• Author
  • Publications
  • Reviews
  • Series
  • Poetry
  • Essays
  • PT Forsyth

Per∙Crucem∙ad∙Lucem

~ ... blogging sub specie crucis

Per∙Crucem∙ad∙Lucem

Category Archives: John Pilger

Around the traps: under grey skies repatriated

21 Thursday Apr 2011

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Anzac Day, Chaplaincy, Church and State, Easter, God's name, John Pilger, Karl Barth, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

≈ 4 Comments

  • Scott Stephens on being Christian, government funding and chaplaincy in schools.
  • When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
  • J. Scott Jackson reviews David Haddorff’s Christian Ethics as Witness: Barth’s Ethics for a World at Risk.
  • What Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart owes to his big sister, Maria Anna Mozart.
  • Michael Jensen on ‘Is God a bloke?’, or on why ‘a Christianity that refuses to call God “Father” is something other than Christianity’.
  • The future, according to Google search results.
  • John Pilger on Anzac Day and Australia’s role as ‘deputy sheriff’.
  • Scott Hamilton on New Zealand’s ‘endangered life form’ – the literary critic – and reviews on Private Bestiary.
  • Garry Deverell posts on Holy Week and the Great Three Days of Easter – an introduction for the uninitiated.
  • Halden Doerge details a Call for Papers for an AAR session on Jacob Taubes and Christian Theology.
  • An excerpt from Žižek’s Living in the End Times.
  • An Easter Message from Ricky Gervais.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

‘The bodice of my new costume caught on the handlebar …’

08 Sunday Aug 2010

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Book Review, Colin Gunton, Disability, Evil, Hans Küng, John Calvin, John Pilger, Karl Barth, Paul Fiddes, RS Thomas, U2

≈ 1 Comment

  • The Centre for Public Christianity (CPX) has posted two recent interviews with Paul Fiddes. And there’s more Fiddes here on ‘The End of the World: A Work in Progress’.
  • Frank Rees posts on ‘Christian Freedom’ and a free church.
  • John Pilger on why Tony Blair must be arrested.
  • A public lecture by Professor Steve Reicher (professor of social psychology at the University of St Andrew’s) titled ‘Beyond the Banality of Evil’. The lecture, which goes for about 85 minutes, critically addresses Hannah Arendt’s hypothesis on the banality of evil arguing that those who commit extreme acts are not aware of the consequences of their actions; rather, they celebrate these consequences as moral.
  • Jim Gordon posts on R S Thomas, the Crucified God and the virtue of metaphysical humility.
  • Rick Floyd posts on Disability and Grace.
  • Kimlyn J. Bender reviews Gunton’s The Barth Lectures. My own review of Gunton’s volume can be read here.
  • Sung-Sup Kim reviews David Gibson’s Reading the Decree: Exegesis, Election and Christology in Calvin and Barth. My own review of this is here.
  • Ben Myers, aka Mr Tomato Plant, shares two chapters of his forthcoming Man Booker Prize-shortlisted novel on gelato and the girl who buttons her coat as her ‘dad arrives to close the shop’.
  • Here’s two books I’m waiting for: The Pastor: A Memoir by Eugene H. Peterson, and Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom by Peter J. Leithart
  • Finally, I’m enjoying U2′s Go Home: Live from Slane Castle.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Around: ‘Love seeketh not itself to please’

27 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Australia, Baptism, Burma, Ecumenism, John Calvin, John Pilger, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Parenting, Pastoral Ministry, Poetry, Prayer, Richard Hays, Stanley Hauerwas, William Blake

≈ 1 Comment

  • Stanley Hauerwas and the university
  • Richard Hays on the word of reconciliation
  • Byron Smith shares a great quote from Karl Rahner on ‘Christian pessimism’
  • John Pilger on ‘Julia Gillard, the new warlord of Oz’
  • Walter Kasper on the regret of no shared communion
  • Elliott Prasse-Freeman on Retaking power in Burma (Part I)
  • Carol Howard Merritt on What Causes Pastors to Burnout?
  • J.R. Daniel Kirk shares a parents prayer
  • Kim Fabricius shares a wonderful sermon on baptism
  • Sung-Sup Kim reviews David Gibson’s Reading the Decree: Exegesis, Election and Christology in Calvin and Barth
  • Ben Myers is completely uninterested in ‘being a real man’
  • ‘Speaking Christian: A Commencement Address for Eastern Mennonite Seminary’ by Stanley Hauerwas
  • Finally, here’s some William Blake that I’m enjoying today:

‘The Clod and the Pebble’

‘Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a heaven in hell’s despair.’

So sung a little clod of clay,
Trodden with the cattle’s feet,
But a pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:

‘Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another’s loss of ease,
And builds a hell in heaven’s despite.’

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Why the Oscars are a con

11 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Film, Invictus, John Pilger, Oscars, Propaganda

≈ 8 Comments

‘This year’s Oscar nominations are a parade of propaganda, stereotypes and downright dishonesty. The dominant theme is as old as Hollywood: America’s divine right to invade other societies, steal their history and occupy our memory. When will directors and writers behave like artists and not pimps for a world-view devoted to control and destruction?

I grew up on the movie myth of the Wild West, which was harmless enough unless you happened to be a Native American. The formula is unchanged. Self-regarding distortions present the nobility of the American colonial aggressor as a cover for massacre, from the Philippines to Iraq. I only fully understood the power of the con when I was sent to Vietnam as a war reporter. The Vietnamese were “gooks” and “Indians”, whose industrial murder was preordained in John Wayne movies and left to Hollywood to glamourise or redeem.

I use the word murder advisedly, because what Hollywood does brilliantly is suppress the truth about America’s assaults. These are not wars, but the export of a gun-addicted, homicidal “culture”. And when the notion of psychopaths as heroes wears thin, the bloodbath becomes an “American tragedy” with a soundtrack of pure angst …

My Oscar for the worst of this year’s nominees goes to Invictus, Clint Eastwood’s unctuous insult to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Based on a hagiography of Mandela by a British journalist, John Carlin, the film might have been a product of apartheid propaganda. In promoting the racist, thuggish rugby culture as a panacea of the “rainbow nation”, Eastwood gives barely a hint that many black South Africans were deeply embarrassed and hurt by Mandela’s embrace of the hated springbok symbol of their suffering. He airbrushes white violence – but not black violence, which is ever present as a threat. As for the Boer racists, they have hearts of gold, because they “didn’t really know”. The subliminal theme is all too familiar: colonialism deserves forgiveness and accommodation, never justice. At first I thought Invictus could not be taken seriously, but then I looked around the cinema at young people and others for whom the horrors of apartheid have no reference, and I understood the damage such a slick travesty does to our memory and its moral lessons. Imagine Eastwood making a happy-Sambo equivalent in America’s Deep South. He would not dare’. – John Pilger

Read the rest here.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Australia’s Apartheid

26 Thursday Nov 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Australia, Human Rights, John Pilger

≈ Comments Off

Freemantle Prison

‘Since Rudd‘s apology, Aboriginal poverty indicators have gone backwards. His “Closing the Gap” programme is a grim joke, having produced not a single new housing project.

An undeclared agenda comes straight from Australia’s colonial past: a land-grab combined with an almost prurient need to control, harass and blame a people who have refused to die off, whose genius is their understanding of an ancient land that still perplexes and threatens white authority. Whenever Canberra’s politicians want to look “tough”, they give the Aborigines a good kicking: it is a ritual as sacred as Don Bradman worship or Anzac Day.

