Frederick Glaysher, Poets Against the War

Carlos,

We may have to agree to disagree. Your shifting now to the Reagan administration and Rumsfeld reveals a lot in my view, etc., etc. To my mind, your ranting vituperation still fails to address the issues as they exist and must be confronted and ignore the obligations of the UN to preserve law and order, not merely blabber about it. Enjoy your visit to DC! Thank God, Rumsfeld and Bush are working day and night to make it safe for you and your girlfriend!

Adios, Frederick Glaysher, www.fglaysher.com

--
Posted 02/19/2003 09:39 AM by Frederick Glaysher - http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

Frederick. Thank you for yet more rhetoric. When you are ready to answer my points in direct and concise terms I'll be ready to listen. You and I both know the Reagan administration (with Donald Rumsfeld as its emissary) GAVE Saddam his chemical weapons. And did so in spite of the lethal danger of the weapons snd the atrocities we knew he was committing against his own people (hmmm, wouldn't that make them accomplices to crimes against humanity? but we'll let that go, the way we forgot Iran-Contra). You and I both know OUR country has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on earth, and remains the only nation to have ever used one on an enemy. We both know the main recipient of our foreign aid is Israel, guilty of decades of overt human rights atrocities and continual defiance of UN resolutions. My point remains very simple: we haven't a "moral" leg to stand on in this situation. Which is not to say that we should not act against Saddam, when the UN believes the time has come- only that under the circumstances, we should have a little more humility and considerably more respect for the process the UN has in place. So if you want to make arguments from economic necessity, from political convenience, from whatever, as others do, then fine. But don't come at me with high-minded moral duty and "god" talk! Even the Pope is against this war. It is indefensible. This war will not be the US of the 1930's confronting Hitler. It will be a Dr. Frankenstein hunting down the monster of his own conscious design. Dr. Frankenstein should perhaps be more meditative,and consider which of TODAY'S actions are dooming the US of 2015 to its next horrible reckoning.

--
Posted 02/18/2003 10:49 AM by Carlos Arribas (carlos@aqualyrica.com - http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com

The Victory of World Governance

Carlos, Thank you for your response. In my opinion, you manage to clump together almost every left-wing, liberal, and irrational cliche into one paragraph that still fails to address the seriousness of the issues involved with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Your claiming that I've "sidestepped" your allegation of supposedly double standards and have a hidden agenda fails to grasp either my approach or concerns. Far from sidestepping anything or concealing an agenda, my views are open for any interested person to read in my online essay "The Victory of World Governance," an essay that supports further development of the United Nations into a global democratic institution, in ways many "right-wing" people would not approve of; one that lives up to the burden of its Charter, which requires it to bear the burden of military might. As an independent, politically speaking, I find the cliches of both the left and right repulsive. While the simple solutions of slogans and marching in the streets appeal to some, not I. It's easy to respond to the complexity of this world, politically, morally, whatever, with adolescent rage and fantasy, as Poets Against the War is doing, preening, insulting the First Lady and so on; a mature person looks to history and human experience for tried and true political forms of security, understanding that war is a necessary evil to crush a dictator that has destroyed tens of thousands of his own people and threatens many more outside his own borders. The time for games should have been over long ago. While I did not vote for President Bush, I have voted for members of both parties in the past, and I am, in all humility, (a virtue lacking among those ranting in the streets and elsewhere), grateful that my fellow citizens elected the right man. I hope and pray that God will help him to sustain the heavy burden of power in the best interests of our nation and all of humankind.

The Victory of World Governance:
http://www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm
Poets Against the War; My response:
http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

Frederick Glaysher www.fglaysher.com

--
Posted 02/18/2003 09:57 AM by Frederick Glaysher (fglaysher@hotmail.com - http://www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm)

[ Carlos to Frederick Glaysher]

