth—and suffer no consequences (not even losing his job)—is breath-taking in its audacity, shamefulness, and illegality. One wonders now what documents regarding the CIA are in fact genuine. How much of what they say or do can we really believe? This is but further proof that the CIA is indeed a “rogue agency,” above the law, accountable to no one.

Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General under his brother, President John F. Kennedy, saw first-hand that the CIA had become a rogue agency. Robert Kennedy, Jr. quoted his father Robert F Kennedy on the out-of-control CIA in an article for The Rolling Stone dated November 20, 2013, almost exactly fifty years to the day of the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy. In this article, Robert  says that

[t]he Joint Chiefs, already in open revolt against JFK for failing to unleash the dogs of war in Cuba and Laos, were unanimous in urging a massive influx of ground troops and were incensed with talk of withdrawal. The mood in Langley [the CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C.] was even uglier. Journalist Richard Starnes, filing from Vietnam, gave a stark assessment in The Washington Daily News of the CIA’s unrestrained thirst for power in Vietnam. Starnes quoted high-level U.S. officials horrified by the CIA’s role in escalating the conflict. They described an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a ‘malignancy.’ He doubted that ‘even the White House could control it any longer.’ Another warned, ‘If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon.’ Added another, ‘[Members of the CIA] represent tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.

The documents released by the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee describe in detail these “enhanced interrogation techniques.” And they are absolutely shocking—rectal hydration, beatings, endless nights without sleep, standing for unbelievably long periods of time, being forced to live in a small coffin-like box, water-boarding (i.e., virtual drowning, endlessly repeated), hypothermia (resulting in at least one death), extreme isolation, sexual assault, threats of harm to their spouse and children, etc.  Sometimes the CIA even knew that the “terrorist” being tortured was in fact innocent (!),  yet they continued with the “interrogation” anyway!  Only an amoral person would do that. Is that the kind  of  person we entrust our security to? Do we really want amoral individuals in important and  sensitive areas of government?

Worse yet, this shameful episode in CIA history—or should I say US history?—is only  part of a larger unbroken sixty-eight-year-long chronicle of illegal and immoral activity, including: brain-washing, deception and lying, sexual entrapment, blackmail, forgery, drug-running and drug distribution, propaganda, suborning the press, planting of evidence, perjury, threats, extortion, breaking and entering, intimidation, theft, partnership with the Mafia and former Nazi SS officers, coup d’états, murder, inter alia.  Yet the most troubling aspect of all is that the CIA answers to no one, as we can see clearly  in the behavior of its  current  director,  John Brennan, and his agents.

The CIA does whatever it wants because it believes that its ends justify the means. Yet it is axiomatic: one cannot effect good ends by evil means, for the evil inevitably taints the ends themselves. No, the means must be commensurate with the ends; and the ends do not, and cannot,  justify any and all means. Terrorism, we all know, is Western civilization’s greatest threat. To combat this threat we must bring these terrorists to justice—but not by any means, and certainly not by means of torture. We must not descend into their Inferno and use their policies, their programs of hatred, or their instruments of terror. For in doing so we only become like them, and in the process sacrifice our humanity,  our legal  standing,  and our moral high ground.

Moreover, terrorism is not just “irrational violence.” Properly understood, terrorism is about competing ideas of virtue: theirs versus ours. As we know from Socrates/Plato, the path to virtue is exceptionally arduous—by turns treacherous, difficult, exasperating, painful, lonely, humbling, frustrating and not seldom dangerous, if, like Socrates, one goes against the grain of society;  which is why so many pilgrims on the road to Virtue drop out along the way.

In our Western culture the supreme virtue is Divine Love, which nourishes and sustains all the other virtues (justice, beauty, goodness, etc.); while hatred, by contrast, disrupts, degrades, and destroys everything good and beautiful in its path. The essence of being human, as God created us (in His image, let us not forget), is to love and care for one another just as He loves and cares for each of us. Community, then, is strengthened and deepened by Divine Love, but loosened and dissolved through hatred.  Terrorism, which is nothing but ideology wrapped in hatred, rejects God’s saving Love and substitutes in its stead the “negative virtues” of cruelty, evil, injustice, etc.; but this only returns mankind to an earlier, uncivilized epoch,  where barbarity, futility, and death reign undiminished and unchallenged. Like some giant black hole, religious extremism swallows up everything good, beautiful, and divine in its path. That is why we Westerners must not use torture. Torture degrades its practitioner; it separates him from the love of God; it poisons his spirituality; and it weakens his reason. Why? Because man was not made for evil. He was created by Divine Love for acts of Goodness. The strength of our cause and the cause of our strength lie in our culture’s supreme belief in the infinite worth and sanctity of every human life.  But if for any reason we undermine this noblest and most sacred principle of all—which makes Life the wonderful gift it is meant to be—which undergirds, supports, sustains, and nourishes the whole of our Western culture—then our beliefs, and our actions, become indistinguishable from the terrorists whom we oppose.

Because of its on-going malevolent history, the CIA is profoundly incompatible with who we are as a nation and with what we represent, both to ourselves and to the world. That is why it must be dismantled, and a new agency, dedicated solely to intelligence-gathering and assessment, must be erected in its place: an agency that is indisputably moral, incorruptible, and prudent, yet practical and effective; which cannot, and will not, interfere with domestic or foreign policy; and which obeys and reveres our sacred constitutional way of life.