The indigenous affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, has decreed that unless certain communities hand over their precious freehold leases, they will be denied basic services. The Northern Territory contains abundant mineral wealth, such as uranium, and has long been eyed by multinationals as a lucrative radioactive waste dump. The blacks are in the way, yet again: so it is time for the usual feigned innocence. Rudd has said his government “doesn’t have a clear idea of what’s happening on the ground” in Aboriginal Australia. What? The learned studies pour forth as if the sorcerer’s apprentice is loose.

One example: the rate of incarceration of black Australians is five times that of black South Africans during apartheid. Western Australia imprisons Aboriginal men at eight times the apartheid figure, an Aussie world record.

On 16 November, a 12-year-old Aboriginal boy appeared in court charged with receiving a Freddo Frog chocolate bar from a friend who had allegedly taken it from a supermarket. Only the international headlines forced the police to drop the case. Two-thirds of Aboriginal children who have contact with the police are jailed; two-thirds of white children are cautioned. A young Aboriginal man was jailed for a year for stealing £12 worth of biscuits and soft drink’.

- John Pilger, ‘Return to a secret country’. New Statesman 26 November 2009.

It seems that I can’t put away my sackcloth and ashes just yet …

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Iran and Samoa

01 Thursday Oct 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Iran, John Pilger, Samoa, US Foreign Policy

≈ 5 Comments

propagandaJohn Pilger spotlights that Obama’s propaganda machine is in full swing:

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”. – John Pilger, Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie

On another – and more immediate – note, the Global Mission Office of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand is coordinating a relief effort for the people of Samoa hit by the tsunami of 30 September, donations to be passed on to partner churches and agencies working in Samoa. Appeals are also being run by Oxfam and the New Zealand Red Cross.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

John Pilger: Mourn on the fourth of July

21 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Barack Obama, John Pilger, Politics

≈ Leave a Comment

barack-obamaThe monsoon had woven thick skeins of mist over the central highlands of Vietnam. I was a young war correspondent, bivouacked in the village of Tuylon with a unit of US marines whose orders were to win hearts and minds. “We are here not to kill,” said the sergeant, “we are here to impart the American Way of Liberty as stated in the Pacification Handbook. This is designed to win the hearts and minds of folks, as stated on page 86.”

Page 86 was headed WHAM. The sergeant’s unit was called a combined action company, which meant, he explained, “we attack these folks on Mondays and we win their hearts and minds on Tuesdays”. He was joking, though not quite. Standing in a jeep on the edge of a paddy, he had announced through a loudhailer: “Come on out, everybody. We got rice and candy and toothbrushes to give you.”

Silence. Not a shadow moved.

“Now listen, either you gooks come on out from wherever you are, or we’re going to come right in there and get you!”

The people of Tuylon finally came out and stood in line to receive packets of Uncle Ben’s Long Grain Rice, Hershey bars, party balloons and several thousand toothbrushes. Three portable, battery-operated, yellow flush lavatories were kept for the colonel’s arrival. And when the colonel arrived that evening, the district chief was summoned and the yellow flush lavatories were unveiled.

“Mr District Chief and all you folks out there,” said the colonel, “what these gifts represent is more than the sum of their parts. They carry the spirit of America. Ladies and gentlemen, there’s no place on earth like America. It’s a guiding light for me, and for you. You see, back home, we count ourselves as real lucky having the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and we want you good folks to share in our good fortune.”

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Davy Crockett got a mention. “Beacon” was a favourite, and as he evoked John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill”, the marines clapped, and the children clapped, understanding not a word.

It was a lesson in what historians call “exceptionalism”, the notion that the United States has the divine right to bring what it describes as liberty and democracy to the rest of humanity. That this merely disguised a system of domination, which Martin Luther King described, shortly before his assassination, as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”, was unspeakable.

As the great people’s historian Howard Zinn has pointed out, Winthrop’s much-quoted description of the 17th-century Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “city upon a hill”, a place of unlimited goodness and nobility, was rarely set against the violence of the first settlers, for whom burning alive some 400 Pequot Indians was a “triumphant joy”. The countless massacres that followed, wrote Zinn, were justified by “the idea that American expansion is divinely ordained”.

Not long ago, I visited the American Museum of History, part of the celebrated Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. One of the popular exhibitions was “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War”. It was holiday time and lines of people, including many children, shuffled reverentially through a Santa’s grotto of war and conquest where messages about their nation’s “great mission” were dispensed. These ­included tributes to the “exceptional Americans [who] saved a million lives” in Vietnam, where they were “determined to stop communist expansion”. In Iraq, other true hearts ­“employed air strikes of unprecedented precision”. What was shocking was not so much the revisionist description of two of the epic crimes of modern times as the sheer scale of omission.

“History without memory,” declared Time magazine at the end of the 20th century, “confines Americans to a sort of eternal present.. They are especially weak in remembering what they did to other people, as opposed to what they did for them.” Ironically, it was Henry Luce, founder of Time, who in 1941 divined the “American century” as an American social, political and cultural “victory” over humanity and the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit”.

None of this is to suggest that vainglory is exclusive to the United States. The British presented their often violent domination of much of the world as the natural progress of Christian gentlemen selflessly civilising the natives, and present-day TV historians perpetuate the myths. The French still celebrate their bloody “civilising mission”. Prior to the Second World War, “imperialist” was an honoured political badge in Europe, while in the US an “age of innocence” was preferred. America was different from the Old World, said its mythologists. America was the Land of Liberty, uninterested in conquest. But what of George Washington’s call for a “rising empire” and James Madison’s “laying the foundation of a great empire”? What of slavery, the theft of Texas from Mexico, the bloody subjugation of central America, Cuba and the Philippines?

An ordained national memory consigned these to the historical margins and “imperialism” was all but discredited in the United States, especially after Adolf Hitler and the fascists, with their ideas of racial and cultural superiority, had left a legacy of guilt by association. The Nazis, after all, had been proud imperialists, too, and Germany was also “exceptional”. The idea of imperialism, the word itself, was all but expunged from the American lexicon, “on the grounds that it falsely attributed immoral motives to western foreign policy”, argued one historian. Those who persisted in using it were “disreputable purveyors of agitprop” and were “inspired by the communist doctrine”, or they were “Negro intellectuals who had grievances of their own against white capitalism”.

Meanwhile, the “city on the hill” remained a beacon of rapaciousness as US capital set about realising Luce’s dream and recolonising the European empires in the postwar years. This was “the march of free enterprise”. In truth, it was driven by a subsidised production boom in a country unravaged by war: a sort of socialism for the great corporations, or state capitalism, which left half the world’s wealth in American hands. The cornerstone of this new imperialism was laid in 1944 at a conference of the western allies at Bretton Woods in New Hampshire. Described as “negotiations about economic stability”, the conference marked America’s conquest of most of the world.

What the American elite demanded, wrote Frederic F Clairmont in The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism, “was not allies but unctuous client states. What Bretton Woods bequeathed to the world was a lethal totalitarian blueprint for the carve-up of world markets.” The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the African Development Bank were established in effect as arms of the US Treasury and would design and police the new order. The US military and its clients would guard the doors of these “international” institutions, and an “invisible government” of media would secure the myths, said Edward Bernays.

Bernays, described as the father of the media age, was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. “Propaganda,” he wrote, “got to be a bad word because of the Germans… so what I did was to try and find other words [such as] Public Relations.” Bernays used Freud’s theories about control of the subconscious to promote a “mass culture” designed to promote fear of official enemies and servility to consumerism. It was Bernays who, on behalf of the tobacco industry, campaigned for American women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation, calling cigarettes “torches of freedom”; and it was his notion of disinformation that was deployed in overthrowing governments, such as Guatemala’s democracy in 1954.

