Chaos Theory: Why did America blow up the Greater Middle East? Reply

Article by Igor Shishkin.
Editor’s note: The following is a translation from the Russian of an article that originally appeared in the online magazine Regnum. I probably speak for most AltRight readers when I write that I find American foreign policy to be “chaotic” (in the common sense of the word.) Lacking a conservative ruling order, the American state has been a mere tool to be used, in contradictory and self-defeating ways, by various political factions, all of which are semi-united by a post-Trotskyist embrace of “democracy.” The American political system itself seems ill suited to any kind of coherent strategy, with the short attention spans of the public and media and the constant turnover of elected officials. Articles such as this one, however, challenge us to find a method in the madness, that is, a deeper Grand Strategy lying behind what appears at first glance to be incompetent and unwise policy-making. ~RBS

* * *

Coups in Tunisia and Egypt, mass rallies in nearly all Arab countries, armed rebellion and foreign aggression in Libya, all of these events led to lively discussions about the relationship between the internal and external factors of the crisis [in the Greater Middle East]. Undoubtedly, the root cause of revolutions and rebellions lies within the state.


The cover-up operation had failed

From the beginning of turbulence in the Greater Middle East, the world MSM and Russia’s liberal and semi-official media right behind them persistently hammered the thesis about the complete lack of involvement on the part of the United States into the consciousness of their readers, viewers, and listeners. Moreover, the United States were portrayed as the victim and the main loser. If the MSM were to be believed, we must not sympathize with the Libyans, perishing under NATO bombs, but rather the unfortunate Americans and their idealistic president, who was unexpectedly drawn into the fatal whirlwind of events.


Let’s start with the fact that Obama’s entire Nobel-Prize acceptance speech was dedicated to the rationalization of the “just war” principle and the justification of the right to use military force, including “humanitarian interventions.” Therefore, the U.S. president was amazed by the demands to take away his prize when the bombing of Libya began. “Americans see no contradiction” between the status of a peacemaker and the order to bomb, said Obama.

The Amerikan Police State Strides Forward Reply

Article by Paul Craig Roberts.
The International Monetary Fund’s director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested last Sunday in New York City on the allegation of an immigrant hotel maid that he attempted to rape her in his hotel room. A New York judge has denied Strauss-Kahn bail on the grounds that he might flee to France.

President Bill Clinton survived his sexual escapades, because he was a servant to the system, not a threat. But Strauss-Kahn, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, was a threat to the system, and, like Eliot Spitzer, Strauss-Kahn has been deleted from the power ranks.

Strauss-Kahn was the first IMF director in my lifetime, if memory serves, who disavowed the traditional IMF policy of imposing on the poor and ordinary people the cost of bailing out Wall Street and the Western banks. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation had to be reimposed on the greed-driven, fraud-prone financial sector, which, unregulated, destroyed the lives of ordinary people. Strauss-Kahn listened to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of a handful of economists who has a social conscience.

Perhaps the most dangerous black mark in Strauss-Kahn’s book is that he was far ahead of America’s French puppet, President Sarkozy, in the upcoming French elections. Strauss-Kahn simply had to be eliminated.

It is possible that Strauss-Kahn eliminated himself and saved Washington the trouble. However, as a well-travelled person who has often stayed in New York hotels and in hotels in cities around the world, I have never experienced a maid entering unannounced into my room, much less when I was in the shower.

In the spun story, Strauss-Kahn is portrayed as so deprived of sex that he attempted to rape a hotel maid. Anyone who ever served on the staff of a powerful public figure knows that this is unlikely. On a senator’s staff on which I served, there were two aides whose job was to make certain that no woman, with the exception of his wife, was ever alone with the senator. This was done to protect the senator both from female power groupies, who lust after celebrities and powerful men, and from women sent by a rival on missions to compromise an opponent. A powerful man such as Strauss-Kahn would not have been starved for women, and as a multi-millionaire he could certainly afford to make his own discreet arrangements.

Preview: Sovereign citizens 5

Heartland anarchists make it onto “60 Minutes.” Did anyone happen to check this out?

Anti-government U.S. extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like Social Security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports, May 15, 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Texas becomes first state to ban 'intrusive' TSA security pat downs Reply

From the Daily Mail.

