Hard Money, Hard Time Reply

Article by Thomas Knapp.
Bernard von NotHaus, reports Tom Lovett of the Evansville, Indiana Courier & Press, stands convicted, as of last month, of “making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States.”

All told, according to Steve Lyttle of the Charlotte, North Carolina Observer, von Nothaus faces up to 25 years in prison and a $750,000 fine (as well as having about $7 million worth of confiscated silver kept by the government pursuant to a form of legal theft known as “asset forfeiture”) for the “crime” of selling silver to willing customers.

While the libertarian commentariat has made much of US Attorney Anne Tompkins’s characterization of von Nothaus’s enterprise as “a unique form of domestic terrorism,” I have to admire Tompkins for her openness and honesty. Her employers — a criminal gang which counterfeits money on a massive scale and forces acceptance of that bogus currency as “legal tender” — may not be domesticated, but it must indeed find the prospect of honest money taking hold among its victims terrifying.

Von Nothaus’s plan was, in its basic structure, elegant: He wanted to encourage the use of “hard money,” specifically silver, as an alternative to US Federal Reserve Notes in daily commerce. Toward that end, he minted silver rounds (what most people, but not von Nothaus, call “coins”) of known quality and purity, and offered warehouse receipts in paper and digital form against stored reserves of silver.

The government’s primary claims at trial revolved around similarities between von Nothaus’s product and the Federal Reserve’s counterfeit “money.” He denominated his offerings in “dollars” (a term which predates the United States by more than 250 years and the Fed by nearly 400). Some of those rounds arguably looked similar to government-produced coins, bearing an image of Lady Liberty (others featured the face of US Representative and “hard money” advocate Ron Paul) and a religious motto (“Trust In God,” as opposed to “In God We Trust”).

The government’s prosecutors were understandably reluctant to go into the differences between his product and their own. The Fed’s “notes” are nothing more than inflationary paper backed only by debt and by the claim that a government gone $15 trillion into that debt won’t formally default and/or print so much of that paper that it becomes useful only as a replacement for the stuff you keep next to your toilet. Most government coins are made of base metal and not worth, to grab a convenient cliche, a plug nickel on anything other than that government’s say-so.

The Drug War: Growing the Green Reply

Article by David D’Amato.
BBC News reports that “[p]rotests in more than 20 Mexican cities against drug-related violence have been interrupted by news of the discovery of 59 bodies.” Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon called on the military to combat the drug cartels in 2006, an estimated 35,000 Mexicans have been killed, “a sign” — according to the Mexican and U.S. governments — “of success in the fight against drugs.” Though Mexicans live in a constant panic, daily kidnappings, mass graves and shootouts in the streets are, in the Newspeak of the Drug War, the best indicators of progress.

However one’s system of morality regards the personal use of illegal drugs like cocaine or marijuana, the prosecution of the Drug War is perhaps the ideal illustration of statism’s ruling class intrigues; the structural predicates for its continued existence are interwoven with some of the most powerful fixtures of the corporate economy, all milking it to line their pockets on the misery of ordinary people.

Just as violent crime mushroomed under alcohol prohibition, with Al Capone and his ilk proving the ideal counterpart for the organized crime of the state, so too has drug prohibition begotten an international bloodbath. Supposing we regard the rationales advanced by the Empire as the genuine reasons for its Drug War, its results are strikingly disconnected from that purported reasoning. Ever increasing police spending, foreign intervention and domestic authoritarianism have been coupled not with any marked decrease in crime or the prevalence of drugs themselves, but in a murderous struggle, unremitting and constantly swelling to new proportions.

For the state, serving the ends of the political class, what it is that the war is against is far less important than the fact that there is a war, that there is something out there that enjoins the consumption of huge piles of resources. Given both the levels of spending on the Drug War and its putative justifications, we could expect, even assuming the utmost waste and inefficiency, that there would be some measurable “progress” toward the state’s goals.

And the truth is that the state’s goals are being met through the Drug War, which — like the War on Terror — is devoid of any clear, defining lines or enemy. Those goals, though, don’t match the intentions we’re meant to glean from “Just Say No” ads and the D.A.R.E. cops roaming the halls of the state’s K-12 education pens. In the same way that traditional warfare means bankable profits for defense-related contractors in the fabled “military-industrial complex,” the Drug War is a reliable source of income for the ruling class.