Above all, the goal was to distract and deter the social democratic impulses of working people. Big business was elevated from its public reputation as a kind of mafia to that of a patriotic force. “Free enterprise” became a divinity. “By the early 1950s,” wrote Noam Chomsky, “20 million people a week were watching business-sponsored films. The entertainment industry was enlisted to the cause, portraying unions as the enemy, the outsider disrupting the ‘harmony’ of the ‘American way of life’… Every aspect of social life was targeted and permeated schools and universities, churches, even recreational programmes. By 1954, business propaganda in public schools reached half the amount spent on textbooks.”

The new “ism” was Americanism, an ideology whose distinction is its denial that it is an ideology. Recently, I saw the 1957 musical Silk Stockings, starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse. Between the scenes of wonderful dancing to a score by Cole Porter was a series of loyalty statements that the colonel in Vietnam might well have written. I had forgotten how crude and pervasive the propaganda was; the Soviets could never compete. An oath of loyalty to all things American became an ideological commitment to the leviathan of business: from the business of armaments and war (which consumes 42 cents in every tax dollar today) to the business of food, known as “agripower” (which receives $157bn a year in government subsidies).

Barack Obama is the embodiment of this “ism”. From his early political days, Obama’s unerring theme has been not “change”, the slogan of his presidential campaign, but America’s right to rule and order the world. Of the United States, he says, “we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good… We must lead by building a 21st-century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.” And: “At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, that we stood and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond their borders.”

Since 1945, by deed and by example, the US has overthrown 50 governments, including democracies, crushed some 30 liberation movements and supported tyrannies from Egypt to Guatemala (see William Blum’s histories). Bombing is apple pie. Having stacked his government with warmongers, Wall Street cronies and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras, the 45th president is merely upholding tradition. The hearts and minds farce I witnessed in Vietnam is today repeated in villages in Afghanistan and, by proxy, Pakistan, which are Obama’s wars.

In his acceptance speech for the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature, Harold Pinter noted that “everyone knew that terrible crimes had been committed by the Soviet Union in the postwar period, but “US crimes in the same period have been only superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all”. It is as if “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn’t happening… You have to hand it to America… masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

As Obama has sent drones to kill (since January) some 700 civilians, distinguished liberals have rejoiced that America is once again a “nation of moral ideals”, as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times. In Britain, the elite has long seen in exceptional America an enduring place for British “influence”, albeit as servitor or puppet. The pop historian Tristram Hunt says America under Obama is a land “where miracles happen”. Justin Webb, until recently the BBC’s man in Washington, refers adoringly, rather like the colonel in Vietnam, to the “city on the hill”.

Behind this façade of “intensification of feeling and degradation of significance” (Walter Lippmann), ordinary Americans are stirring perhaps as never before, as if abandoning the deity of the “American Dream” that prosperity is a guarantee with hard work and thrift.. Millions of angry emails from ordinary people have flooded Washington, expressing an outrage that the novelty of Obama has not calmed. On the contrary, those whose jobs have vanished and whose homes are repossessed see the new president rewarding crooked banks and an obese military, essentially protecting George W Bush’s turf.

My guess is that a populism will emerge in the next few years, igniting a powerful force that lies beneath America’s surface and which has a proud past. It cannot be predicted which way it will go. However, from such an authentic grass-roots Americanism came women’s suffrage, the eight-hour day, graduated income tax and public ownership. In the late 19th century, the populists were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. In the Obama era, the familiarity of this resonates.

What is most extraordinary about the United States today is the rejection and defiance, in so many attitudes, of the all-pervasive historical and contemporary propaganda of the “invisible government”. Credible polls have long confirmed that more than two-thirds of Americans hold progressive views. A majority want the government to care for those who cannot care for themselves. They would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone. They want complete nuclear disarmament; 72 per cent want the US to end its colonial wars; and so on. They are informed, subversive, even “anti-American”.

I once asked a friend, the great American war correspondent and humanitarian Martha Gellhorn, to explain the term to me. “I’ll tell you what ‘anti-American’ is,” she said. “It’s what governments and their vested interests call those who honour America by objecting to war and the theft of resources and believing in all of humanity. There are millions of these anti-Americans in the United States. They are ordinary people who belong to no elite and who judge their government in moral terms, though they would call it common decency. They are not vain. They are the people with a wakeful conscience, the best of America’s citizens. They can be counted on. They were in the South with the civil rights movement, ending slavery. They were in the streets, demanding an end to the wars in Asia. Sure, they disappear from view now and then, but they are like seeds beneath the snow. I would say they are truly exceptional.”

Adapted from an address, Empire, Obama and the Last Taboo, given by John Pilger at Socialism 2009 in San Francisco on 4th July.

[Source: johnpilger.com]

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Around the traps …

05 Tuesday May 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Church and State, John Pilger, Rudolph Bultmann, William T. Cavanaugh

≈ Leave a Comment

  • A new essay by Cavanaugh: ‘Telling the Truth about Ourselves: Torture and Eucharist in the U.S. Popular Imagination’
  • Ben draws attention to some new Bultmann and Heidegger books
  • Peter Leithart posts on the Dangers of Anti-Constantinianism
  • John Pilger on Obama’s 100 days
  • Robin Parry on the violence of Christendom

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

John Pilger on the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the Blair War Crimes Foundation

02 Thursday Apr 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in John Pilger, Tony Blair, War Crimes

≈ 3 Comments

tony-blairThese are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes [sic] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, the Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves”.

That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the west, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial, he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. The then home secretary, Jack Straw, let him escape back to Chile.

The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is no longer the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former president George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.” For this reason, Bush’s first defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques for use in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, said: “We have clear evidence that Mr Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”

The Spanish high court is currently investi­gating a former Israeli defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing 600,000 peasants to death in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said: “I take my daily orders from Dr Kissinger.”

Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions relating to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated judge Baltasar Garzón, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W Bush, Blair and the former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq – “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history – a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said: “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”

This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the west. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa – the latter a spectre for apartheid Israel.

Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once-sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at a remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, R L Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter . . . I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”

Blair, too, is safe – but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to the international law authority Richard Falk. He cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others. At present, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for the former prime minister’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, a former judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court, E W Thomas, wrote: “My predisposition was to believe that Mr Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth $1m. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long exposed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister – a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment, and preferably forgotten.

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried”. He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?” This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?” In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Saddam Hussein’s “contribution to international terrorism” and his “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction”. Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right”. He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.”

In the subsequent six years, at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.

F­ar from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbour – in Australia, the original Murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in the Guardian of more than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of the Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous grovelling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to soothe them.”

With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion”. She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability . . . [sic]?”

A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values”. Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong, that’s what I thought the British found really hard [sic]”, to which Blair replied that “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was his classic lie, and it passed unchallenged.

However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bond-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels”. She wrote: “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?” Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible.” No counter came that Gaza was not a war, but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task “to prepare them for statehood”. The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated”. The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him”.

These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can man now launching more war.

“We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.”

To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation of the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part – or who, like Alastair Campbell, offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some – might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, four million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.”

These are indeed extraordinary times.