Every generation in our nation’s history receives the inestimable gift of the constitutional rule of law, both in life and in government (a blessing which terrorists will never know or bring to their government); but it is up to each of us to safeguard it and to pass it on intact to our children and our children’s children. It is the supreme gift that any nation can bequeath to its citizens: thus it demands our unwavering obedience, our  deepest  affection,  and our  enduring  vigilance.

Len Sive Jr.


“All hope abandon, ye who go through me”—Wal-Mart’s Employee Credo

     “A truth forgotten is a truth lost.”—the author


I went to a Wal-Mart in Santa Fe, New Mexico, last Saturday. I had grave misgivings about doing so, knowing a little of its sordid dealings with the cities in which it locates and of how inhumanely it treats its employees.  Nevertheless I decided to shop there, curious to see what life was like at a Wal-Mart here in liberal Santa Fe.

The staff at this huge store was clearly harried and stressed out, rushing this way and that, barely stopping even to answer my queries—but their duty done, away they flew. No staff were smiling. They seemed in fact like an undermanned army about to be over-run by the enemy—anxious and fearful.

My shopping finished, I gathered up my purchases and went outside where I was to await a shuttle at a pre-arranged area to take me back to St. John’s College, where I’m a first-term graduate student.

It was a sizzling Saturday afternoon. Outside where I waited there was precious little shade with which to shelter oneself from the stifling heat. Three male employees, on break, stood nearby, smoking cigarettes and talking. I decided to ask them about Wal-Mart, partly to make the time go by faster, and partly out of curiosity.

They were all very nice, courteous and respectful. I asked the first man how he liked working at Wal-Mart. He could barely contain his disgust. “I don’t like it at all,” he fumed. “Why?” I asked. “Because although we work full-time, we’re classified as part-timers, so we don’t get any benefits.” I asked the other two what they thought of Wal-Mart; both gave similar answers.

I asked what the annual turnover rate was at this Wal-Mart. “About 70%,” answered one of the men, with the others nodding their heads in agreement. I was shocked. That sounded way too high, even for Wal-Mart. Not sure whether I should believe them or not, I decided to get the opinions of some other employees.

As it happened, at that precise moment two girls had just sat down on a nearby bench to take their break.  I was curious to see if they felt the same way the men did about working at Wal-Mat.

So I walked over and introduced myself. Then after some small talk, I asked them how they liked working at Wal-Mart. The young woman sitting to my left looked up at me and, smiling, said, “It’s a great place to work.”  I asked each one several more questions. All the responses were uniformly positive. This was very perplexing. Who was telling me the truth? Both couldn’t  be right.

It was then I noticed that the girls’ eyes were riveted on something behind me. I turned around to see what it was—and there stood two huge security men, aka “assistant managers”! They were mere inches from me. The name tag of one of them read “BIG MIKE.”  He was almost twice my size and several inches taller. The other big “assistant manager” stood next to him. Here was a classic example, right in front of Wal-Mart, of gross physical intimidation—but for what reason?  What had I done to deserve the unmitigated wrath of Wal-Mart?

“You can’t speak to employees,” growled Big Mike, his face cold and unanimated.  The two young women got up quickly and hurried back to the store. I glanced over at the men: they were gone too. Fear spreads quickly. Now it was just the three of us: two burly Cyclops—and myself.

This entire incident was so foreign to me. I had just spent six years teaching English in South Korea and had never once experienced anything even remotely close to this. Now I’m back home in the “Land of the Free” and….

“You have to leave the premises now,” said Big Mike firmly, his fierce eyes announcing that he was ready for battle if necessary. Defiant and angry, I looked up at him and said: “No, I’m not leaving; I’m waiting here for my shuttle. It’s coming to pick me up.”  Then I turned around and faced the parking lot, hoping the shuttle wouldn’t be too late, and wondering, too, whether a physical confrontation was imminent.

I paced nervously up and down the sidewalk in front of our pre-arranged pick-up area, now and then stopping to search in both directions for the van.  And always but a few feet away, watching my every move, as if the fate of the entire world depended upon it,  stood Big Mike and his fellow assistant manager.

Twenty minutes went by; then the other “assistant manager” left and went back inside.  But not Big Mike, who had taken up a position leaning against a wall, while still watching with hawk eyes my every breath and move.  Finally the van came. A door opened; I climbed up and took the last empty seat, by the window.  As we pulled away from the curb, I turned around to get one last look at Big Mike. There he stood. He hadn’t moved one inch, but was watching the van closely to make sure it left Wal-Mart’s premises. I must’ve been a serious threat to Wal-Mart to have garnered such complete attention!

One of the most disturbing aspects about all this is that in my research afterwards, I discovered that employees in point of fact do not have free speech—not in the work-place, and, incredibly, not even when an employee returns home! Case after case showed how businesses can, and do, completely control the speech of their employees.

So where is our vaunted Freedom of Speech, I want to know?  Is this what our Founding Founders envisaged when they wrote the First Amendment? What kind of country have we become when one can carry a military-style assault weapon into any establishment, including church and college, yet one is forbidden to speak to another even while on break?  or to voice different views while away from the work-place,  without getting fired? Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said, “The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.” Clearly as a nation we have not been vigilant enough!

Having newly returned from South Korea, where a customer is never threatened, verbally or otherwise, and with whose staff one may speak freely, whether on-break or off-, I had wondered what shopping would be like at an iconic American discount store like Wal-Mart, in a liberal city like Santa Fe. I found out.

