ABBOTT CLAIMS COALITION 'MORALLY COURAGEOUS'
February 2004
In the Australian's Letters column (Commander Howard runs Aground 24-25/1/04)
Melbourne barrister Julian Burnside dismissed MP Tony Abbott's attempts
"to rehabilitate the moral virtues of his Government". In an
earlier Opinion article (23/1/04) Abbott had drawn a comparison between
the dilemma faced by actor Russell Crowe in his role in Master and Commander:
the Far Side of the World and the moral dilemmas faced by governments.
In the movie, threatened with the possibility of the whole ship going
down with all lives lost, but knowing he is condemning a crew member to
certain death, our 'heroe' cuts away a fallen mast on which the crew member
struggles.
One man is sacrificed in order to save the many.
Julian Burnside noted: "Packaged that way, a moral argument can be
mounted to support what otherwise looks like heartless cruelty or criminality."
He gives a name to the act - Utilitarianism, a view of life pioneered
by Jeremy Bentham, English philosopher and jurist 1748-1831. Bentham propounded
a test for the morality of conduct: what will produce the greatest happiness
for the greatest number?
"Utilitarianism appeals, explained Mr. Burnside, "because it
avoids the awkwardness of moral absolutes." He continued, "The
Crowe example is a good one: utilitarianism justifies killing an innocent
human being. And faced with the stark contest between one death and many,
it is easy to see the force of a utilitarian solution."
He went on to expose the weaknesses in Abbott's claims: "First, utilitarianism
is not such an effective guide when the choices are less stark. When the
consequences of competing courses of action are less easy to predict,
the result of utilitarian thinking depends uncomfortably on the disposition
of the person doing the arithmetic.
Burnside used the example of the Howard regime's military aggression against
Iraq - an act Howard continues to justify by such claims as the deaths
"of a few thousand Iraqis in war was a fair price to pay to avoid
the deaths of hundreds of thousands at Saddam's hands."
But, insists Burnside, there are not enough aspects of the moral argument
taken into account in the Abbott equation:
What about "the loss of Iraq's sovereignty", and the "effect
of a precedent which sees the world's only superpower invade another country
on a false or debatable pretext?" He observes than those aspects
would be hard to quantify, so a utilitarian solution would be less reliable,
and more subjective than the Crowe example.
Mr. Burnside presents a compelling rebuttal to Abbott's claim of a 'morally
courageous' Howard
Government, but for me, he would have presented a better argument for
the asylum seekers' plight - again the victims of a utilitarian philosophy
- if he had asked why the world is awash with refugees from war-ravaged
lands.
The refugees, the asylum seekers, are symptoms of a much more serious
malady, of much deeper evils which are never brought to the 'light of
day' and dealt with. It's like treating the symptoms of a terrible disease
without ever getting to the cause. And - the symptoms, the problems are
pretty much the same round the world:
Spiralling violence, tortures, killings, starvation, corruption and fraudulent
practices in high places, economic hardship and misery for the masses,
privatisation of bloated State enterprises by fraudulent, greedy Super-Debt-Capitalists,
who have never had any qualms 'playing the harlot' with Fascist/Socialist/Communist
dictators. Need I go on?
No one solves a problem by enlarging its borders. In order to come to
grips with a problem, shouldn't one start to ask such questions as:
Why have these people fled their homelands in the first place?
What have our leaders done, in our name, which contributed to the appalling
situation?
What can we effectively do to help ensure peace and security for them
in their own land?
HISTORY RE-EXAMINED
Whilst mulling over the presently ruling Utilitarian philosophy of the
Coalition, I was reminded of one of the most important historical events
in the Christian calendar. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus
Christ.
What happened at the time?
The company of soldiers and their commander and the officers of the
Jews took Jesus, and bound him and led him first of all to Annas, who
was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest at the time. Caiaphas
had advised the ruling elite that it was better that one man should
die for the people.
Utilitarian? I think so! But let's look a little further.
Some of those who had heard what Jesus said and did, went to the Pharisees
and reported on the effect Jesus' teaching was having on the people.
So the chief priests and the Pharisees conspired together as to what
they should do in the circumstances. If they let him alone, men would
believe on him and the Romans would take away their positions and privileges
as the ruling elite; it could even mean the end of Judea.
To continue…Therefore, in effect, Caiaphas in his position as high
priest, judged that it was expedient that one man should die to save
the rest of them. One man is sacrificed in order to save the many…
especially those in positions of privilege and power! Utilitarian?...
Yes! Christian?… No!
Do I believe this philosophy of utilitarianism
is still inherent within Judaism? Yes I do. But, more importantly, Christians
the world over have themselves become judaised. In fact, it is implicit
in the term 'Judaeo-Christian'.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
"Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for a friend."
If a man is going to lay down his life for his friend, it will be because
he chooses to do so - not because someone else chooses he should die.
That is murder!
Acts of bravery are recognised as acts of selflessness - a person has
been willing to risk his own life to save another.
The general rule for Christians is: "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you." It is a philosophy of mutualism - mutual
love and co-operation between men of goodwill.
"Friend I do thee no wrong. Why do you think evil because I mean
to do good? Did we not agree?" The principle of mutual agreement
and consent is essential, it is fundamental, in a free Christian society.
We were told we "cannot serve God and mammon," i.e., the banking-financial
system. It is of the utmost importance people grasp the truth of the
world situation. A small group of men, International Financiers, are
using the financial system to impose their policy of centralised power
on the whole world. The financial system is the headquarters of this
evil policy. From a Christian viewpoint, the policy of the centralisation
of power is the denial of the right of men and women to freedom; it
is the denial of the sanctity of human personality.
"The love of money," i.e., the preference for money, in terms
of personal advancement, above all other considerations, "is the
root of all kinds of evil."