[Source: New Statesman]

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Around the traps …

06 Friday Mar 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Book Review, Books, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Pilger, Karl Barth, Politics, Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

dietrich-bonhoeffer

  • Church and Postmodern Culture has been hosting a great 6-part conversation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6) on Nathan Kerr’s Christ, History and Apocalyptic: The Politics of Christian Mission. Be sure to also check out Halden’s posts on Kerr’s book too: Mission and Apocalyptic Ecclesiology and The Church as Polis? Some Biblical Reflections
  • The latest edition of Journal of Reformed Theology (3/1, 2009) is out and includes articles by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christoph Schwöbel , Robert Letham, Dirkie Smit, Steve Holmes and Seung Goo Lee on the Trinity
  • Dave Belcher on “Where are the Protestants?”
  • Registration is now open for the 2009 Karl Barth Conference at Princeton Seminary
  • Lots of Barth-related book reviews:
    • Christophe Chalamet reviews Stefan Holtmann’s “Karl Barth als Theologe der Neuzeit”
    • William Barnett reviews Eberhard Busch’s “Barth”
    • David W. Congdon reviews P.H. Brazier’s “Barth and Dostoevsky”
    • David W. Congdon also reviews R. Dale Dawson’s “The Resurrection in Karl Barth”
    • John L. Drury reviews Stephen Wigley’s “Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar: A Critical Engagement”
    • Shannon Nicole Smythe reviews “A Shorter Commentary on Romans by Karl Barth
    • Shannon Nicole Smythe also reviews Donald Wood’s “Barth’s Theology of Interpretation”
    • Jason T. Ingalls reviews Matt Jenson’s “The Gravity of Sin: Augustine, Luther, and Barth on Homo Incurvatus in Se”
    • Jason T. Ingalls and W. Travis McMaken review Willimon’s “Conversations with Barth on Preaching” and Yocum’s “Ecclesial Mediation in Karl Barth”
    • Alexander Massmann reviews Matthias D. Wüthrich’s “Gott und das Nichtige: Zur Rede vom Nichtigen ausgehend von Karl Barths KD § 50″
    • W. Travis McMaken reviews Paul T. Nommo’s “Being in Action: The Theological Shape of Barth’s Ethical Vision”
    • Shane Wilkins reviews Neil MacDonald’s “Karl Barth and the Strange New World within the Bible: Barth, Wittgenstein and the Metadilemmas of the Enlightenment”
  • Byron Smith posts on Dying for the half-hearted and the corrupt
  • Peter Liethart asks if there’s not even something right about the vision of Christendom
  • Ben Myers posts a great quote from William Cavanaugh on Church and eucharist
  • Steve Holmes asks What is evangelism?
  • A wonderful excerpt from a new biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945. Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance is on its way in October. How awesome is that!
  • Unmasking lies about Picasso
  • John Pilger on the loss of freedom in totalitarian Britain
  • Lawmakers Debate Establishing “Truth Commission” on Bush Admin Torture, Rendition and Domestic Spying: ‘… How did we get to a point where we were holding a legal US resident for more than five years in a military brig without ever bringing charges against him? How did we get to a point where Abu Ghraib happened? How did we get to a point where the United States government tried to make Guantanamo Bay a law-free zone, in order to deny accountability for our actions? How did we get to a point where our premier intelligence agency, the CIA, destroyed nearly a hundred videotapes with evidence of how detainees were being interrogated? How did we get to a point where the White House could say, “If we tell you to do it, even if it breaks the law, it’s alright, because we’re above the law”?’
  • Italians get together to remember Calvin

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

John Pilger on ‘The politics of bollocks’

05 Thursday Feb 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Barack Obama, Israel, John Pilger, Palestine, Politics, United Nations, War, War Crimes

≈ 1 Comment

obamaWhile much of the world has been observing the post-election balloons starting to deflate, the last streamers being swept up, and the last drop of bubbly being sculled (though some of us have now refilled our flutes after recent news), John Pilger‘s gutsy pen has been resisting all efforts to shut up and be grateful that at least President Bush is gone. It’s time, he says, for Obama-lovers to grow up. He is, of course, right. Here’s Pilger piece published in yesterday’s New Statesman: 

‘Growing up in an Antipodean society proud of its rich variety of expletives, I never heard the word bollocks. It was only on arrival in England that I understood its magisterial power. All classes used it. Judges grunted it; an editor of the Daily Mirror used it as noun, adjective and verb. Certainly, the resonance of a double vowel saw off its closest American contender. It had authority.

A high official with the Gilbertian title of Lord West of Spithead used it to great effect on 27 January. The former admiral, who is a security adviser to Gordon Brown, was referring to Tony Blair’s assertion that invading countries and killing innocent people did not increase the threat of terrorism at home.

“That was clearly bollocks,” said his lordship, who warned of a perceived “linkage between the US, Israel and the UK” in the horrors inflicted on Gaza and the effect on the recruitment of terrorists in Britain. In other words, he was stating the obvious: that state terrorism begets individual or group terrorism at source. Just as Blair was the prime mover of the London bombings of 7 July 2005, so Brown, having pursued the same cynical crusades in Muslim countries and having armed and disported himself before the criminal regime in Tel Aviv, will share responsibility for related atrocities at home.

There is a lot of bollocks about at the moment.

The BBC’s explanation for banning an appeal on behalf of the stricken people of Gaza is a vivid example. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, cited the corporation’s legal requirement to be “impartial . . . because Gaza remains a major ongoing news story in which humanitarian issues . . . are both at the heart of the story and contentious”.

In a letter to Thompson, David Bracewell, a licence-fee payer, illuminated the deceit behind this. He pointed to previous BBC appeals for the Disasters Emergency Committee that were not only made in the midst of “an ongoing news story” in which humanitarian issues were “contentious”, but also demonstrated how the corporation took sides.

In 1999, at the height of the illegal Nato bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, the TV presenter Jill Dando made an appeal on behalf of Kosovar refugees. The BBC web page for that appeal was linked to numerous articles meant to stress the gravity of the humanitarian issue. These included quotations from Blair himself, such as: “This will be a daily pounding until he [Slobodan Milosevic] comes into line with the terms that Nato has laid down.” There was no significant balance of view from the Yugoslav side, and not a single mention that the flight of Kosovar refugees began only after Nato had started bombing.

Similarly, in an appeal for victims of the civil war in the Congo, the BBC favoured the regime led by Joseph Kabila by not referring to Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other reports accusing his forces of atrocities. In contrast, the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda was “accused of committing atrocities” and ordained the bad guy by the BBC. Kabila, who represented western interests, was clearly the good guy – just like Nato in the Balkans and Israel in the Middle East.

While Mark Thompson and his satraps richly deserve the Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Blue Ribbon, that honour goes to the cheer squad of President Barack Obama, whose cult-like obeisance goes on and on.

On 23 January, the Guardian‘s front page declared, “Obama shuts network of CIA ‘ghost prisons’”. The “wholesale deconstruction [sic] of George Bush’s war on terror”, said the report, had been ordered by the new president, who would be “shutting down the CIA’s secret prison network, banning torture and rendition . . .”

The bollocks quotient on this was so high that it read like the press release it was, citing “officials briefing reporters at the White House yesterday”. Obama’s orders, according to a group of 16 retired generals and admirals who attended a presidential signing ceremony, “would restore America’s moral standing in the world”. What moral standing? It never ceases to astonish that experienced reporters can transmit PR stunts like this, bearing in mind the moving belt of lies from the same source under only nominally different management.

Far from “deconstructing the war on terror”, Obama is clearly pursuing it with the same vigour, ideological backing and deception as the previous administration. George W Bush’s first war, in Afghanistan, and last war, in Pakistan, are now Obama’s wars – with thousands more US troops to be deployed, more bombing and more slaughter of civilians. Last month, on the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism”, 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama’s bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal.

Far from “shutting down the CIA’s secret prison network”, Obama’s executive orders actually give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without threat of legal obstruction. As theLos Angeles Times disclosed, “current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition programme might be poised to play an expanded role”. A semantic sleight of hand is that “long-term prisons” are changed to “short-term prisons”; and while Americans are now banned from directly torturing people, foreigners working for the US are not. This means that America’s numerous “covert actions” will operate as they did under previous presidents, with proxy regimes, such as Augusto Pinochet’s in Chile, doing the dirtiest work.