Everyone has skin in the game, from Wall Street banks and huge prison companies like Corrections Corp. of America and Geo Group to drug companies like Pfizer, and the green they care about isn’t marijuana. From top to bottom the Drug War is shaped perfectly for big government and for corporate interests, enabling the clandestine “security” apparatuses of the Empire to scout new outposts for neoliberal colonialism.

Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare 8

Mass immigration is subsidized by the state.
Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.

Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisan Washington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S. The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising.

Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania (59%).

The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid).

Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship. On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income.

The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.

Survey: Maine, NH, Vermont most peaceful 1


PORTLAND, Maine—While U.S. military forces continue to be engaged in conflicts abroad, a survey of the home front by an international think tank finds that U.S. states have become more peaceful since 1995.

In a report released Wednesday, the Institute for Economics and Peace says Maine is the most peaceful state, while Louisiana is the least peaceful.

The Institute for Economics and Peace says key factors driving an increase in peacefulness are decreases in homicides and violent crimes. It says that reductions in crime pay dividends, reducing costs to society and also spurring economic activity and job creation.

The Australia-based organization defines peace as an absence of violence. The top three states are Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Joining Louisiana at the bottom are Nevada and Tennessee.

Is Violence Against Cops Really Increasing? Reply

Interesting article on the latest System hysteria.
Attorney General Eric Holden is concerned about the number of law enforcement deaths that have occurred so far this year. In fact, he is so concerned that he has announced a new Law Enforcement Safety Initiative. This is not the first we have heard about this alleged increase in violence against police officers. Over the last year FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and USA Today all ran stories on what some in law enforcement are calling the “War on Cops”. A simple look at the data compiled by The Officers Down Memorial Page tells us that the “War on Cops” simply does not exist. In fact, despite an uptick in officer deaths in 2010 versus 2009, police officers are less likely to be killed in the line of duty today than they were 25 years ago.

Those that insist that a police officer’s job is becoming more dangerous like to compare the data from 2010 with 2009 as proof that the violence has indeed increased. The problem with this approach is that 2009 saw the lowest number of officer deaths since 1960. It now appears that 2009 was not the beginning of a dramatic trend downward, but instead a statistical outlier. If we don’t just look at a snapshot of a few years, but instead at the last 25 years, we see that officer deaths have been on a slow trend downward with a few outlier years in both directions. Deaths specifically due to violence directed at an officer have followed the same downward trend as the total number of deaths.

The Stark interview Reply

The recording is now available.

The Stark Truth: Interview with Keith Preston

April 7, 2011 · Print This Article

Keith Preston

Robert Stark and Keith Preston discuss political movements and ideologies, and how Keith’s views have evolved. Topics include:

  • Why White Nationalism is not enough;
  • Separation of race and state;
  • Pan-secessionism;
  • An analysis of the power structure;
  • The alliance between corporate interests and cultural Marxists;
  • Two wings of elite globalist powerstrucutre
  • Economic alternatives to current system–distributism, economic and political localism

About Keith Preston

To learn more about Keith and his ideas for “Pan-secessionism Against the Empire” please explore his website Attack the System. You can download his award-winning essay “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy” here. Keith has also written interesting and insightful essays for the Alternative Right.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:
robert_stark_la hotmail.com

Catholics were the fiercest anti-Nazis in pre-war Germany 3

Hat tip to David Heleniak for digging this up.

These maps were originally taken from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Liberty or Equality.” K-L was an aristocratic Catholic liberal-monarchist who argued that Nazism was the direct outgrowth of the influence of Protestantism in Germany, particularly the millenarianism and apocaplyptism of Protestantism, complete with Luther’s tirades against the Jews. His arguments were not dissimilar to those of modern liberals and leftists (and the European New Right) who argue that Christian intolerance and classical anti-Semitism planted the cultural seeds out of which Nazism grew, although Kuehnelt-Leddihn obviously lacked the secular or neo-pagan bent of contemporaries who make this argument. Kuehnelt-Leddihn also argued that anarchism took root the most easily in Catholic countries such as those in southern Europe and Latin America. It is interesting that both Nazism and modern Totalitarian Humanism have had their greatest appeal in historically Protestant countries.