Texas has become the first state to ban intrusive airport security pat downs.

The bill, passed late last night, aims to make touching travellers in an ‘inappropriate’ way during searches a criminal offence.

The measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting pat-downs to touch ‘the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person’ including through clothing.

Humiliating: A man endures a pat-down at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in front of a crowdHumiliating: A man endures a pat-down at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in front of a crowd

It also prohibits searches ‘that would be offensive to a reasonable person.’

‘This (bill) has to do with dignity and travel, and prohibiting indecent, groping searches,’ Republican Representative David Simpson, the bill’s chief sponsor said.

He believes it will keep TSA officials from treating travellers like criminals.

Disturbing: A photograph, showing a baby being subjected to a full-body search by airport security caused outrage when it was posted online

Read more:

Michael Gerson’s Drug Delusions Reply

Commentary by Jack Hunter.
Most people can’t imagine an America without a minimum wage. Without such wage regulation many believe poverty would run rampant, families would become homeless and children would be starving in the streets. Yet conservatives have rightly recognized that these are moralistic and emotional responses to what is essentially an economic problem. Pointing out the policy’s failure, National Review founder William F. Buckley wrote: “The minimum wage is about as discredited as the Flat Earth Society…” Yet the very notion of getting rid of it remains something most Americans simply cannot fathom.

Most people can’t imagine an America without the War on Drugs. Without federal drug laws many believe substance abuse would be rampant, families would be destroyed and the nation’s youth would be strung out across our streets. Yet opponents of federal drug laws have rightly recognized that these are moralistic and emotional responses to what is essentially an economic, political, and due to our approach, criminal problem.

In 1995, National Review declared “The War on Drugs is Lost.” Leading this charge, Buckley broke down the troublesome cost of prohibition: “We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen—yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect.”

Much like the minimum wage, virtually all data available on drug prohibition points to the utter ineffectiveness of our policies. The primary difference is that prohibition of drugs has been far more damaging to this country than prohibition of market determined base wage levels. Whether measured in dollars or lives—the War on Drugs continues to be a great and unnecessary tragedy.

It should not be surprising that those most comfortable with the damage caused by the War on Drugs have often belonged to administrations that have wrought the most damage on this country. Denouncing Congressman Ron Paul’s opposition to federal drug prohibition, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote this week in the Washington Post: “Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their ‘personal habits.” Added Gerson: “In determining who is a ‘major’ candidate for president, let’s begin here… It is difficult to be a first-tier candidate while holding second-rate values.”

Gerson was addressing the first Republican presidential debate last week, in which the moderators seemed intent on belittling Paul’s position on federal drug laws by using the most extreme example of heroin use, similar to how leftwing defenders of the minimum wage might invoke visions of homeless mothers and starving children. Paul’s simple yet controversial position is that drugs should be regulated at the state and local level as the Constitution demands, just like alcohol.

But Gerson’s review of Paul’s debate performance specifically focused on what the Bush speechwriter found to be a cold and dismissive libertarian attitude toward the very real problem of drug abuse. Gerson is not completely wrong in his criticism. Neither was Buckley, when he highlighted the larger question by addressing the same aspect of this issue as Gerson: “Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs sought after by the minority.”

Gerson believes Paul’s “second-rate values” on drugs makes him a “second-tier” candidate despite any polling data or fundraising achievements to the contrary. Gerson should know, as the speechwriter once worked for an electorally successful “first-tier” candidate. And for the next eight years, through his spending and big government agenda, the once top-tier George W. Bush would proceed to take the GOP brand to unprecedented lows.

If “Paulsville” is the place for supposedly second-tier ideas like drug legalization, “Bushville” was the land of consistent discredited status quo insanity—in domestic policy, foreign policy, drug policy—all served up and made rhetorically palatable to conservative audiences by speechwriters like Gerson. In his later years, Buckley would call the Iraq War a mistake, denounce Bush and support an end to the federal drug war—all parts of Paul’s unconventional Republican platform. Would a candidate Buckley today be considered “second-tier” for his views? Would supposedly first-tier candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Rick Santorum be preferable or somehow more genuinely conservative not only in their support for Bush and Obama’s policies but in their disagreements with Buckley on those same policies?