Bush’s open support for torture, and Donald Rumsfeld’s extraordinary personal overseeing of certain torture techniques, upset many in America’s “secret army” of subversive military and intelligence operators because it exposed how the system worked. Obama’s newly confirmed director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has said the Army Field Manual may include new forms of “harsh interrogation” which will be kept secret.

Obama has chosen not to stop any of this. Neither do his ballyhooed executive orders put an end to Bush’s assault on constitutional and international law. He has retained Bush’s “right” to imprison anyone, without trial or charge. No “ghost prisoners” are being released or are due to be tried before a civilian court. His nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, has endorsed an extension of Bush’s totalitarian USA Patriot Act, which allows federal agents to demand Americans’ library and bookshop records. The man of “change” is changing little. That ought to be front-page news from Washington.

The Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Prize (Runner-Up) is shared. On 28 January, a nationally run Greenpeace advertisement opposing a third runway at Heathrow Airport in London summed up the almost wilful naivety that has obstructed informed analysis of the Obama administration.

“Fortunately,” declared Greenpeace beneath a Godlike picture of Obama, “the White House has a new occupant, and he has asked us all to roll back the spectre of a warming planet.” This was followed by Obama’s rhetorical flourish about “putting off unpleasant decisions”. In fact, the president has made no commitment to curtail America’s infamous responsibility for the causes of global warming. As with George W Bush and most other modern-era presidents, it is oil, not stemming carbon emissions, that informs his administration. His national security adviser, General Jim Jones, a former Nato supreme commander, made his name planning US military control over the exploitation of oil and gas reserves from the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Guinea off Africa.

Sharing the Bollocks Runner-Up Prize is the Observer, which on 25 January published a major news report headlined, “How Obama set the tone for a new US revolution”. This was reminiscent of the Observer almost a dozen years ago when liberalism’s other great white hope, Tony Blair, came to power. “Goodbye xenophobia” was the Observer‘s post-election front page in 1997 and “The Foreign Office says ‘Hello World, remember us?’”. The government, said the breathless text, would push for “new worldwide rules on human rights and the environment” and implement “tough new limits” on arms sales. The opposite happened. Last year, Britain was the biggest arms dealer in the world; currently, it is second only to the United States.

In the Blair mould, the Obama White House “sprang into action” with its “radical plans”. The president’s first phone call was to that Palestinian quisling, the unelected and deeply unpopular Mahmoud Abbas. There was a “hot pace” and a “new era”, in which a notorious name from an ancien régime, Richard Holbrooke, was despatched to Pakistan. In 1978, Holbrooke betrayed a promise to normalise relations with the Vietnamese on the eve of a vicious embargo ruined the lives of countless Vietnamese children. Under Obama, the “sense of a new era abroad”, declared the Observer, “was reinforced by the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state”. Clinton has threatened to “entirely obliterate Iran” on behalf of Israel.

What the childish fawning over Obama obscures is the dark power assembled under cover of America’s first “post-racial president”. Apart from the US, the world’s most dangerous state is demonstrably Israel, having recently killed and maimed some 4,000 people in Gaza with impunity. On 10 February, a bellicose Israeli electorate is likely to put Binyamin Netanyahu into power. Netanyahu is a fanatic’s fanatic who has made clear his intention of attacking Iran. In the Wall Street Journal of 24 January, he described Iran as the “terrorist mother base” and justified the murder of civilians in Gaza because “Israel cannot accept an Iranian terror base [Gaza] next to its major cities”. On 31 January, unaware he was being filmed, Tel Aviv’s ambassador to Australia described the massacres in Gaza as a “pre-introduction” – a dress rehearsal – for an attack on Iran.

For Netanyahu, the reassuring news is that the new US administration is the most Zionist in living memory, a truth that has struggled to be told from beneath the soggy layers of Obama-love. Not a single member of the president’s team demurred from his support for Israel’s barbaric actions in Gaza. Obama himself likened the safety of his two young daughters with that of Israeli children but made not a single reference to the thousands of Palestinian children killed with American weapons – a violation of both international and US law. He did, however, demand that the people of Gaza be denied “smuggled” small arms with which to defend themselves against the world’s fourth-largest military power. And he paid tribute to the Arab dictatorships, such as Egypt, which are bribed by the US treasury to help the United States and Israel enforce policies described by the UN special rapporteur Richard Falk, a Jew, as “genocidal”.

It is time the Obama lovers grew up. It is time those paid to keep the record straight gave us the opportunity to debate informatively. In the 21st century, people power remains a huge and exciting and largely untapped force for change, but it is nothing without truth. “In the time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Pilger on Gaza

08 Thursday Jan 2009

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Israel, John Pilger, Palestine

≈ Leave a Comment

John Pilger has posted on ‘Gaza Under Fire’:

‘… what happens in Gaza is the defining moment of our time, which either grants war criminals impunity and immunity through our silence, while we contort our own intellect and morality, or it gives us the power to speak out’.

Full article here.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Pilger: ‘The lies of Hiroshima live on’

08 Friday Aug 2008

Posted by Jason Goroncy in John Pilger, War, War Crimes

≈ 7 Comments

There’s a challenging reflection by John Pilger in today’s Guardian on the USA’s murder of Japanese people in 1945:

‘The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate “good war”, whose “ethical bath”, as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb … Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer’.

The full article is re-posted at Civicus.

A book commendation: Some years ago now, I read the inspiring biography of Takashi Nagai, a Japanese victim of terminal radiation disease, a peace activist, a physician, and a convert to Christianity. The book, A Song for Nagasaki, recounts the horrors of atomic devastation, the ironies of the bomb’s dropping on one of Japan’s few Christian communities, Nagai’s struggle to find meaning in suffering, and the power of the word of forgiveness and reconcilation. The book is written by Paul Glynn, an Australian Marist Brother who served over 20 years in Japan.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

John Pilger: ‘The lies of Hiroshima live on, props in the war crimes of the 20th century’

08 Friday Aug 2008

Posted by Jason Goroncy in John Pilger, War Crimes

≈ 4 Comments

‘When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.

He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, “a bluish light, something like an electrical short”, after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. “I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead.” Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia.

In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb’s blast. It was the first big lie. “No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin” said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. “I write this as a warning to the world,” reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called “an atomic plague”. For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared – and vindicated.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate “good war”, whose “ethical bath”, as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. “Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hard”. Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times. In waging their bogus “war on terror”, the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make “pre-emptive” nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current “threat”. But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK – just as the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington.

The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical. That America’s Defence Intelligence Estimate says “with high confidence” that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media “fact” that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again.

This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country’s political and military establishment, threatened “an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland”. This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out.

The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that “we did not know”? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called “a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence”? Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer.’

Source: John Pilger, writing for The Guardian

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

John Pilger on the cowardice of silence

31 Saturday May 2008

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Burma, John Pilger

≈ Leave a Comment

‘When I phoned Aung San Suu Kyi’s home in Rangoon yesterday, I imagined the path to her door that looks down on Inya Lake. Through ragged palms, a trip-wire is visible, a reminder that this is the prison of a woman whose party was elected by a landslide in 1990, a democratic act extinguished by men in ludicrous uniforms. Her phone rang and rang; I doubt if it is connected now. Once, in response to my “How are you?” she laughed about her piano’s need of tuning. She also spoke about lying awake, breathless, listening to the thumping of her heart.

Now her silence is complete. This week, the Burmese junta renewed her house arrest, beginning the 13th year. As far as I know, a doctor has not been allowed to visit her since January, and her house was badly damaged in the cyclone. And yet the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, could not bring himself to utter her name on his recent, grovelling tour of Burma. It is as if her fate and that of her courageous supporters, who on Tuesday beckoned torture and worse merely by unfurling the banners of her National League for Democracy, have become an embarrassment for those who claim to represent the “international community”. Why?