As shown by the election figures for 1932.

First the percentage of Catholics.

And then the Nazi vote.

Catholics were the fiercest anti-Nazis in pre-war Germany Reply

Hat tip to David Heleniak for digging this up.

These maps were originally taken from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Liberty or Equality.” K-L was an aristocratic Catholic liberal-monarchist who argued that Nazism was the direct outgrowth of the influence of Protestantism in Germany, particularly the millenarianism and apocaplyptism of Protestantism, complete with Luther’s tirades against the Jews. His arguments were not dissimilar to those of modern liberals and leftists (and the European New Right) who argue that Christian intolerance and classical anti-Semitism planted the cultural seeds out of which Nazism grew, although Kuehnelt-Leddihn obviously lacked the secular or neo-pagan bent of contemporaries who make this argument. Kuehnelt-Leddihn also argued that anarchism took root the most easily in Catholic countries such as those in southern Europe and Latin America. It is interesting that both Nazism and modern Totalitarian Humanism have had their greatest appeal in historically Protestant countries.

As shown by the election figures for 1932.

First the percentage of Catholics.

And then the Nazi vote.

Remembering Manning Marable Reply

By Farah Jasmine Griffin.
Scholar, Activist, Mentor, Teacher, Editor, Institution Builder, Manning Marable was one of those rare individuals who succeeded in a number of arenas. His intellectual and political vision and work can be described as nothing less than a calling, one he met with extraordinary drive and consistency and from which he never strayed. Never an academic in the narrowest sense of the word, Manning was an engaged scholar whose writing and research were always addressed to people both inside and outside of the academy.

Remarkably, his devotion to a public beyond the academy in no way detracted him from working tirelessly within it. Manning understood the academy to be an important site where transformative work occurred. He was a beloved and devoted teacher. He relished the classroom. He mentored generations of undergraduates, graduate students, and young professors.

In addition to IRAAS, he built during his career a number of programs in Ethnic and African American Studies. Beginning with his first leadership post in his early twenties, he worked tirelessly with administrators and colleagues to make the university a more equitable place. No, Manning did not choose between the academy and public. He simply saw no separation between the two: A viable research institution was a part of “the public” and had responsibilities to the community in which it resided. For this reason the Institute’s conferences took place both on campus and in Harlem institutions.

The opening of a conference on Reparations was held at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture while the second day’s events took place at Columbia’s Law School. A conference on Education and the Prison Industrial Complex had plenary sessions at a high school. Manning brought the public to the academy, but he also brought the academy to the public. He spent tireless hours lecturing at colleges and universities but also at churches and community groups. This was simply a natural trajectory for him.

The dramatic circumstances that surround the release of his magnum opus Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention will yield a great deal of attention. This major work, representing over a decade of research and writing, deserves attention as it is sure to be a definitive interpretation of one of the most significant figures our nation has ever produced.

This book is not the only representation of Manning’s brilliance, however. Rather, it is a culmination of a lifetime of scholarship and activism, a larger project devoted to telling the stories of a people engaged in an epic, painful and beautiful struggle for freedom. That story had no better chronicler, that struggle no greater champion than Manning Marable.

Interview Tonight 2


The Stark Truth

Robert Stark brings you news, analysis and guest interviews dealing with American politics, demographics, culture, and history.

Wed., Apr. 6: Interview with Keith Preston

Robert Stark and Keith Preston discuss political movements and ideologies; economic alternatives to current system; economic and political localism

Trilateral Commission meeting in D.C. April 8-10th Reply

From the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance of New York.
As reported by American Free Press, the Trilateral Commission will be meeting this April 8-10 in Washington D.C. This quasi secret conference is just as or more important than the G20 or WTO meetings. WeAreChangeNYC & NATA-NY is calling for a coalition of truth seekers, to come to D.C. this April to show your displeasure with the fact that this internationalist plutocratic cabal will be meeting on American soil. Trilateral Commission – 1156 fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC

Militarist elitism and contempt for the victim Reply

Article from Infoshop.Org.

he dramatic armed actions of groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire continue to attract international attention and reflect political positions with a certain degree of influence among rebellious proletarians. Positions which are to say the least highly problematic.