Buckley wrote: “The minimum wage is an accretion of the New Deal that is not defended by any serious economist.” The same is now true of the thoroughly discredited War on Drugs, a disastrous policy that given its evident failure should now belong to a distant era. That the more traditionally conservative yet unconventionally Republican Ron Paul now leads on this issue, is as symbolically appropriate as the fact that so many of his fellow Republicans still lazily and reflexively oppose him on it.

Or as the late William F. Buckley once described rightwing resistance on revisiting the War on Drugs: “Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.”

Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects' 4

From Tech Dirt.

There isn’t a ton of new information in this NPR piece on how police still can’t stand the fact that people record them with cameras and cameraphones, but it’s one of the first articles on the subject that has actually laid out an argument for why police think it’s bad that people out in public can film them:

“They need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

“We feel that anything that’s going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving — an apprehension that he’s being videotaped and may be made to look bad — could cost him or some citizen their life,” Pasco says, “or some serious bodily harm.”

Frankly, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would a police officer think twice about doing his or her job if there are legitimate reasons to do what’s being done? The only time I could see a “chilling effect” on the actions of officers, is if what they’re doing is not legal.

Meanwhile, the article does show the real chilling effect of officers intimidating people who are filming them. The article tells the story of a teenager who tried filming police in Newark, New Jersey last year, and for her troubles, was handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car, and had the videos deleted off the phone. She was released two hours later and no charges were filed (though, she’s now suing the Newark Police Department). Still, when asked, the woman, Khaliah Fitchette, says that she probably wouldn’t film police in Newark again:

Khaliah Fitchette’s lawyers in New Jersey say her detention was illegal. But Fitchette still says she’d think twice before filming police in Newark again.

“It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess,” she says.

She has this attitude, Fitchette says, because she thinks she could get in trouble again, even though her detention was allegedly unlawful.

Now that is a chilling effect.

Local Worker-Owned Restaurant Joins Historic Labor Union Reply

From Infoshop.

May 9, 2010: Grand Rapids, MI – Bartertown Diner and Roc’s Cakes–a raw, vegan/vegetarian restaurant opening in a couple weeks in downtown Grand Rapids has decided to go “wobbly.” The seven member team which constitutes the worker-run establishment have all decided to join the old and storied Industrial Workers of the World labor union.

“It just seemed like the perfect fit for us. After meeting with members of the IWW it was clear that we all want the same things and being that we really don’t want to be just another restaurant it seemed logical,” said Ryan Cappelletti cook at the new Diner.

Bartertown Diner and Roc’s Cakes, which will be located at 6 Jefferson St., joins a growing list of worker-owned IWW shops. The Red and Black Cafe in Portland, Oregon and Just Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin being two others.

“We are very happy that Bartertown and Roc’s Cakes has decided to go IWW and believe it can only help in our larger campaign to raise the standard of living and benefits for all food and beverage workers in Grand Rapids, said Shannon Williams, Treasurer of the local IWW branch.

The Grand Rapids Branch of the Industrial Workers of the World has been involved in food service organizing for many years. From the IWW Starbucks Workers Union to the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union.

The Industrial Workers of the World is a rank-and-file labor union open to all workers.


Washington: Next Saturday, Northwest Regional Leonard Peltier March Reply

From Infoshop.
Leonard Peltier has been in prison since 1976 for the crime of defending his people. The government violated their own laws and the constitution in order to convict Leonard. Even the Tenth Circuit Court found that, “Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.” After witnesses changed their stories and it was found that the FBI ballistics report had been faberacated, U.S. Government prosecutors have stated that they don’t know what role Leonard played in the firefight– he was just there that day and thus, by default, aided and abetted in the deaths of the agents. It can be reasoned that since the first two AIM members were found not guilty by reason of self-defense, then Leonard has been in prison all these years for aiding and abetting an act of self-defense.

Call out for support for Denver police terror march arrestee facing 90 years in prison Reply

From Infoshop.
On Friday May 6th, over one hundred people, mostly young, poor, and angry, took to the streets in defiance of the Denver Police Department. They participated in a march, called to confront “police terror” in the Denver Metro area. Specifically, they marched to remember the deaths of Marvin Booker and Oleg Gidenko, two people murdered by area police departments in the last year.