Where are the voices of those in governments and their related institutions who know how to help Burma? Where are the honest brokers who once eased the oppressed away from their shadows, the true and talented peacemakers who see societies not in terms of their usefulness to “interests” but as victims of it? Where are the Dennis Hallidays and Hans von Sponecks who rose to assistant secretary-general of the UN by the sheer moral force of their international public service?

The answer is simple. They are all but extinguished by a virus called the “war on terror”. Where once men and women of good heart and good intellect and good faith stood in parliaments and world bodies in defence of the human rights of others, there is now cowardice. Think of the parliament at Westminster, which cannot even cajole itself into holding an inquiry into the criminal invasion of Iraq, let alone to condemn it and speak up for its victims. Last year, 100 eminent British doctors pleaded with the minister for international development, then Hilary Benn, for emergency medical aid to be sent to Iraqi children’s hospitals: “Babies are dying for want of a 95 pence oxygen mask,” they wrote. The minister turned them down flat.

I mention that because medical aid for children is exactly the kind of assistance the British government now insists the Burmese junta should accept without delay. “There are people suffering in Burma,” said an indignant Gordon Brown. “There are children going without food … it is utterly unacceptable that when international aid is offered, the regime will try to prevent that getting in.” David Miliband chimed in with “malign neglect”. Say that to the children of Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza, where Britain’s role is as neglectful and malign as any. As scores of children in Shia areas of Baghdad are blown to bits by America and what the BBC calls Iraq’s “democratic government”, the British are silent, as ever. “We” say nothing while Israel torments and starves the children of Gaza, ignoring every attempt to bring a ceasefire with Hamas, all in the name of a crusade that dares not say its name. What might have been a new day for humanity in the post-cold war years, even a renewal of the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, of “never again” from Palestine to Burma, was cancelled by the ambitions of a sole rapacious power that has cowed all. The “war on terror” allows Australia and Israel to train Burma’s internal security thugs. It consumes both most humanitarian aid indirectly and the very internationalism capable of bringing the “clever” pressure on Burma, about which Aung San Suu Kyi once spoke.

Dismissing the idiocy of a military intervention in her country, she asked: “What about all those who trade with the generals, who give them many millions of dollars that keep them going?” She was referring to the huge oil and gas companies, Total and Chevron, which effectively hand the regime $2.7bn a year, and the Halliburton company (former chief executive Vice-President Dick Cheney) that backed the construction of the Yadana pipeline, and the British travel companies that send tourists across bridges and roads built with forced labour. Audley Travel promotes its Burma holidays in the Guardian. The BBC, in contravention of its charter, has just bought 75% of Lonely Planet travel guides, a truculent defender of “our” right to be tourists in Burma regardless of slave labour, or cyclones, or the woman beyond the trip-wire. Shame’.

[Source: The Guardian]

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Pilger on Britain’s New Labour

19 Wednesday Dec 2007

Posted by Jason Goroncy in John Pilger, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

I don’t normally read The Guardian, but yesterday’s carried this piece by John Pilger (whose essays I always read). In his typically undisguised style, Pilger argues that Tony Blair and ‘his cult’ have ‘destroyed the very liberalism millions of Britons thought they were voting for’. He writes:

In the murdochracy that Britain has largely become, once noble terms such as democracy, reform, even freedom itself, have long been emptied of their meaning.

Gone is the bourgeoisie that in good times would extend a few rungs of the ladder to those below. From Blair’s pseudo-moralising assault on single parents a decade ago to Peter Hain’s recent attacks on the disabled, the “project” has completed the work of Thatcher and all but abolished the premises of tolerance and decency, however amorphous, on which much of British public life was based. The trade-off has been mostly superficial “social liberalism” and the highest personal indebtedness on earth.

And, according to Pilger, things are not looking any different under Brown:

Behind a facade of liberal concern for the world’s “disadvantaged”, such as waffle about millennium goals and anti-poverty stunts with the likes of Google and Vodafone, the Brown government, together with its EU partners, is demanding vicious and punitive free-trade agreements that will devastate the economies of scores of impoverished African, Caribbean and Pacific nations. In Iraq, the blood-letting of a “liberal intervention” may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, while the British occupiers have made no real attempt to help the victims of their lawlessness. And putting out more flags will not cover the shame. “The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30% compared to the Saddam Hussein era,” says Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at Basra children’s hospital. In January nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations under UN security resolution 1483. He refused to see them.

Whole British communities now live in fear of the police. The British are distinguished as one of the most spied upon people in the world …

The cause of any real civil threat to Britons has been identified and confirmed repeatedly by the intelligence services. It is “our” continuing military presence in other people’s countries and collusion with a Washington cabal described by the late Norman Mailer as “pre-fascist”. When famous liberal columnists wring their hands about the domestic consequences, let them look to their own early support for such epic faraway crimes.

Britain is now a centralised single-ideology state, as secure in the grip of a superpower as any former eastern bloc country.

Dear John, ‘Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path …’ (Isaiah 30:10b-11a)

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

The Politics of Hypocrisy

28 Sunday Oct 2007

Posted by Jason Goroncy in Burma, John Pilger, Politics

≈ 3 Comments

John Pilger, one of my favourite journalists, has written a wee piece in this week’s Guardian which turns the spotlight onto British, North American, Australian and Israeli business interests in Burma – all, of course, at the expense of justice. Thank you John. Here’s the piece:

‘The news is no more from Burma. The young monks are quiet in their cells, or they are dead. But words have escaped: the defiant, beautiful poetry of Aung Than and Zeya Aung; and we know of the unbroken will of the journalist U Win Tin, who makes ink out of brick powder on the walls of his prison cell and writes with a pen made from a bamboo mat – at the age of 77. These are the bravest of the brave. What shame they bring to those in the west whose hypocrisy and silence helps to feed the monster that rules Burma.

Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. “The United States,” she said, “is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma.” What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma’s offshore oilfields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice-President Cheney was chief executive.

For many years, the Foreign Office in London promoted business as usual in Burma. When I interviewed Aung San Suu Kyi a decade ago I read her a Foreign Office press release that said, “Through commercial contacts with democratic nations such as Britain, the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles.” She smiled sardonically and said, “Not a bit of it.”

In Britain, the official PR line has changed; Burma is a favourite New Labour “cause”; Gordon Brown has written a platitudinous chapter in a book about his admiration of Suu Kyi. On Thursday, he wrote a letter to Pen, waffling about prisoners of conscience, no doubt part of his current empty theme of “returning liberty” when none can be returned without a fight. As for Burma, the essence of Britain’s compliance and collusion has not changed. British tour firms – such as Orient Express and Asean Explorer – are able to make a handsome profit on the suffering of the Burmese people. Aquatic, a sort of mini-Halliburton, has its snout in the same trough, together with Rolls-Royce and others that use Burmese teak.

When did Brown or Blair ever use their platforms at the CBI and in the City of London to name and shame those British companies that make money on the back of the Burmese people? When did a British prime minister call for the EU to plug the loopholes of arms supply to Burma. The reason ought to be obvious. The British government is itself one of the world’s leading arms suppliers. Next week, the dictator of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, whose tyranny gorges itself on British arms, will receive a state visit. On Thursday the Brown government approved Washington’s latest fabricated prelude to a criminal attack on Iran – as if the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan were not enough for the “liberal” lionhearts in Downing Street and Whitehall.

And when did a British prime minister call on its ally and client, Israel, to end its long and sinister relationship with the Burmese junta? Or does Israel’s immunity and impunity also cover its supply of weapons technology to Burma and its reported training of the junta’s most feared internal security thugs? Of course, that is not unusual. The Australian government – so vocal lately in its condemnation of the junta – has not stopped the Australian Federal Police training Burma’s internal security forces.