"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not
neither do they spin - and yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed
like one of these." In the Old Testament Solomon is portrayed as
the great 'money power' of his day. When considering the lilies, we
are focusing on God's natural order, as part of His creation, as part
of His Order - and it is compared with the order set up by Solomon -
mammon.
"He who would be greatest among you must be the servant of them
all." The principle of service. Our Queen, Elizabeth II, has pledged
herself to a life of service to her people.
"The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath." The
claim that institutions are all-important and individuals have no importance
is just exactly the claim which was challenged 2000 years ago. It must
be challenged again.
THE JEWISH CENTURY
Professor Henry Mackow, himself a Jew, wrote
a critique of Professor Kevin MacDonald's book, Culture of Critique,
which portrayed the 20th Century as a Jewish century. The following
is taken from the critical review:
A hundred years ago Jews were an impoverished
people, living mostly in Eastern Europe surrounded by hostile populations.
Today Israel is firmly established in the Middle East and Jews have
become the wealthiest and most powerful elite in the United States and
other Western countries. More significantly, according to McDonald,
the western intellectual world has become Judaised, Jewish values and
attitudes now constitute the culture of the West. Because of deep-seated
Jewish hostility toward traditional Western (i.e., Christian) culture,
the founding peoples have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their
own history.
Specifically, Jewish organizations promote policies and ideologies aimed
at undermining cultural cohesion while practicing the opposite policies
themselves. While they promote multiculturalism and internationalism
in the West, they insist that Israel remain a racially pure national
enclave for Jews.
MacDonald speculates that Jews feel more comfortable in societies without
a distinctive national character. I think it is more than this. The
break-up of society into isolated individuals is also the agenda of
the new world order, which wishes to remove any united resistance."
MacDonald focused on the power and influence of Jewish intellectuals
in the breakdown of western values.
Boas - Anthropology, Adorno - Sociology, Freud
- Psychiatry, Derrida - Philosophy:
MacDonald focuses on how Jewish intellectual movements, led by authoritarian
figures, took over modern intellectual life. He discusses Boas in Anthropology,
Adorno in Sociology, Freud in Psychiatry and Derrida in Philosophy.
The "Frankfurt School," for example, was a "Marxist Jewish
cult" financed by Jewish millionaire Felix Weil. Theodore Adorno's
influential book "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950)
was actually sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. It attributed
prejudice to Christian sexual repression and portrayed Gentile group
affiliations (including Christian religion, patriotism, and Family)
as indications of psychiatric disorder.
Professors MacDonald and Makow both insist, social disintegration leads
to psychological confusion. Society has accepted Adornos' view that
there is no objective standard of truth, no common reality. Every one
is isolated and different. Adorno resisted attempts to 'endow the world
with any universality, objectivity or totality, with any single organizing
principle that would homogenize society...'
This kind of post-modernist philosophy has paralysed
modern Western culture. Western civilization is built on the foundation
that truth is spiritual, universal and knowable. Ultimately truth is
God.
A liberal arts education is 'toxic':
Universities today have given up the pursuit of truth and are devoted
to Bolshevik-like social engineering and indoctrination. A liberal arts
education today is not only a waste of time but toxic. Far from bearers
of the Western tradition, universities are its executioners with the
tacit blessing of the government.
He (MacDonald) documents the stranglehold Jews have on U.S. cultural
life and shows how it is used to shape American attitudes…Jewish
rituals are portrayed as "pleasant and ennobling". There is
never any rational explanation for anti Semitism …[it] is portrayed
as an absolute irrational evil that must be fought at every turn.
On the other hand, Christianity is typically portrayed as evil in the
movies and Christians are even depicted as psychopaths. MacDonald cites
conservative Jewish critic Michael Medved who complains that he couldn't
find one film made since 1 975 where Christianity was portrayed positively.
Jewish-Christian rivalry:
MacDonald sees anti Semitism as the result of legitimate conflicts-of-interest.
Yet Jewish organizations demonise anyone with the temerity to address
Jewish power. They suppress the fact that Jewish-Christian rivalry has
very deep roots in Western society.
Makow continued: In my view, this rivalry boils down to the fact that
Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ's gospel of universal love and human
brotherhood. Ever since, Jews have been social and metaphysical outcasts,
albeit, ones with amazing powers of self-justification. We have been
used as pawns by worldly powerbrokers bent on destroying Christian civilization.
The "modernist" trend of the 20th Century can be seen in these
terms.
As I have suggested elsewhere, Judaism is more
a racial creed than a religion. Jews are told we have a mission to create
equality and social justice. In fact, we are being used by financiers
to build a totalitarian world order. The financiers hold out socialist
ideals as bait to transfer more and more power to government, which
they control.
Of course, not all Jews are pawns of the new world order. Most pawns
are not Jews. Racism has no place in this debate. But generally I believe
Jews have played a prominent role in modernism.
A beacon for humanity, we have not been. Deceived ourselves, we have
deceived others and purveyed personal dysfunction and societal oppression.
Our role in Communism is a disgrace. Israel is a source of shame. Jews
need to discover who we really are and rededicate ourselves…
MacDonald does not suggest remedies. But to combat
the "new world order," Western nations must return to their
Christian and national roots. The founding groups should reassert their
values and traditions as the common glue. Minorities should be welcomed
but they should not be able to remake society in their own image.
At birth we each enter a drama already in progress. We may sense something
very wrong but we can't define it. In fact, we are in the advanced stages
of a long-term conspiracy to subvert Western civilization. "Modernism"
in the 20th Century was a hoax designed to strip people of their familial,
cultural and religious identity before enslaving them in a new dark
age. Western societies must return to their Christian and national roots
or this drama will not end well."
ReporterNoteBook@aol.com
|