It is so much easier to criticize the human rights record of other nations, as we do so often, than to ensure that one’s human rights record at home is beyond reproach. This of course is a truism,… but a truism today all but ignored and forgotten.

Len Sive Jr.


Admiral William McRaven, head of the US Special Operations Command, has been chosen as chancellor of the University of Texas system upon his retirement in the fall from the military. And he is not the first military officer, or national security official, to be chosen to head an American university or college, either. Is he the right man for the job? Here’s a sample of the kind of wisdom he will bring to the job: “If you want to change the world, start by making your bed.” Now, the premise here is that by making your bed “to perfection” (his personal goal for those serving under him), you transfer that energy and diligence of effort to everything else. In McRaven’s words, “Making the bed will also reinforce the fact that little things matter. If you can’t do the little things right, you will never do the big things right.” Let us scrutinize more closely this proffered path of wisdom.

First, we must reflect upon the source. McRaven is an admiral in charge of a secretive military command, which includes the Navy Seals. The Seals have a training regimen wherein every tiny detail does indeed matter. When a military mission is established, the training for it rests upon countless small details executed to perfection. A failure in the small things here will almost certainly mean grave difficulties somewhere down the line. So for McRaven’s troops, his wisdom isn’t “decorative,” but may well prove to be the difference between a mission’s  success or failure, and a Navy Seal’s life or death.  The difficulty here, of course, is that he will now become the chancellor of a prestigious university system. Are the two—the military and the university—similar enough so that his vision, wisdom, and expertise in the one area can be transferred successfully to the other? Or are the two fields sufficiently different in nature that success in one does not automatically imply success in the other?

Let us examine the nature of education. Education is, or ought to be, chiefly about inquiry and self-growth: the gaining of knowledge and insight, and especially, in a good liberal arts program, the gaining of a general, but deep knowledge, of reality itself.

But making one’s bed—where does this fit in? In my opinion, it doesn’t! And that is what is so worrisome to me about having an admiral become head of a university. Making one’s bed, like the mandatory daily polishing of one’s military-issue shoes, is merely an act of obedience; it signifies nothing more. Inquiry, on the other hand, drives, or ought to drive education; but that is the opposite of what McRaven has spent a life-time doing, viz., ordering people to carry out his commands. Men under him don’t question his orders; they blindly execute them. That’s what makes the military the efficient force that it is. An admiral commands: a soldier obeys, period.

But nothing could be further from the Academy than obedience for obedience  sake; where inquiry, or dissent,  thereby is stifled.  Academics need encouragement and freedom in order to strike out in new or different directions. Can McRaven reverse sails so late in life, encourage  freedom of thought, and tolerate dissent when up to now conformity and obedience were his twin gods?

What is troubling to me is his use of the metaphor of making one’s bed in an academic context. Ideas are not obedient soldiers. And academicians do not blindly follow others but think for themselves, choose their own goals as well as the means to achieve them. Courage, not obedience, is the chief virtue in the Academy, as can be seen clearly through the lens of history, where new ideas all too often have encountered intractable resistance and even violence. The history of astronomy painfully attests to this resistance to truth and the pressures to conform to the prevailing opinions—or the current national shame of creationism, which confuses belief with fact, and is summarily dismissive of the scientific method, which is one of the indispensable pillars of the Academy. Can one used to ordering others suddenly encourage, even promote, independent thinking and acting?

There are other issues as well—for example, the small numbers of blacks in the UT system. How does “making your bed” address the problem of racial under-representation? Or address the sinister shift in the goals of education, through the money and influence of Corporate America, which wants to train students merely to be good and productive employees for their business, rather than train their mind for life’s challenges that lay ahead.

Education is further endangered by its dependence upon, and glorification of, college athletics. Education today often seems to be less important to a university than having a championship team. And with athletics so closely tied to multi-million dollar media contracts, the importance of education is diminished amid the media-hype of sports and the deification of athletes—even to the point of institutional grade-fixing. Adding to the problem created by the media is a professional athlete’s multi-million dollar salary. When student-athletes leave school early in order to sign a big contract, the message they convey to our young—a message supported by the university—is “Sports are more important than education, and for a good athlete, more lucrative.”

With all media today owned by only a handful of individuals or corporations (this by itself constitutes a grave threat to our democracy), and being right-wing to boot, society rarely gets treated to the presentation of an issue which is (more or less) free of ideological bias. Education ought to be the one place where independent inquiry is pursued for its own sake, with the results informing society. If instead of inquiry for its own sake we have corporate money, ideology, sports, and the media influencing education, then are we on the fast track to educational irrelevance. Given these circumstances, I worry whether a chancellor who believes in the perfect execution of small (unimportant) details, can, in a non-military setting, provide the kind of leadership our universities need if they are to be the agent of both change and stability that has historically defined them. Can one used to unflinching obedience change course mid-stream and welcome debate and disagreement? Can one not just tolerate but honor the “arrogance of dissent?”

Common wisdom has it that “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” And that is precisely my worry.

Len Sive Jr.