Those who care for freedom in Burma and Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and beyond must not be distracted by the posturing and weasel pronouncements of our leaders, who themselves should be called to account as accomplices. We owe nothing less to Burma’s bravest of the brave’.

www.johnpilger.com (HT: Guardian Unlimited)

Scandalised by my own hypocrisy (which is no excuse for Rice’s, Brown’s or Howard’s), I am regularly reminded of Kierkegaard’s words from his Either/Or:

Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself; … In every man there is something which to a certain degree prevents him from becoming perfectly transparent to himself; and this may be the case in so high a degree, he may be so inexplicably woven into relationships of life which extend far beyond himself that he almost cannot reveal himself. But he who cannot reveal himself cannot love, and he who cannot love is the most unhappy man of all.

Share this:

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

♣

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 397 other followers

♣ Latest Posts

  • May stations
  • Afraid of roots and depths …
  • It doesn’t matter that I lost my shoes
  • The Westminster Confession of Faith
  • Felicem diem natalem, Martin
  • ‘Otago Peninsula’, by Brian Turner
  • Music and Theology in the European Reformations
  • ‘Jesus Summons Forth’
  • Bad sermons
  • April Stations

♣ Latest Comments

Jenny Pettersen on Afraid of roots and depths…
mart the rev on It doesn’t matter that I lost …
dbhamill on It doesn’t matter that I lost …
Pam on It doesn’t matter that I lost …
Jedidiah on The Westminster Confession of…
dbhamill on The Westminster Confession of…
intheologus on Felicem diem natalem, Mar…
plainsmann on John [Updike] on Paul [Ti…
scougal124 on ‘Otago Peninsula’, by Brian…
Pam on ‘Otago Peninsula’, by Brian…

♣ RSS Book of Common Prayer Daily Office Lectionary

  • May 31:

♣ Current Reading

♣ Current Listening

♣ Twitter

  • Picked up a collection of poems yesterday by #NZ #poet John Paisley. Trying to find out more about him. Can anyone help? 4 hours ago
  • Enjoying this new find - poems by John Paisley instagr.am/p/LShEGZlGx9/ 5 hours ago
  • May stations wp.me/p5RJc-3hb 17 hours ago
  • The First Church of Marilynne Robinson nyr.kr/KZLNJz 21 hours ago
  • Urbanscreen take on, and take down, the Sydney Opera House: youtu.be/o5ZvCv7yUKk 1 day ago
  • Michael Jinkins on The Joyful Ministry of the Cross bit.ly/LCvwtL 1 day ago
Follow @jasongoroncy

♣ Fellow Wayfarers

  • ABC Religion & Ethics
  • Alastair Roberts
  • Andrew Errington
  • Andrew Root
  • Andy Goodliff
  • Ben Myers
  • Bobby Grow
  • Brad East
  • Bruce Hamill
  • Byron Smith
  • Chris TerryNelson
  • Chris Tilling
  • Cynthia R. Nielsen
  • Dan Oudshoorn
  • Daniel Hartley
  • Davey Henreckson
  • David W. Congdon
  • Debra Dean Murphy
  • Die Evangelischen Theologen
  • Evan Kuehn
  • Frank Rees
  • Garry Deverell
  • Halden Doerge
  • James Alison
  • Jim Gordon
  • Joshua Woo Sze Zeng
  • Kait Dugan
  • Kelvin Wright
  • Kent Eilers & Kyle Strobel
  • Kevin Davis
  • Makoto Fujimura
  • Mary Beard
  • Matthew Frost
  • Matthew J. Milliner
  • Melanie Kampen
  • Michael Gibson
  • Michael Gorman
  • Michael Jensen
  • Michael Jinkins
  • Mike Crowl
  • Paul Fromont
  • Peter J. Leithart
  • Phil Sumpter
  • Ralph McMichael
  • Richard Hall
  • Richard L. Floyd
  • Robin Parry
  • Rose Marie Berger
  • Rowan Williams
  • Scott Hamilton
  • Sean Winter
  • Stephen Garner
  • Steve Holmes
  • Terry J. Wright
  • Transpositions

♣ History Journals

  • 19th Century UK Periodicals Online
  • Australasian Victorian Studies Journal
  • Church History
  • ELT: English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920
  • Historical Journal
  • Journal of British Studies
  • Journal of Ecclesiastical History
  • Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies
  • Journal of Religious History
  • Journal of the Historical Society
  • Journal of Victorian Culture
  • New Zealand Religious History Newsletter
  • Nineteenth Century Studies
  • Nineteenth Century Theatre and Film
  • Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide
  • Nineteenth-Century Contexts
  • Nineteenth-Century Gender Studies
  • Reformation and Renaissance Review
  • Review of English Studies
  • Romanticism on the Net
  • Studies in English Literature
  • Victorian Literature and Culture
  • Victorian Review
  • Victorian Studies
  • Victorian Studies Bulletin
  • Victorians Institute Journal
  • Waterloo Directory of English Newspapers and Periodicals, 1800-1900
  • Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900

♣ Libraries

  • Bible College of New Zealand Library
  • Bodleian Library
  • British Library
  • Carey Baptist College Library
  • Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  • Congregational Library
  • Dr Williams Centre for Dissenting Studies
  • Evangelical Library
  • Geoffrey Blackburn Library, Whitley College
  • Hekman Library
  • Hewitson Library
  • Howard V. and Edna H. Hong Kierkegaard Library
  • John Kinder Theological Library
  • LibriVox
  • MacFarland Library, Ormond College
  • Moore Theological College Library
  • National Archives of Scotland
  • National Library of Australia
  • National Library of New Zealand
  • National Library of Scotland
  • Open Library
  • Perseus Digital Library
  • Philosophical Libraries
  • Project Gutenberg
  • The Evangelical Library
  • The John Rylands University Library
  • The Post-Reformation Digital Library
  • University of Leicester Library
  • University of Otago Library

♣ Pastoralia

  • Alban Institute
  • Covered Dish
  • Deep and Wide
  • Faith and Leadership
  • Fresh Expressions
  • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Ministry Resources
  • John Mark Ministries
  • Lewis Center for Church Leadership
  • New Creation Teaching Ministry
  • New Way
  • Presbyterian Youth Ministry
  • Priscilla's Friends
  • ReSource
  • Rural & Migrant Ministry
  • Rural Ministry
  • SpouseConnect
  • The Connection
  • Youth Worker

♣ Research Tools

  • ABC Religion & Ethics
  • Alexander Turnbull Library
  • Arts & Letters Daily
  • Australiasian Digital Theses Program
  • BibleGateway
  • Bibleworks
  • British Online Archives
  • Center for Barth Studies
  • Charles Darwin Online
  • Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  • Creeds of Christendom
  • D. Anthony Storm’s Commentary on Kierkegaard
  • Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
  • Dictionary of the Scots Language
  • Dooyeweerd Pages
  • Dr Williams Centre for Dissenting Studies
  • Early New Zealand Books Project
  • Etymology Dictionary
  • Find Articles
  • FirstSearch
  • Great Books & Classics
  • Hauerwas Online
  • Humanities Research Network
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Jonathan Edwards Online
  • JournalSeek
  • Kant on the Web – 1
  • Kant on the Web – 2
  • Karl Barth Archive
  • Kierkegaard Articles
  • Letters of Note
  • Monachos
  • Māori Dictionary
  • National Museums Scotland
  • New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
  • New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
  • New Zealand History Online
  • New Zealand Religious History Newsletter
  • Nietzsche
  • Online Books
  • OpenDOAR
  • Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
  • Papers Past – National Library of New Zealand
  • Perichoresis
  • Philosophical Libraries
  • Philosophy Professor
  • Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand Archives Research Centre
  • Presbyterian Research
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Reformation and Renaissance Studies
  • Religion Online
  • Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Royal Historical Society
  • Søren Kierkegaard Research Center
  • Scottish Archive Network
  • Scottish Reformation Society
  • Te Aka Māori-English – English-Māori Dictionary
  • The H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies
  • The Post-Reformation Digital Library
  • The R.S. Thomas Study Centre
  • Theological Research Exchange Network
  • Theological Studies UK
  • Theses
  • Trinity Study Centre
  • Tyndale House
  • UMI Dissertation Publishing
  • Victorian Web
  • William Blake Archive
  • Worldcat
  • Yale Research Guide