The dramatic armed actions of groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire continue to attract international attention and reflect political positions with a certain degree of influence among rebellious proletarians. Positions which are to say the least highly problematic.

More often then not the questionable nature of the theory and practice of “nihilist” and “individualist” insurrectionaries is obscured by criticism of their activity from legalistic opponents of all minority partisan action regardless of its targets or political content.

However the problem with these groups is not the terrain of struggle upon which they operate (an unavoidable part of the broader class confrontation), but the perspectives they articulate.

Misanthropy, militaristic elitism, callous contempt for the victim and a lack of interest in any kind of program of social transformation or political action beyond the immediate egotistical gratification to be gained from violence combine into a gleefully hopeless outlook with nothing to offer but the doomed antics of suicidal heroes.

What else are we to make of statements like these:

“We never did fit in the narrow limits of an orthodox social struggle that speaks almost exclusively the language of economic analyses and the front of class struggle, flamboyantly ignoring the individual responsibility of the subjects of authority. We are hostile so much to the hand that holds the whip, as well as to the backs that accept it passively on them.”.

The armed struggle is not conceived as one level of a wider strategic process of revolutionary construction and class recomposition but as a sort of ultimate “life style choice” to be carried out for its own sake and as a proof of the “spiritual superiority” of its practitioners over the drab gray mass which has to go to work in the morning.

Such an ideology is among other things, primarily one for the young, childless and athletic.

All those subject to capital are not viewed as potential comrades in a collective struggle for emancipation but as so much rubbish who bear on their conscience the guilt of acquiescence to overwhelming violence in the hope of surviving and in the absence of any other realistic perspective.

The “economistic” demands of the mass which tends to be roused to action by intensifying degradation of its material living conditions more then by the exhortations of Futurist poets also come in for sneering scorn.

And after all it seems these romantic rebels have no interest in anything as boring as a program of social transformation which would provide for the subsistence, dignity and comfort of the majority.

The future they look forward to is one of the self-isolating rebellion of the strong and the elite against the “decedent” democratic mob. The glamor and adrenaline of a life in the underground is the medicine they proscribe themselves for the boredom and mediocrity of commoditized life. And like all drugs sooner or later the addict sobers up and finds their social circumstances unchanged.

We have no objection to the use of all means and forms of struggle in the class war for communism, but elitist rhetoric which hearkens back to the grand reactionary and misogynistic tradition of Nietzsche and Marinetti leaves us unmoved and a little ill.

The social revolution will not be made by the “lofty passions” of a handful of heroic individuals but by the throughly mundane needs of countless anonymous millions.

The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.
The imposition of a legal framework on the intricate web of relationships that have previously existed in the realm of freedom—that is, outside the law and entirely dependent on the trust and compliance of the individuals involved—would not only be a setback for liberty but a disaster for those it supposedly benefits: gay people themselves.

Of course, we already have gay marriages. Just as heterosexual marriage, as an institution, preceded the invention of the state, so the homosexual version existed long before anyone thought to give it legal sanction. Extending the authority of the state into territory previously untouched by its tender ministrations, legalizing relationships that had developed and been found rewarding entirely without this imprimatur, would wreak havoc where harmony once prevailed. Imagine a relationship of some duration in which one partner, the breadwinner, had supported his or her partner without much thought about the economics of the matter: one had stayed home and tended the house, while the other had been in the workforce, bringing home the bacon. This division of labor had prevailed for many years, not requiring any written contract or threat of legal action to enforce its provisions.

Then, suddenly, they are legally married—or, in certain states, considered married under the common law. This changes the relationship, and not for the better. For now the property of the breadwinner is not his or her own: half of it belongs to the stay-at-home. Before when they argued, money was never an issue: now, when the going gets rough, the threat of divorce—and the specter of alimony—hangs over the relationship, and the mere possibility casts its dark shadow over what had once been a sunlit field.

If and when gay marriage comes to pass, its advocates will have a much harder time convincing their fellow homosexuals to exercise their “right” than they did in persuading the rest of the country to grant it. That’s because they have never explained—and never could explain—why it would make sense for gays to entangle themselves in a regulatory web and risk getting into legal disputes over divorce, alimony, and the division of property.