Europe today is experiencing déjà vu: a frightful reliving of the accommodation to evil of the 1930’s, when France, England, and Italy permitted Hitler’s seizing of the outer rim of Czechoslovakia  which bordered  on Germany, called the Sudetenland, and   home to Czechoslovakia’s approximately three million ethnic Germans. The Sudetenland was an important industrial and banking area; it also formed Czechoslovakia’s formidable defense perimeter—a perimeter so heavily fortified that Hitler himself acknowledged that had he been forced to attack it, his troops would have suffered very heavy losses. But he didn’t have to worry: for Europe handed it to him, gratis.

Hitler’s pretext for wanting to absorb the Sudetenland was the skillfully managed propaganda campaign of public discontent among Czechoslovakia’s three million Germans. Putin has surely read his history, for he accomplished the same feat in Crimea. This manufacturing of discontent today among Russian-speaking peoples, in the Ukraine and in other nations, is Putin’s rationale for seizing the former territories of the Soviet Union. This is the same pretext for intervention that Putin used earlier when he invaded Georgia. And just as Hitler counted on a muted response from the West to his annexation of the Sudetenland—and was not disappointed—so Putin harbors similar expectations: If he invades eastern Ukraine, as now seems a real possibility with the buildup of tens of thousands of heavily armed Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, buttressed by tanks, artillery, missiles, and other heavy weaponry—Putin is counting on NATO being too timid to engage Russia’s upgraded, well-trained modern military.  In this he is undoubtedly prescient. Europeans have so far evidenced no stomach for war, least of all on European soil. To the world’s shame, it appears that Ukraine must stand or fall by her own efforts. The European powers in the 30’s sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s ever-growing geo-political ambitions, through its policy of appeasement, hoping that his libido dominandi would soon be sated…but it wasn’t. Churchill said at the time to the appeasers, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Is it déjà-vu in Europe?

It is always surprising to see, in every age, how many people either turn a blind eye towards evil, or rationalize it, or else sanction it by adverting to the Bible, in their bid to clothe their complicity in the garb of righteousness. France is adamant about honoring her military  contract  with Russia for the sale of two Mistral-class amphibious assault warships, which will undoubtedly be used in the future against other former Soviet Block countries as Putin proceeds step-by-step with his plan of Russian Empire-reconstruction. France is selling these powerful ships in spite of Russia’s dishonorable direct support, and now open leadership, of the Ukrainian Separatists, the downing of the Malaysian airliner with a Russian missile causing 300 deaths (which the UN says may well be a war crime),  evidence tampering at the crash site so that no direct evidence can  link Russia to the passenger jet, the looting of personal possessions from the bodies of the dead, the Separatists’ refusal to collect all of the bodies strewn helter-skelter around the crash site, and an unending stream of bald-faced lies and childish, pathetic  responses from Moscow.

The British, too, until now, have refused to allow any broad economic sanctions against Russia, fearing that they might hurt London’s commercial banking/investment business; and in Germany, arms manufacturers are anxious to finalize their quarter of a billion arms sales to Russia, which includes an important battle simulator, since not to do so would result in lower earnings for the arms sector. For the modern corporation, to its shame, it is always profit before honor: Profit ueber Alles!

We are on earth, at our longest measure, for 6 or 7 fully productive decades, then comes The Final Wait, when our life-journey’s trajectory shall, upon death, be  scrutinized in the harsh light of eternal principles. Yet there are many who nevertheless prize these few decades above all law and morality. Putin is one of them. U.S. Vice-President Joseph Biden brazenly told Putin that when he looked into his eyes, he could find no evidence of a soul. “Then we understand each other precisely,” replied Putin, agreeing completely with Biden’s psychical diagnosis.

Long association with evil, as has been true with Putin, does indeed destroy one’s soul. But so too does accommodation to evil. The West has yet to stand up fully to Putin, fearful of suffering either economic or military consequences. But by not doing so they stand with Putin, not against him.  There is now talk of real economic sanctions being levied against Russia after the downing of the aircraft. If true, they come none too soon. Like it or not, righteousness is a strict Either/Or. We either oppose Putin in unity, sure of our just cause, come-what-may, or else we join hands with him in aiding and abetting his unjust cause. But we can’t do both.

Len Sive Jr.


Many people find it difficult to use their minds to entertain themselves…In this modern age, with all the gadgets we have, people seem to fill up every moment with some external activity.”

–Timothy Wilson, Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia


Professor Timothy Wilson devised, for our technological age, an important experiment to see what are the psychological and mental effects of gadgets on today’s population. He put volunteers, one at a time, in an empty room and asked them to sit down and think for 15 minutes, with no distractions from gadgets or music or TV. His volunteers—over 800 in all—came from all age groups. They were recruited from disparate locations, such as churches and farmers’ markets, and not only the university, in order to get as wide a population sample as possible. The results? Most people could not sit alone and think for 15 minutes. The anguish of soul-crushing boredom for these volunteers was simply too great. Indeed, some even preferred to administer mild electrical shocks  to themselves  rather than endure the hell of uninterrupted meditative silence!

Since all true culture originates in solitude, when the soul is alone by itself, this is indeed a disturbing experiment. But its results we all know to be true: For today one cannot go anywhere without seeing a majority of people using their cell phone, or tablet, or some other electronic device, while completely indifferent to, and oblivious  of, their own immediate surroundings. Gone, too, are the days when one would see not a few people on a bus or subway immersed in reading a book.