If it's peace you really believe in, it will never be achieved through violence. The children of the Middle East will only grow up to be anti-American terrorists, more lethal than those of today, if we continue to attack them, and to sanction (and fund) the behavior of butchers like Ariel Sharon. Nor will it be achieved by insulting the intelligence and integrity of our European allies. As for comparisons of the UN to the "moribund" League of Nations, I don't think anyone is about to liken the threat of Saddam Hussein to Hitler! He is contained. Again, take a look at North Korea if you want to take on a kid closer to your own size. Violence must be a tool only of necessary self-defense, where diplomacy and other methods of pressure have failed. Who's appeasing Iraq?! Last I checked, the Europeans were fully within the spirit of the Charter by searching for a bloodless way to lock Iraq down before using force as a last resort. The Bush administration, by leveraging threats of unilateral force and dispelling every sign of progress, has been heating-up the cauldron since before this process even began. And it's very easy to sidestep the difficult questions about double-standards, isn't it, Frederick? But you will find a way to justify even those, because the hidden agenda is yours. You seem to claim a special, peculiar wisdom for the present right-wing government of the United States, a group of individuals out of step with the United Nations, its own NATO allies, and a great many (a majority, in fact) of its own citizens. Funny thing, it's the same posture taken by theocratic dictatorships throughout history: we have the real deal, a direct pipeline to the man upstairs, we are God's anointed, we know what's right, so just shut up and do what we tell you. If you like that kind of thinking, I've got a place for you. It's called Saudi Arabia. A place where ruling class men get drunk and entertain foreign prostitutes in penthouse lounges, while downstairs the mores of hypocrisy are brutally enforced. There's no place for that kind of (empty) moral absolutism in a modern, democratic world. Our European allies recognize that. Many Americans believe in that. That's where things are heading. Humanity is making progress. "Wishful thinking" is serving the cause of civilization. It's funny, we Americans were also far behind Europe in banishing the evils of slavery. Were we perhaps mistaken, Frederick, to follow their lead on that one? And which government, after Europe had freed the better part of its colonial domain (under UN supervision) was still "appeasing the oppressor" under the disgusting lie of racial segregation?

--
Posted 02/17/2003 10:26 AM by ( - ) [ Carlos ]

The Victory of World Governance

The fact that the majority of countries who hold the veto on the so-called Security Council are too craven to shoulder their responsibilities to defend the Charter of the United Nations only demonstrates how moribund the United Nations may now be. The United States has had to repeatedly defend civilization at key moments during the last hundred years when Europe has shown itself too weak to confront dictators and oppressors. It's easy to accuse our government, indeed any government, of double standards and think a great insight has been achieved. The fact remains that almost the only nation calling for the United Nations to live up to its Charter and not appease a despicable and dangerous regime is the United States. America is leading by the courage of its example. Those who are truly employing double standards are the radicals who deceive for their ulterior motives and the dreamers who believe peace can be maintained through wishful thinking. http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

Frederick Glaysher www.fglaysher.com

Posted 02/17/2003 07:47 AM by Frederick Glaysher (fglaysher@hotmail.com - http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm)

http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com/

Frederick. Thank you for reminding me that the UN is not, it's true, composed of true equals. However, given that is the case, I'll remind you that among those countries holding power of veto, we are still in the minority as involves the decision to use force against Iraq. But President Bush apparently has no qualms about forcing himself on a majority (why should he, isn't that how he landed in the Oval Office?). As for your implication that I am an America-hater, far from it. I deeply love our country, and want only for her to live up to her highest ideals of justice. The way we have conducted ourselves in the past 50 years veers far from the vision we shared with those who joined us in chartering the United Nations. You and I will read politicians' motives as we each will. And we disagree. I do not believe they're as noble as you evidently do. I'll refer you back to my initial comments about our government's double-standards, which you seemed to have missed when replying. America must lead by example, or lose the moral high ground upon which her authority rests. The World War II generation acted in that fashion. Their integrity earned for them the trust of a great majority of the world and, more importantly, of Americans. Look at the debates in the Security Council and at today's news and tell me if that is still the case. Even in the few countries whose leaders stand with the Bush position, an overwhelming opposition to this war among their citizens is the rule.

Posted 02/15/2003 08:59 PM by Carlos (carlos@aqualyrica.com - http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com)

The Victory of World Governance

Carlos,

I respect your conscience and the candid manner in which you've expressed yourself. Since you invite me to respond, I shall, with equal candor. As you know, I did not use the word "mindless," nor accuse you of it. Your questions are fair, and I'm happy to offer my candid response.