Building a Movement from the Ground Up 4

Article by Kevin DeAnna.
I suggest there is a model for the Western resistance in the “liberty movement.” Several years ago, a friend who now has a prominent position in a hugely successful libertarian organization used to joke to me that reading the news was a depressing experience because the subtitle of every article should read “the state wins again.” For libertarians who were concerned with preventing an interventionist foreign policy, cutting government spending, and combating “neoconservatism,” 2004 and 2005 were extremely dark times. The election of Barack Obama also seemed to be a crushing blow to the idea of limited government. The article “What it’s like to be a libertarian” concisely summarized this resignation towards never ending defeat. However, viewing the political landscape today, libertarians unquestionably command the most vibrant political movement in the country, raising millions of dollars, electing favored sons to high office, and introducing once radical ideas into the political mainstream.

This did not come out of nowhere, even though it seems like it only emerged over the last five years. Between various magazines, think tanks, cultural movements, and festivals, the groundwork for the liberty movement was established years ago. Newly emerging libertarian activists enjoy critical advantages, from an already established and tested intellectual infrastructure at both the elite and popular level (from Austrian economics programs in universities to Reason magazine), a vast subculture and symbolism that taps into libertarian themes, and, perhaps most important, financially viable organizations that allow libertarian activists to work full time for the causes they believe in.

Libertarians also are in the perfect position with the Republican Party and the conservative movement. They are “in” but not “of” the larger right wing. They have a huge presence at events like CPAC and can mobilize for events that are important to them. At the same time, they are not beholden to the GOP. If they lose an internal battle within the Republican Party or even the conservative movement, they use the defeat as fodder for greater organization. They have an autonomous movement that belongs entirely to them that they can’t be purged or driven away from.

The libertarians also suffer the same kinds of divisions over both ideology and tactics plague the patriotic movement. There are many that believe participating in elections gives sanction to the state and therefore make one culpable in its iniquities. Nonetheless, there are a host of other projects they can participate in, such as the Free State Project or Porcfest. They are gaining a foothold in both academia and the mainstream media. Culturally, libertarians are beginning to develop their own projects such as Silver Circle. They can also sustain larger projects like the independent production of the Atlas Shrugged movie. Each gain lays the foundation for further growth for their movement.

Libertarians have failed to halt (or even slow down) the growth of state power. This might be something inherent to the structure of democracy or perhaps their movement simply has farther to go. However, even if they continue to fail, their movement continues to exist and that gives them openings and opportunities beyond simply competing in elections.

This movement overlaps ours to some extent. Some of our members are also involved with Campaign for Liberty or various allied youth movements and we share many of their goals. There’s no contradiction between being a part of both movements. However, at a core, fundamental level, the patriotic movement needs to be able to sustain itself and function autonomously rather than just being a faction within libertarianism or conservatism. This doesn’t mean that we oppose any other conservative or libertarian group – on both a chapter level and on an individual level we’ve been working with other conservative and libertarian youth organizations on a host of issues. Unlike many in the American Right, we don’t attack our own. In the end though, we need our own network of institutions that pursue explicitly nationalist goals. These institutions need to be able to work together, even as they pursue different specific goals and engage different constituencies.

The libertarian movement has really coalesced over the last few years. Unfortunately, our movement lags behind. We need to follow that model. As of this moment, Youth for Western Civilization is not part of a larger institutional framework. We don’t really have “strategic partners” except on an ad-hoc basis. We hope to change that in the months ahead. We also are exploring options for an “adult” version of YWC, to link the various patriotic movements in the different states and around the world. We will be implementing ways young people who are not in school to join YWC and function as part of the organization. Finally, we need to actively build the kind of subculture that will sustain our movement through temporary political defeat and even cataclysmic political change. More than any election, piece of legislation, political party, or even country, our movement lives as long as we continue to believe in it.

The Foreclosure Mess: Another Crisis of State Capitalism Reply

Article by David D’Amato.

Updating on “the foreclosure mess” that continues “to speed struggling homeowners” out onto the streets, Yahoo News’ Zachary Roth notes the “potentially fraudulent” procedures banks have employed in “their rush to foreclosure and eviction.” The documents that originally created these mortgages were buried under the infamous “toxic” derivatives swallowed up by Fannie and Freddie (at the expense of the taxpayer).