Culture is the end-product of a long, often painful inner process of thinking deeply and feeling deeply about some idea or other—of rendering in art or in books or in music a new connection not seen before, or something felt more deeply or more expansively than in the past. All true culture—as against “pop” culture, which is superficial and profit-based—depends on reflection, inner substance, quietude, and silence. But when a society’s modern “culture” produces only shallow, unmelodic music, an array of mindless sporting events, simple-minded movies, biased and superficial news, along with childish TV shows, as our modern “culture” has, then are we witnessing first-hand the slow (now centuries-long) dying of western culture.  Especially when one can’t abide being alone with one’s own thoughts for a paltry 15 minutes, then is our culture nearing complete irrelevance and spiritual bankruptcy.

Ours is a lost age; an age without wisdom, depth, or meaning; shorn of Beauty, and devoid of Goodness and Truth. The greatness of western culture which has nourished and guided us for over three thousand years, and given us Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus; Pythagoras, Euclid, and Apollonius; Caesar, Virgil, Horace, and Cicero;  St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm; Petrarch and Dante; Chaucer and Milton;  Shakespeare and Wordsworth; Goethe and Tolstoi;  and a hundred others—they sustain us no more because  we prefer the shallow to the wise: the clever or shocking to the true: the solipsistic, individualistic,  and narcissistic  to communal Good: wealth and power over compassion for  others: love of self over love of neighbor.

Len Sive Jr.

                       PEDESTRIAN FARE

By Len Sive Jr


I pulled the curtain back to glimpse the modern world!

but grieved to see pyres of dreams,

fires of visionary gleams,

that once consumed a nobler world:

the sceptered stars of ages past,

now frozen ashes in a dark outcast.


On earth’s darkling plain remains

a solitary country lane:

a remnant country lane lonely

’mid copse and grove bounded

everywhere city bound,

and everywhere the same.


The glory of the reign has passed,

what is now will never last—

but who is left to care,

now that we are bounded

here and bounded everywhere

—and who is left to care?


Who cares now to bear his name on faded lanes

now all the same,

on crowded thoroughfares bounded everywhere,

the same pedestrian fare,

everywhere the same

—and who is left to care?


They have quasi-arrested, however shortly, former president Sarkozy -which is very good. But they, better all of us, should do much more: should cancel professional politics. No country will ever clear its politics of corruption without shutting and sealing the ballot-boxes for good.

Three, even four centuries of electoral democracy in North America have proved beyond any doubt that money rules the political system of the West. If you cannot invest a lot of money you don’t even conceive to be elected a representative of the ‘sovereign’ people, at any level. If you are not a millionaire, you must either offer yourself to Big Money, or you must convince a great many electors to be silly enough to donate small amounts to your election fund. In both cases you will be under the obbligation to return the gifts in some way. Politics, that is capturing votes, is so expensive that truly honest politicians do not exist -cannot exist.

Only exceptions, those few abnormally wealthy persons who will enter politics for innocent ambition rather than illegitimate designs. Sometimes, not at all always, said tycoons can be said to have become politicians out of respectable intentions. A number of plutocrats did so in history, from Pericles to scores of optimates of our days. Unfortunately the business of plutocrats is plutocracy, i.e. strengthening the egemony of money.

Needless to say, the greed of politicians does not stop at simply paying the bill of campaigns and electioneering. Most professionals of representative democracy are soon enticed by the prospect of becoming rich, of upgrading their station in life, from eager fortune-seekers to millionaires. Italy of course has got the distinction of possessing the most avid caste of politicians in the Western world. Practically all members of the Italian regional legislatures and administrations are presently under judicial investigation for embezzlement and other crimes. Every Italian professional of democracy has his price.

The salvation is Sortition, of course. One day members of assemblies and other officials will be selected by the lot, for short terms of office. The need for them to spend, in order to be elected will disappear. Randomcracy (direct, selective democracy) will substitute our rotten institutions. Sometimes it will occur that the lot selects the wrong persons, but their terms will not be long, their harm will be tiny. Above all, they will not have political debts to repay. Sortition is the only conceivable protection against venality and other felonies by normally putrid career-politicians.

Italia docet  (if you prefer, Sarkozy docet): hoping that career-politicians will redeem themselves from the bondage of sin, and will become honest, is worse than naive, is stupid. They simply go on being dishonest. In America several politicians stay in office for their entire adult life. Their silly electors keep voting them indefinitely. Very often their scions and heirs do the same.

That France has exposed corruption in the highest place (presidents Chirac, Giscard d’Estaing, even Mitterrand, can be also mentioned) is splendid news. Sortition will never have a chance, worldwide, if something really enormous doesn’t happen to lay open the absurdity of remain enslaved to the mechanism of election with built-in corruption. It was in a distant, totally different age, that we could not do without representation of the parliamentary type. It was so when the mass of citizens were poor, ignorant and feeble in front of sovereigns and aristocracies;  when they did not travel, did not speak languages, did not communicate, were not part of a global, hypertechnological community. Today a great many electors are more educated or qualified than their elected delegates.

We now live in a future ‘which has already begun’. In order to get rid of elected politicians we shall have to rely to ever increasing disclosures of political crimes and misconducts. Only such crimes will someday force us to stop staying subjected and spiritless. To the effect of such rebellion we shall want hundreds of behaviors the likes of the  French presidents’, better, of the typical Italian elected rascals’. Their malfeasances will bring Randomcracy nearer. Monsieur Sarkozy and his peers deserve our applause: they will be our Liberators.

A.M.Calderazzi & Associates of www.Internauta-online.