As the the march ended, a small firework was set off in the street. Police used this act as a justification to chase one alleged participant down an alley, where she was tackled and beaten by police. This person would later be identified as Amelia Nicol, a 20 year old Colorado resident. She now faces outlandish charges including attempted murder.

We call on all people to support Amelia as she fights these attempts at intimidation and repression, and the police’s broader attack on social movements in Denver.


Marvin Booker, a homeless street preacher, died at the hands of five sheriff’s deputies in the Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center in downtown Denver on July 9, 2010. He was tackled, beaten, placed into chokeholds, tazed, and kicked. He eventually succumbed to the officers’ brutal attack. He was murdered for refusing to leave his shoes in the booking area of the jail.

Oleg Gidenko was shot in the head by Aurora Police Officers. Oleg was in a truck with several friends. They had been hanging out, allegedly drinking in the truck while it was parked in a lonely industrial park in Aurora. Aurora Police Officers approached the truck, armed, supposedly because they suspected the occupants of breaking into cars in the area. As the police aimed their weapons at the truck, one officer shot Oleg in the head. Another occupant, Yevgeniy Straystar. was also shot, but would survive. With two occupants, including the driver, shot and a passenger trying to hide on the floor of the truck as it took repeated fire from police officers, the truck lurched forward, bumping into one of the officers. This action, though it took place after the firing had started, and after Oleg was dead, was used as the justification for the shooting.

Many other high profile cases of police terror have been documented in the metro area over the last year, including the beating of whole families, rape and child molestation, and mishandling of evidence. Few, if any, officers are ever punished.

On May 6th, the fourth in a series of marches was held to show direct opposition to the police terror plaguing the metro area. For several hours the crowd snaked through downtown and the arts district. The police response to this fourth march was much heavier than previous marches, and riot police flanked the march for a good portion of the route. Despite the heavy police presence and attempts at intimidation, Amelia would end up being the only arrest during the march.

On Thursday May 12th, news agencies across the metro area reported that Amelia would be charged with a host of felonies and misdemeanors, including two counts of attempted murder of a police officer, criminal arson, possession and use of explosives, and inciting a riot. Police alleged she threw the firework, only now in the news reports the firework had become a “molotov cocktail”, or in some news reports, an “improvised explosive.” The small green firework now became a dangerous implement of attempted murder of two police officers. Amelia is now confined to a jail cell in the Denver County Jail, held on a $50,000 bon

Why the Right is Doomed Reply

Article by Paul Gottfried. Gottfried’s analysis is similar to my own. I’ve predicted before that today’s left-liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives and today’s hard leftists are tomorrow’s liberals. This trend will likely continue until mid-century when economic, cultural and demographic transformation make it no longer viable.
Jim assumes this state of affairs cannot last: “Sooner rather than later, the egalitarian left’s unapologetic bullies will be forced to deal with the big white monster they’ve helped create.” I find no compelling reason to believe this. While I do accept Jim’s and Jared’s counter-narrative, I doubt the situation will correct itself—and most definitely not in the foreseeable future. Most indicators here, in Canada, and in Western Europe suggest that multicultural views are doing swimmingly. The growth in support for the antinational, pro-immigration Greens in Germany, the National Democrats in Canada, and other culturally leftist (and not merely economically redistributionist) parties in Western countries indicates that the cultural left is continuing to make strides. The fact that these parties have not generated proportionate (and in countries such as Germany, even minimally significant) backlashes suggests that the right may be doomed. One can also cite the depressing example of the GOP, which as this country’s established “conservative” party cringes and crawls before minorities. Which American party stands for the white counterinsurgency? Certainly it is not the party of John McCain and George W. Bush, which apologizes fitfully to blacks for slavery and segregation without picking up any black votes as a result.

Barring a disaster, the cultural-social left has all the wind in its sails and is likely to keep it there. The establishment controls all effective resources here and in most of Western Europe; whatever may be taking place, it is not Jared or Jim who gets to interpret it for hundreds of millions. Equally important, the vast majority of people in today’s Western world are living well. Whether or not this is the work of their governments is another question, but no matter! Well-fed plebs who spend their lives watching sports contests and reciting PC gibberish are not likely to become counterrevolutionaries. Finally, human beings are conditioned to follow those in authority, particularly if that authority is not under noticeable attack. And the non-aligned right neither here nor in Western Europe is in any position to launch a thunderous counteroffensive. If they did, the faux right would crush them even before the establishment left got into the battle.