The United Nations is not composed of equals. It never has been. The power of the veto recognizes that political fact. The United States is vastly superior to the regimes found in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and, for instance, Iraq. The Charter of the United Nations, as the Constitution of the United States or the Federalist Papers, recognizes the world can be a very nasty, unpleasant place. Human beings dream, but, eventually, power in the hands of despots and murderers must be confronted. Read Chapter VII of the Charter. Though it's fashionable to hate America, I believe it's a shallow, confused emotion. At times, I've indulged in criticism of my country but feel it would be improper at the moment. The fullest statement of my views on our history and the United Nations may be read in my essay "The Victory of World Governance": http://www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm

Imperium? Isn't that the buzz word, especially in radicalized, leftist circles? Your use of it makes me question to what extent you're seriously interested in true peace, which can't be based on fantasy, but only the rock-hard evidence of cooperation among honest and open societies, seeking together how to live up to, and implement, the bitter experience of the League of Nations and the UN. Thank God, the Security Council was willing to sacrifice and work even on St. Valentine's Day.

Poets Against the War - My response: http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

May God guide and protect our nation and our President, as he sends our brave soldiers into righteous battle, to "crush the oppressor who flourisheth."

Frederick Glaysher www.fglaysher.com

--
Posted 02/14/2003 03:28 PM by Frederick Glaysher (fglaysher@hotmail.com - http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm to http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com in response to

Carlos Arribas
http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com

Thursday, February 13

I encourage and defend the free exchange of diverse opinions. While this blog is not a team venture, nor a forum, per se, any and all are welcome to respond to what is published here. Preferably by leaving comments onsite, and engaging in dialogue with others who find their way here.

I received an email tonight from poet and publisher Frederick Glaysher, who directed me to a letter he sent recently to the Times regarding the Poets Against the War movement. While I largely disagree with Mr. Glaysher, I encourage you all to have a read. My response is below.

Frederick-

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Poets Against the War. I do agree with you that mindless dissent serves no purpose. But I do not advocate dissent mindlessly, and I've heard far too much reasoned opinion lately to think most of our neighbors (or allies) do, either. I do, however, disagree with some of your reasoning.

I'm particularly interested in how you can simultaneously support the UN, as a democratic institution ostensibly composed of equals, and defend what presently amounts to the imposition of American demands on its other 200-odd members. Let me ask you, how do you justify our possession of weapons of mass destruction while maintaining credibilty as a state advocating disarmament? How do you see Bush as a defender of human rights, after he withdraws the US from the International Criminal Court in hopes of holding others accountable, while retaining for the American military carte blanche to do as, when, where it wishes? Tell me: do you advocate world, or American governance?

In my opinion, the "civilizing values of peace," as you call them, sound eerily like the twisted logic of the "White Man's Burden" that set Europe on a path of global destruction in past centuries. A path we continue to blaze, propping-up geopolitical structures and economic feifdoms as we see fit, and then destroying them when they no longer work for us. A course of action by turns myopic and amnesiac. You are right, Frederick, to insist upon the value of history. I couldn't agree with you more. I hope we will remember to read the roster of fallen powers before our hubris joins us to them.

Peace doesn't come at the end of a smart bomb. And peace can never be a unilateral dictat. Are you for civilization, for peace - or are you for imperium? If artists, or thinking people in general, are to be the "conscience of our culture," we must begin by looking deep into the mirror. Anything else is hypocrisy. It is logically and morally empty. And it will gain us only the enmity of the world, and thereby our eventual downfall.

10:40 PM

2-20-03 Posted to http://www.anacortesonline.com/letters.tpl

The thinking evinced by Brent Stavig has become all too common. Apparently, knowing nothing or little about the history of the culture to which he is located in and owes everything that benefits him and others, so thoroughly alienated and confused have some become, he imagines it's laudatory not to "belong." Such people exist in the vapor of their minds, the theories they've swallowed from equally radicalized and deracinated people, while imagining they're original and superior to the "old" folks clutching their outdated ways. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., etc., imagined they knew better than their down-to-earth countrymen, though I don't mean to suggest Mr. Stavig has gone to such extremes. Anti-American hate and vituperation are common viruses, perhaps as deadly as anthrax in the long run. Shallow cynicism is the common coin of our universities and many arrogant, misguided artists, part of the reason I resigned from university teaching in disgust.