        Only the supersensory, superlogical, unmediated merging of the object and subject into
seamless oneness allows an adequate knowledge of the object or the true reality.

                                                                                                                        –Pitirm A. Sorokin

For well over a century now, several of the West’s deepest and most sensitive thinkers and writers have been experiencing what they believe to be a gradual, but real, decline in western culture. And increasingly today many others also feel this cultural malaise deep in their soul. Something–we know not what–appears to have gone drastically wrong with our life and culture.  Our world since the 1960’s has been slowly disintegrating before our very eyes. Reality has become increasingly disorienting, meaningless, uncharitable, harsh, violent, selfish, unforgiving. Participation in creative activities, such as writing or painting, or participation in a religious institution, may, for some, momentarily counter their disorientation, hopelessness, and anguish; but subconsciously they remain aware of how close we are to another world war, this time possibly a nuclear one; aware, too, of a society witnessing a breakdown of family values; a decline of morals; a lack of common decency; disregard for law and order; a growing, and dangerous, sense of boredom and despair; a lack of “love of one’s neighbor,” and a worrisome grandiose narcissism and solipsism.

Nature, through global warming (which the Right, for merely selfish pecuniary reasons at the behest of Corporate America, refuses even today to acknowledge), contributes to this sense of impending doom through its increasing climatic fury, winter and summer. The gentle, nourishing (“Mother”) Nature felt body and soul by the English 18th c. and 19th c.  Romantic poets (a Nature which I too knew and loved as a boy) seems now but a distant memory amid increasingly catastrophic rain and snow storms, earthquakes, Tsunamis, tornados and hurricanes, withering dry spells, gigantic forest fires, deadly flash floods, extreme temperatures, and other disturbing climatic phenomena. It seems as if Nature now at long last is betraying the heart that never truly loved her. Her relentless fury and unpredictability, superadded to our sense of foreboding of our cultural decline, on top of a world-wide recession brought on by the unrestrained, and unregulated, greed of our banking, real estate, and investment sectors, has only increased both our individual and collective sense of anomie and despair.

So, what can we do? How can we, in our own small way, make a contribution to a world in desperate need of a new way of being ? Pitrim A. Sorokin, a name not widely known today, though very well known in the middle  part of the last century—the founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University and later The Harvard Research Center in Altruistic Integration and Creativity—has studied altruism in depth. Not surprising to those who have sought to live a life of giving rather than taking, of loving rather than using or hating, Sorokin finds that altruistic personalities “exhibit a remarkable vitality, a long duration of life, an unperturbable peace of mind, and an ineffably rich happiness. In opposition to a sensate utilitarianist or hedonist, it could be said that ‘it pays to be unselfish, loving, and saintly.’”

This, then, is what our western culture desperately needs: a new orientation through “the energy of love,” as Sorokin has termed it. If our culture and race are to survive, then we must band together to seek the welfare of people everywhere: a true sense of “globalization,” founded not on economic imperialism, but rather the virtues (and divine attributes) of love, goodness, truth, and beauty. Only then—if then—can we hope to head off a further decline in western culture, strive to undo the malicious effects of global warming, and seek for all, as our national creed,  a life that begins and ends with “service to others” rather than the all-too-common, and death-dealing,  creed of  “Me–first, middle, and last.”

Len Sive Jr.


We all know that most of the media is owned by a handful of people or corporations (e.g., General Electric owns NBC and Rupert Murdoch, FOX), and that nearly all media are run by ideological right-wing Republicans; and we all know further that the last thing right-wing Republicans offer the public is impartiality of news and commentary. (Fox News is its own best witness to this shameful fact.) But Google-owned Yahoo—solidly in the right-wing camp as any perusal of its on-line news reporting and commentary can verify—shamelessly left out 50% of the recent Santa Barbara shooting story.

A father of one of the students who was murdered spoke to the press about the pain and grief of his son’s death, and of his anger at the politicians who refused to pass gun restriction laws after the killings at Sandy Hook, CT.  Yahoo left out, conspicuously, the father’s loud and very emotional condemnation of the NRA for its role in facilitating gun violence .Because his “whole body and soul” anger at the NRA was so visceral, visibly shaking every fiber in his grief-torn body, it is all the more surprising that this was edited out of the story so that not one mention was made of the NRA! Yahoo’s reporter, Dana Feldman, is either completely incompetent as a journalist or else (more likely) was instructed by her superiors to edit the father’s speech so as not to blame the NRA.

Is there anywhere in the US where the NRA’s influence does NOT extend? The Right has complained about Big Government’s influence in our everyday life. But government’s influence is nothing compared to the NRA’s. Ironically, the Tea Party folk—NRA advocates one and all—support a movement that is profoundly un-democratic! It is their patrons—the wealthiest 1%–who now rule undemocratically. But they are too blind to see it—or they approve of it.

The anguish of Mr. Martinez, the dead boy’s father, could have turned even hearts of stone to wax—except of course those of the NRA, with its many psychopathological gun enthusiasts.          These people suffer from a combination of several severe psychological disorders. They evidence an utter lack of emotional maturity and self-confident masculinity; they possess a grossly underdeveloped intellect, and with no ability to reason logically; they have no capability to empathize with others; and, additionally, they suffer from paranoia and grandiose narcissism.