♣ Societies

  • American Academy of Religion
  • American Society of Church History
  • Anabaptist Association of Australia & New Zealand
  • Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Mission Studies
  • Association of Practical Theology in Oceania
  • Australasian Theological Forum
  • Australian and New Zealand Association of Theological Schools
  • Australian Association for the Study of Religions
  • Center for Barth Studies
  • Christian Theological Research Fellowship
  • Churches Theological Research Trust
  • CS Lewis Society of California
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society
  • Hegel Society
  • Institute for Reformed Theology
  • Institute for Theology, Imagination and the Arts
  • Jürgen Moltmann Group
  • Kierkegaard Society of the UK
  • Mercersburg Research Fellowship
  • New Creation Teaching Ministry
  • New Zealand Association of Theological Schools
  • New Zealand Historical Association
  • Nineteenth-Century Theology Group
  • Presbyterian Historical Society
  • Reformation Scotland
  • Religious History Association of Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Royal Historical Society
  • Søren Kierkegaard Society (USA)
  • Scottish Evangelical Theology Society
  • Scottish Reformation Society
  • Societas Liturgica
  • Society for Reformation Studies
  • Society for the Study of Theology
  • Society of Biblical Literature
  • TF Torrance Theological Fellowship
  • The International Reformed Theology Institute
  • The Jonathan Edwards Society
  • The Mercersburg Society
  • Vatican – The Holy See
  • World Communion of Reformed Churches
  • World Reformed Fellowship

♣ Theology Journals

  • American Theological Inquiry
  • Anvil
  • Ars Disputandi
  • Australian Religion Studies Review
  • Case Magazine
  • Christian Century
  • Colloquium
  • Communio
  • Credenda Agenda
  • Crucible
  • CT – Books & Culture
  • CT – Christian History & Biography
  • Cultural Encounters
  • Ecclesia Reformanda
  • Ecclesiology
  • First Things
  • Harvard Ichthus
  • Harvard Theological Review
  • Heythrop Journal
  • International Bulletin of Missionary Research
  • International Journal of Practical Theology
  • International Journal of Public Theology
  • International Journal of Systematic Theology
  • Irish Theological Quarterly
  • Journal for Christian Theological Research
  • Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory
  • Journal for Scripture & Theology
  • Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling
  • Journal of Pastoral Theology
  • Journal of Psychology & Theology
  • Journal of Reformed Theology
  • Journal of Religion and Popular Culture
  • Journal of Theological Interpretation
  • Journal of Theological Studies
  • Lectionary Homiletics
  • Literature and Theology
  • Logia
  • Modern Reformation
  • Modern Theology
  • Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie
  • New Blackfriars
  • Open Theology
  • Pacifica
  • Participatio
  • Perspectives Journal
  • Practical Theology
  • Princeton Theological Review
  • Pro Ecclesia
  • Public Theology
  • Quodlibet
  • Reformed World
  • Religious Studies
  • Religious Studies Review
  • Review of Biblical Literature
  • Reviews in Religion & Theology
  • Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses
  • Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology
  • Scottish Journal of Theology
  • St Mark's Review
  • Stimulus
  • Studies in Christian Ethics
  • Testamentum Imperium
  • The Other Journal
  • Themelios
  • Theological Librarianship
  • Theology in Scotland
  • Wesleyan Theological Journal
  • Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte

♣ Worship Resources

  • Book of Common Prayer
  • Bruce Prewer
  • Calvin Hymnary Project
  • CCEL Hymn Tune Archive
  • Center for Worship Resourcing
  • Cyber Hymnal
  • Disclosing New Worlds
  • Emu Music
  • Genevan Psalter
  • Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary
  • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Ministry Resources
  • Ignatian Spirituality
  • Laughing Bird
  • Liturgies Online
  • Liturgy
  • Lutheran Hymnals
  • New Creation Music
  • Oremus
  • PC(USA) Worship Resources
  • Proost
  • Psalter.org
  • Reformed Liturgical Institute
  • Reformed Praise
  • RUF Hymnbook
  • Sacred Space
  • Taize
  • The Billabong
  • The Preachers Institute
  • The Text This Week
  • The Work of the People
  • Torch – The English Province of the Order of Preachers
  • Transforming Worship
  • Wild Goose Resources
  • Worship in Scots

♣ Books I’ve Written/Contributed To

♣ Topics

Advent Advice Alexander Solzhenitsyn Alfonse Borysewicz Anglicanism Anthropology Apologetics Art Atheism Atonement Aung San Suu Kyi Australia Authority Baptism Barack Obama Beer Bible Biblical criticism Biblical theology Biography Blasphemy Blogging Book Review Books Brian Turner Bruce McCormack Burma Children Christology Church Church and State Church History Church unity Compassion Conference Confession Conscience Creation Creeds Cross CS Lewis Culture David Bentley Hart Death Democracy Dietrich Bonhoeffer Discipleship Dunedin Easter Eberhard Jüngel Ecclesiology Ecumenism Education Election Emerging Church Emil Brunner Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Evil Faith Fatherhood Film Forgiveness Freedom Friedrich Nietzsche Friedrich Schleiermacher Fyodor Dostoevsky Geoffrey Bingham Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel GK Chesterton God God's name Gospel Grace Hans Küng Hans Urs von Balthasar Healing Hell Helmut Thielicke Hermeneutics History Holiness Holy Communion Holy Spirit Homosexuality Hope Humanity Human Rights Humour Hymn Idolatry Imagination Imago Dei Incarnation Indigenous Australia Iraq James Denney James K. Baxter Jesus Christ John Calvin John McLeod Campbell John Pilger John Webster Joseph Ratzinger Journals JRR Tolkein Judgement Justice Justification Jürgen Moltmann Karen Karl Barth Kenosis Kingdom of God Knowledge of God Leadership Lent Les Murray Life Love Love of God Marilynne Robinson Marriage Martin Luther Michael Leunig Miroslav Volf Missiology Mission Music Names News New Testament Studies New Zealand Noam Chomsky NT Wright Parenting parenting style Pastoral Ministry Penal substitution Philosophy Podcasts Poetry Politics Power Prayer Preaching Presbyterianism PT Forsyth R.S. Thomas Ray Anderson Reading Reconciliation Redemption Reformed Religion Research Resurrection Revelation Review Richard Bauckham Richard Dawkins Richard Lischer Robert Cording Robert Jenson Roman Catholicism Rowan Willams RS Thomas Rudolph Otto Sacraments Salvation Sanctification Science Scripture Sermons Sex Sin Slavoj Žižek Stanley Fish Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Søren Kierkegaard TF Torrance Theodicy Theological education Theology Theology and the Arts Trevor Hart Trinity Universalism Victorians Videos Violence Walter Brueggemann War War Crimes William Stringfellow Wine Worship Writing

♣ Archives

♣ Other places I loiter

ccblogs-badge

 

June 2012
S M T W T F S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Feeds et al

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.