Unable to obtain the appropriate signatures, a necessary step in processing forecloses, banks resorted to hiring firms whose cubicle-bound drones signed mortgage instruments by the hundreds per hour, giving the green light to SWAT teams removing people from their homes. With all of this big bank rapacity and deceit, it would be easy to regard the foreclosure crisis as a clear manifestation of the defects inherent in “free enterprise,” as a case of free markets gone awry.

To inculpate genuine free markets, however, is to ignore the intervening causes of the fiasco, glossing over the extensive and noteworthy interventions of the state at every stage of the housing market. The housing policies of the state’s power elite were geared not to creating an “ownership society,” but rather to furthering the abuses of the current rentier society, where the state’s favored companies enjoy every advantage counter to free market alternatives.

In the upside-down world of the statist economy, pushing working people into homes on scanty down payments and with mortgage installments stretching into infinite is apparently something to regarded as government altruism. Pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the state’s promotion of “low-down-payment purchases,” former Freddie Mac economist Arnold Kling reminds of “all the people who did not default, but who still owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.”

So the banks are having a field day fraudulently foreclosing on properties in default, and at the same time they’re happy to keep collecting on risky loans they made gambling with the taxpayers’ money. “Housing advocates who pose as friends of the middle class,” Kling went on to note, “are instead perhaps its worst enemies.”

Beyond the TARP bailouts to Wall Street banks now busying themselves uprooting American families, the state has meddled on behalf of the corporate ruling class in a number of other, less obvious ways. Zoning laws, by arbitrarily obstructing perfectly safe and viable housing options, act to unnaturally limit the opportunities for, and therefore the supply of, affordable housing, filtering the population into state-subsidized housing options.

How Not to Fight Terrorism Reply

Scott Horton interviews Michael Scheuer.

Michael Scheuer, 22-year veteran of the CIA and former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, discusses the First Amendment’s non-universality as recently evidenced in Afghanistan – yet another reminder of the dangers in foreign occupations; the choice confronting Americans: pursue the same foreign policy and get endless war or step back and let Islamic countries fight amongst themselves and against Israel; why the current system of government is pointless, so long as it fails to put US interests first; UN Ambassador Susan Rice, President Obama and other “true believers” in spreading secular democracy at gunpoint; using the conflicts in Syria and Bahrain to provoke Iran militarily, and get the US into a backdoor war; and the 21st century imperialism redux that has the US, Britain and France bombing Libya.

MP3 here. (16:09)

Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit. He is the author of Osama Bin Laden, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq and Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.

Why we should be against armed humanitarianism Reply

Article by Gene Healy.
The president allowed that “America cannot use our military whenever repression occurs.” But when our interests, values, “unique abilities” and the will of the international community properly align — he’ll let us know when that is — we’ll act “on behalf of what’s right.”

But when it comes to armed humanitarianism, deciding what’s right may not be quite so simple, argues international relations scholar Alan J. Kuperman, author of “The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention.”First, generally speaking, “killers are quicker than intervenors”; second, “more intervention might actually lead to a net increase in killing,” not just from “collateral damage,” but by changing the incentives of actors on the ground.

Take the case of Rwanda. Our failure to intervene there in 1994 is now widely considered a shameful missed opportunity to avert mass murder.

But “had the United States tried to stop the Rwandan genocide,” Kuperman writes, “it would have required about six weeks to deploy a task force of 15,000 personnel and their equipment,” meaning that “by the time Western governments learned of the Rwandan genocide and deployed an intervention force, the vast majority of the ultimate Tutsi victims would already have been killed.”

Indeed, sometimes intervention increases the pace of violence. Serbian forces sped up ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in response to NATO’s March 1999 decision to bomb. “Most of their cleansing occurred in the first two weeks, and they managed to force out 850,000 Albanians.”

Further complicating matters is what Kuperman calls “the moral hazard of humanitarian intervention.” Such interventions can have the perverse effect of encouraging risk-seeking behavior by those expecting rescue.

That happened in the 1990s, Kuperman argues, when the policy of humanitarian intervention “convinced some groups that the international community would intervene to protect them from retaliation, thereby encouraging armed rebellions.”