As Jesus knew only too well, it is all too easy to bring violence and hate into the world; but the kingdom of heaven is reserved for peacemakers.  It’s peopled only by  those who bring love and mercy,  goodness and truth,  to our harsh and broken world. Of that unimaginably beautiful world, God’s kingdom, where reason and love rule high and low, the NRA and its proselytes can have no part, for they fundamentally oppose His  message of a kingdom of Peace, Non-violence, and Love. Heaven is for those who have practiced God’s love in this life through endless trials: hell, for those who have rejected God’s love for lust of violence and hate.

The NRA, through its lobbying, exercises almost absolute power in Congress and across America. Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, just vetoed a modest gun proposal that would have limited the number of shells in a gun clip. Not even that (token) gun measure gets passed due to the power of the NRA. No doubt Gov. Christie heard the “clink, clink, clink” of campaign cash contributions as he signed his name, vetoing the bill. “You scratch my back, I scratch yours.” And if this further imperils our nation’s children—well, so much the worse for our children!

Len Sive Jr.


There are some people for whom the most elementary truths are just beyond their ken. Putin is one of these. He just doesn’t get it. People—nations—want to be free. It is just that simple. His KGB background, which depended ultimately on coercion, has saturated his soul so that it is impossible for him to think otherwise. Evil is blind.That’s its fatal weakness. Putin doesn’t get it because he has used force, intimidation, or coercion his entire adult life, with impunity. That’s his vision of reality as well as his personal modus operandi. But people inherently want and need freedom and self-determination. Man was born to be free. If the power of the Soviet Union should miraculously come to life again, so would its fatally coercive nature. Such affects the entire society top to toe, from foreign and domestic policy to academia to personal freedoms and human rights to economics. This many former Soviet Block countries understand only too well and so want nothing to do with Putin’s play for power. Putin blames the West for this, when in reality he has no one to blame but himself.

It is pathetic, yet comical, to watch this ex-spy at work—threatening and bullying (Putin’s a classic bully) to try to keep the West from encroaching on the territory of the former Soviet Union. What is beyond his understanding—and this then makes him a tyrant (and God’s enemy) –is that in foreign policy as in life, threats and bullying are self-defeating. Christ’s “Love your neighbor as well as your enemy” is something Putin, like all tyrants, just can’t understand—because they don’t want to. Had Putin showed the same kind of helping spirit that the EU has shown, earlier to Georgia and Moldova, he might then have got his Ukraine at no extra cost. But to ask a tyrant to become a saint is, of course, impossible. When Putin meets his Maker to receive his judgment, as we all must one day, he will hear this ringing in his ears: “What you did to the least of these, you did unto me.” Only then will tyrants like Putin begin to understand the power and the glory, but also the judgment, of Love—but then it will be too late.

All tyrants and dictators, but also the very wealthy, fail to understand that ALL power, earthly or otherwise, belongs strictly to Almighty God. In imitation of God, all power is meant to be a path to helping others, beginning with the weakest and most vulnerable. Power is never meant to increase one’s wealth or privileges. The powerful on earth stand “in loco parentis,” in place of God the Father. The shepherd uses his position, not to slaughter his sheep but to feed and care for them, and to keep wolves at bay.

God rules with love, our duty (and joy) is to emulate that rule. Such alone satisfies the soul’s hunger for ultimate meaning, and covers all despair, loneliness, and fear—as well as makes life the wonderful gift it is, and ought to be. But to seek earthly power for power’s sake, to glory in it, to use it to dominate and intimidate, to get rich by it—these all go against the grain of God’s Law of Universal Love. Compared to force and violence, threats and intimidation, Love seems out of its league. So the foolish always, in every era, think and believe. “Only the strong survive.” But that inescapable day of judgment skulks all of us, catching us, some sooner, some later, but in the end—everyone. Then shall we see that true power is Love.

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Mt. 7:13-14.)

Len Sive Jr.


John C. Martin, CEO of Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, has set a price of $1,000/pill in the US for the newly-approved drug Sovaldi, which has recently been proven to cure Hepatitis C. The full treatment would require 84 pills, which in combination with other drugs would raise the price of a cure to around $150,000 per patient. Since Hepatitis C patients are largely from minority and low-income families, most would not be able to afford the high cost of this life-saving treatment even with private insurance or Medicaid.

Drug companies routinely charge more in the US than in countries that set price controls. By way of comparison, the same treatment for Hepatitis C of 84 pills that sells in the US for $84,000 sells in Egypt (and with a profit) for a total of only $1,000—a whopping 8400% increase for the American market! This is nothing less than institutional rape. At this extortion price, treating patients with Hepatitis C would cost in the billions of dollars, bankrupting Medicaid. The wisdom of establishing price controls over medicines ought now to be apparent. This extortion price of $1,000/pill would cause untold suffering, since it would take Medicaid monies away from other patients in order to fund Hepatitis C patients, or else it would mean treating fewer patients with Hepatitis C. Either way this high price will cause senseless suffering and death—despite an affordable cure at hand!

How much does Dr. Martin make as CEO of Gilead? In 2013 he made over $15 million dollars—that’s $41,000/day! In just two days he earns more than most teachers earn in a year! No wonder Martin has little sympathy for the suffering poor. Perhaps now we can understand more profoundly the sayings of Christ about the rich, which were no doubt born of the same frustration dealing with them in his day as we feel in our own: “The rich will have a difficult time getting into heaven” and “It will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.”