The Dirty Old Man and the IMF Reply

Article by Pat Buchanan.
Saturday was a bad day for the New World Order.

New York police boarded the first-class cabin of an Air France jet bound for Paris to collar Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, a Grand Master of the Universe and the Socialist Party’s hope to defeat President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012.

Strauss-Kahn, or DSK as he is known, was hauled back to New York and identified in a police lineup by an African maid at the Sofitel hotel as the man who emerged stark naked from the bathroom of his $3,000-a-night suite and tried to rape her.

DSK’s political allies are howling entrapment. Yet his rap sheet is long. Called the Great Seducer, he was charged with the sexual harassment of a co-worker at the IMF and accused by a young French novelist of behaving like a “rutting chimpanzee” and trying to rape her when she contacted him about a book she was writing in 2002.

The novelist, Tristan Banon, now 31, is a goddaughter to DSK’s second wife. She took a lawyer’s advice not to file charges then. But, says The Guardian, Banon is about to file them now.

“Time to shut down the IMF and get back what’s left of our gold.”

Monday, The New York Times wrote, “As the impact of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s predicament hit home, others, including some in the news media, began to reveal accounts, long suppressed or anonymous, of what they called Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s previously predatory behavior toward women and his aggressive sexual pursuit of them, from students and journalists to subordinates.”

What is this satyr doing running the IMF? How was a man of his Eurotrash reputation approved by the United States government? Such conduct may be pooh-poohed over the pond, but has our country dropped that low?

As is not infrequently the case, Rep. Ron Paul nails it: “These are the kind of people running the IMF, and we want to turn the world’s finances and the control of the money supply (over) to them?”

Whatta Whiny Week! The Top Ten Crybabies of the Past Seven Days Reply

Article by Jim Goad.
In the wonderful new world that’s being lovingly sculpted by the nice people who know what’s best for us, peace on Earth will apparently never come until everyone everywhere is either offended or apologizing all the time.

This eternal cycle of grievance and repentance, most of it revolving around ever-multiplying subsets of atomized socio-cultural identities, is self-perpetuating, smackably annoying, and utterly unnecessary. So long as no one gets stabbed, there’s absolutely no need for everyone to accept, embrace, and honor everyone else’s beliefs, lifestyles, melanin levels, genital configurations, and carnal indulgences. “Live and let live,” as they say—yes? Freedom of association—right? Keep your meddlesome snout out of everyone else’s personal business, and for the sake of public mental hygiene, don’t act as if your personal business is society’s burden to bear. Only infants and toddlers insist that everyone has to accept them. If someone doesn’t love you just the way you are, here’s a radical idea: Don’t hang out with them. If they said something that hurt your feelings, scratch them off your Christmas-card list immediately. I don’t understand why further measures would ever be needed.

Many politicians and civil lawyers don’t see it that way. There’s money to be made with hurt feelings, so they’ve cultivated an infantilized new generation of diaper-wearing wah-wah babies taking umbrage and acting touchy and feeling put-upon if someone so much as bats their eyelashes at them in a manner they deem insensitive. If Martians were to land tonight, they’d look around, shrug, say, “What a bunch of fags,” and then leave.

“If someone doesn’t love you just the way you are, here’s a radical idea: Don’t hang out with them.”

‘Unprovoked’ Attacks, From 1812 to 9/11 Reply

Article by Ivan Eland.
The killing of Osama bin Laden reminds us that there are only two disciplines in which uncaused events occur—quantum physics and the history of U.S. foreign policy. According to the version of history expounded by the American media and politicians, the passenger aircraft hitting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were a diabolical surprise attack out of the blue by the evil bin Laden against unsuspecting and naïve Americans. Of course, Americans were naïve, but principally about their government’s political and military interventions in Muslim countries since World War II, and especially since 1980. Bin Laden was blunt about this in his pronouncements on why he attacked the United States, but America never wanted to hear.

But this is not the first time in America’s version of its history that uncaused events have just happened. All countries twist their history into a more favorable light, and America is no exception.