Diversity Perversity Reply

Article by Walter Williams.
The terms affirmative action, equal representation, preferential treatment and quotas just don’t sell well. The intellectual elite and their media, government and corporate enthusiasts have come up with diversity, a seemingly benign term that’s a cover for racially discriminatory policy. They call for college campuses, corporate offices and government agencies to “look like America.”

Part of looking like America means if blacks are 13 percent of the population, they should be 13 percent of college students and professors, corporate managers and government employees. Behind this vision of justice is the silly notion that but for the fact of discrimination, we’d be distributed equally by race across incomes, education, occupations and other outcomes. There is absolutely no evidence that statistical proportionality is the norm anywhere on Earth; however, much of our thinking, laws and public policy is based upon proportionality being the norm. Let’s look at some racial differences whilst thinking about their causes and possible remedies.

While 13 percent of our population, blacks are 80 percent of professional basketball players and 65 percent of professional football players and are the highest paid players in both sports. By contrast, blacks are only 2 percent of NHL’s professional ice hockey players. There is no racial diversity in basketball, football and ice hockey. They come nowhere close to “looking like America.”

Even in terms of sports achievement, racial diversity is absent. Four out of the five highest career home-run hitters were black. Since blacks entered the major leagues, of the eight times more than 100 bases were stolen in a season, all were by blacks.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently ordered Dayton, Ohio’s police department to lower its written exam passing scores so as to have more blacks on its police force. What should Attorney General Eric Holder do about the lack of diversity in sports? Why don’t the intellectual elite protest? Could it be that the owners of these multi-billion-dollar professional basketball, football and baseball teams are pro-black while those of the NHL and major industries are racists unwilling to put blacks in highly paid positions?

There’s one ethnic diversity issue completely swept under the rug. Jewish Americans are less than 3 percent of our population and only two-tenths of 1 percent of the world’s population. Yet between 1901 and 2010, Jews were 35 percent of American Nobel Laureate winners and 22 percent of the world’s.

If the diversity gang sees underrepresentation as “probative” of racial discrimination, what do they propose we do about overrepresentation? Because if one race is overrepresented, it might mean they’re taking away what rightfully belongs to another race.

False Convictions Reply

Article by Bill Anderson.
Should one step back even further, one can see a pattern emerging, one that not only is disturbing but also one that has its roots in the Progressive Movement of more than a century ago, when American intellectuals, businessmen, and politicians joined to overthrow a social order that was responsible for transforming American society from a backwoods, agrarian country into an industrial powerhouse. While “Progressives” were and are championed by the intellectual elite and media pundits as “reformers” who are trying (against those backward capitalists) to make society better, in reality they undermined human liberty in order to impose an order that could move in no direction but toward tyranny.

One of the things “Progressives” did was to take many occupations and “professionalize” them. They introduced occupational licensing and they also were able to formalize and organize the “justice” apparatus into a mechanism in which “professionals” would transform the process of investigating crimes and seeking judgment and punishment for perpetrators. Instead of having a system that drew heavily upon community participation, “Progressives” reasoned that the professional police, prosecutors, and “expert” witnesses would not be bound by emotion but would act according to their pure training and knowledge.

The system we have today is one in which the “professionals” run everything, from the police investigators to the judges and prison administrators, and it simply is awful. Last year, when I covered the Tonya Craft trial and aftermath in my blog, it really was a battle between the “professionals” and people advocating for the truth.

For example, the prosecutors and the judge worked in tandem in order to try to rig a guilty verdict (the “unprofessional” jurors refused to go along with the scam and acquitted her), a police officer fabricated a document in order to fill holes, and “professional” child “advocates” insisted that the stories being told about Craft’s alleged child molesting were true. The jurors saw through the whole thing and had concluded even before the prosecution rested that the whole thing was bogus.

Wrongful accusations and convictions often occur because the “professionals” are able to convince jurors that the impossible really has to be true – because the “professionals” say it is true. Because “Progressivism” has been institutionalized to a point where most people cannot imagine a society without its influences, people are easily swayed by foolish arguments made by “professionals” even when logic and reasoning tell them otherwise.

As I said at the beginning, I am passionate about advocating for those who are wrongly charged and those who are wrongly convicted. I can think of no worse indictment upon a society than to say it is one in which “justice” is turned upside down and perverted, and as I see it, one of the main reasons that “justice” in America is a crapshoot is the legacy of “Progressivism.”