To be wealthy carries with it responsibilities and duties, something the rich in every era do not want to contemplate. This current case of pricing a cure beyond the reach of the sufferers enables us to see very acutely that wealth can be a blessing or a curse, depending upon one’s character. Andrew Carnegie, the richest man of his day, upon retiring said: “The amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry…To continue…with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond the hope of permanent recovery.” By “idolatry” Carnegie meant that the end—money-making—justifies any and every means. Morality is sacrificed on the altar of Money-making. Instead of worshipping The One True God, the money-maker worships his one true god, Avarice.  And none shall exist beside it.

The Republicans and Tea Party folk would of course applaud, as we all would, the ingenuity of Gilead in developing this wonder drug; but they would then undoubtedly add: “To the victor belong the spoils,” i.e., it’s Gilead’s right to charge whatever it thinks the market can bear—and “(big) government” stay out! Let the market itself be the “corrector,” not the government!

On the surface this has a certain plausibility to it: If the market can’t bear the price, then the market will correct it (so goes the Free Market theory). But life—and economics—is rarely so cut-and-dried. Two things are operating here that don’t fit this neat little schema. First, the government cannot allow too many of the sick to die, at risk of alienating the public and of being accused of indifference to the sick and dying (which tension I am sure Gilead is only too aware of); and secondly, health insurance (Medicaid, for example) is not taken into account in discussions of a Free Market. That is, the buck stops not with the individual (his free will choice) or with the larger workings of the Free Market, but with Medicaid (the government’s “artificial” path to help those who otherwise would not be able to afford the high price of US medical care and medicines). Thus this is not a pure market scenario of supply and demand, as Conservatives would no doubt preach, but one “distorted,” if you will, by ethics and compassion as well as the politics of the sick and dying.

The “Achilles’ heel” of the Free Market argument resides in the fact that the fullness of human nature is not taken into account; specifically, man’s sinful nature is left out of the picture altogether. Anytime a theory of human action lacks this crucial component of human nature, it can’t work as it is supposed to. (This was also true of Communism, and why all such Utopias are impossible to effect.)

In a realistic economic model, one must take into account avarice, corruption, price-fixing, monopolies, extortion, coercion, manipulation, deceit, worker slavery or virtual slavery, ecological disasters, indifference to human suffering, inter alia, which the “pure” economic model of the Free Market cannot, and does not, effectively or realistically deal with, if it deals with it at all.

This is only one argument for a strong Federal government–but a compelling one. Tea Party politics is at bottom sheer Utopian nonsense. Why do we assume that man left alone in the marketplace will be virtuous, or at least law-abiding, when we know that man in all other contexts, when left alone, is almost never virtuous? Which is precisely why we have commandments and laws, and rules and regulations, not to mention a large judicial branch to enforce them. Life without law would quickly descend into sheer chaos and conflict, murder and mayhem. It would be a Hobbesian Hell.

Gilead is operating in the US market with extreme avarice because it is betting that it can legally get away with it with the support of the Republicans, The Tea Party, et. al. In Egypt, on the other hand, Gilead knows it cannot set whatever price it wants, so it does not even try. Supply and demand, let alone reason, have nothing at all to do with Gilead’s pricing, in the US or elsewhere—but greed and expedience only.

Capitalism as we have known it for the last 150 years has proven itself to be a failed theory, leading to one economic crisis after another, and to an oligarchy of, by, and for the richest 1%. It is time to venture out and try new theories, ones that take into account the fullness of human nature in all of its complex manifoldness, including man’s inherently sinful nature. Then perhaps we might see Gilead begin to price rationally—and its CEO earn not the highly absurd $41,000 a day (no single person on earth is worth that much money!) but a more palatable and reasonable (say) $100,000 per year.

Then, too, we might begin to see the resurgence of the (now defeated and trampled on) middle-class; and perhaps witness as well the end of the pernicious, unbelievably high income disparity now ravaging our country, making a mockery of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, whose foundation stone is the equality of man, not the ruler/serf economic model rapidly developing in our vicious form of Capitalism.

Our historic “land of opportunity,” unique in human history, is fast disappearing, and with it the last saving hope, the last bright light shining in the darkness, for the world’s poor, huddled, teeming masses. Historically, our greatness as a country has come from enabling incoming poor to rise to middle-class security and respectability. But Conservatives have, since 1980 when they put Reagan into office, remade America into a paragon not of equality and justice but of inequality and injustice: where money and power rule, not what is just or right or good.  Soon our historic greatness will be only a tattered and faded memory—with no power to inspire one to strive, to change, or to remake. Our once-fluid society is increasingly become an encrusted caste society, like India’s. “From rags to riches” now reads “from rags to rags.” And “a government of, by, and for the people” is now become “the government of, by, and for the rich and the powerful.”

The America of historic opportunity has become an America of rigid race and class lines. The only thing today that Conservatives conserve is their own power, wealth, and privilege. In this they are not classically conservative but rather radicals of the most extreme stamp—what would in Lincoln’s day be anti-unionist Southerners. At bottom, Tea Party members and Republicans have the mentality and politics of slave-holding Southerners, angry with “big government” for having freed their slaves. This is why right- wing fantics attack Lincoln today, and why they loath the federal government. Substitute “guns” for “slaves” and we now see clearly their political agenda. With the Tea Party insisting upon state’s rights, we are  fighting the Civil War all over again. And the outcome will determine whether we shall remain a united nation or a mere confederacy of states, which is what the Tea Party and others desire and are working for.

Len Sive Jr.