I invite those readers actually interested in my views, not his distortions, to consider my essay "The Victory of World Governance, " a long mediation on Western cultural and political history and why we repeatedly have found ourselves cooperating in the creation and support of international institutions:
www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm

Poets Against the War
My response: http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
Earthrise Press
Rochester Hills, Michigan USA

---
Received: 02/19/2003
How Can One Betray Real Estate?
I've refrained from responding to Mr. Glaysher's rebuttal because I'm perplexed by the concept of "betraying" one's country. Let alone adhering to the belief that human beings "belong" to any particular country.

If Mr. Glaysher is part of an older generation who believes intrinsically that our government is looking out for our best interests, instead of the interests that serve itself and it's constituents, then I would understand his reluctance to oppose a pending war that's being fought in the name of oil. But if he is an artist, who understands that this planet is a self-contained unit with no boundaries, then I would suggest that he has undergone some traumatic experiences that have rendered his judgement obsolete with regard to the "world view".

From Brent Stavig

Posted to http://www.anacortesonline.com/letters.tpl

http://www.anacortesonline.com/Article.tpl?id=640

Response to Brent Stavig

Many poets have betrayed their art in the past by supporting Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other murderers and cut-throats. Poets have no necessarily ip so facto superior insight into human behavior and experience but like all other people, must prove their loyalty to what is human and enduring. Ezra Pound came to understand he had BETRAYED his fellow countrymen and civilization. It is equally possible that many poets and writers are following him down a similarly disgraceful road....

For a different view of the issues involved, I invite your readers
to consider my essay "The Victory of World Governance":
www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm

Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
Earthrise Press

Received: 02/15/2003
B Frederick Glaysher's notion that poets who are against the planned invasion of Iraq are "betraying their nation" is absurd. True poets are, by nature, a rare breed who can see deeper than most into the essence of life, and can translate the mystery into words of relevance. True poets are enlightened and can see the "big picture" of what really matters in this world. A true poet would never support the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians simply because President Bush assures us that Saddam Hussein will eventually do something that threatens others. A true poet would understand that ghosts can be erradicated with means other than weapons of mass destruction. The spectres of Saddam's mythical arsenal loom large in the rhetoric of Colin Powell, but most enlightened people understand that ghosts can't hurt you.

Poets aren't "betraying their art" as Frederick asserts. Rather, they are upholding a tradition of valuing the human experience instead of annihilating it under the guise of a "better them than us" philosophy.

From Brent Stavig

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: 02/13/2003
Poets Against The War Rebutted

In predictable fashion The New York Times Book Review and much
of the media have chosen to support the more radical and supposedly
"enlightened" viewpoint on the tiff with The White House and Laura Bush.

A more misguided and wrong-headed response could
not exist. It's so fraught with cliches I hardly know where to start.
In general, it's a pity that Sam Hamill, and others who think like
him, demonstrate once again that poetry, as defined by them
at least, indeed doesn't matter, so complete is their inability
to think seriously about the threat represented by Saddam Hussein
and his weapons of mass destruction. Their ridiculous pose of mounting
the barricades is really quite contemptible. It is clear that the crowd
alluded to by Mr. Hamill summons poetry to their own radical
distortions and agendas, achieving only a further marginalization
of an art that has all too often, among some, lost allegiance to
the civilizing values of peace, which require defense never more so
than now.

Far from "the conscience of our culture," such poets have
no sense of history and the deep obligations of our country, to
ourselves and to the world, which the burden of power lays
upon us at this juncture. President Bush is right to call the United
Nations to live up to its founding Charter, to be a common refuge
of defense, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,"
not merely consultation, reduced to babel. At this time of national
and international crisis, poets who betray their nation, art, and
humanity merit no audience at The White House.

For a different view of the issues involved, I invite your readers
to consider my essay "The Victory of World Governance":
www.fglaysher.com/WorldGov.htm

My response: http://www.fglaysher.com/NYTpr.htm

Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
Earthrise Press
Rochester Hills, Michigan USA

From Frederick Glaysher

These excerpts from
http://mysterium.aqualyrica.com
http://www.anacortesonline.com/letters.tpl