The sanitized version of American history begins early with the War of 1812. If causes are discussed at all, the war was allegedly caused by British violation of American rights of neutral shipping during the Napoleonic Wars and the impressment of American sailors to fill shortages of manpower on British warships during those wars. Yet these affronts had been going on for more than a decade, and the region most adversely affected by them—seafaring New England—was almost in open revolt against the U.S. government over war with Britain. A more important reason that the new American nation unwisely declared war on a superpower was the election of “war hawks” to Congress in 1810. They wanted to grab Canada, and when the war started, an American invasion force was quickly dispatched there to do so.

The Mexican War set a precedent for what became a rich tradition in the American democracy of provoking your enemy into firing first. President James Polk—who wanted to and did steal one-third of Mexico’s land by using military force against a much weaker country—deliberately sent U.S. forces into a disputed area on the Texas-Mexico border, because he calculated that the Mexicans would attack that force in defending their border. The Mexicans had a much better border claim than did the Americans. Most historians agree that Polk provoked the war to grab the land, but they don’t focus on the fact that Polk had also blockaded the Rio Grande River—an internationally recognized act of war. So the United States didn’t just provoke the enemy to attack, it started the war, just as in the War of 1812.

Almost erased from the history of the Civil War and the actions of the now-canonized Abraham Lincoln is his deliberate provocation of the Confederates to fire on a supply ship to Fort Sumter. They had already done so on another such ship at the very end of the James Buchanan administration, so Lincoln knew what would happen when he sent the ship. Lincoln even admitted that he was trying to get the Confederates to fire first. As George W. Bush did when he fell into bin Laden’s trap and invaded Iraq after 9/11, the Confederates foolishly took the bait and even went Lincoln one better. They not only fired on the ship but also the fort, thus beginning the most cataclysmic war in U.S. history.

A Libertarian Theory of War Reply

A classic from Murray Rothbard.
The libertarian movement has been chided by William F. Buckley, Jr., for failing to use its “strategic intelligence” in facing the major problems of our time. We have, indeed, been too often prone to “pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors” (as Buckley has contemptuously written), while ignoring and failing to apply libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time: war and peace. There is a sense in which libertarians have been utopian rather than strategic in their thinking, with a tendency to divorce the ideal system which we envisage from the realities of the world in which we live.

In short, too many of us have divorced theory from practice, and have then been content to hold the pure libertarian society as an abstract ideal for some remotely future time, while in the concrete world of today we follow unthinkingly the orthodox “conservative” line. To live liberty, to begin the hard but essential strategic struggle of changing the unsatisfactory world of today in the direction of our ideals, we must realize and demonstrate to the world that libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world’s crucial problems. By coming to grips with these problems, we can demonstrate that libertarianism is not just a beautiful ideal somewhere on cloud nine, but a tough-minded body of truths that enables us to take our stand and to cope with the whole host of issues of our day.

Let us then, by all means, use our strategic intelligence – although, when he sees the result, Mr. Buckley might well wish that we had stayed in the realm of garbage collection. Let us construct a libertarian theory of war and peace.

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.[1] In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.[2]

Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for a while and consider simply relations between “private” individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: Is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly no.

Osama bin Laden Transfigured Reply

Article by Phil Geraldi.
The execution-style slaying of Osama bin Laden has been touted as a great success for United States intelligence operatives and also for the special operations soldiers, sailors, and airmen who executed the plan. But it also leaves one feeling a bit uneasy about where this is all going now that the world’s most wanted fugitive is dead. A retrospective look at the fifteen year manhunt mounted by the US government estimates that it cost something like $3 trillion to kill him. An effort is being made to confirm that bin Laden was still a very dangerous man, plotting with his associates and “coming up with ideas” about attacking transportation hubs in the US, but there is little to suggest that the aging terrorist was well positioned to mount any effective operations against anyone. As he relied on couriers to communicate his wishes he was not even able to send instructions or advice to his remaining associates in under a week, hardly qualifying him as a hands-on master of terror.

Most Americans have welcomed the death of bin Laden because the reality of his crimes against the American people would appear to be undeniable. That said, there has also been a certain level of unease becoming more evident in discussions of the assassination because an unarmed bin Laden was killed without any due process, a pattern of behavior that has been characteristic of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. The White House clearly did not want to permit bin Laden to appear in a show trial, in which he would inevitably be the star and would have been able to make a powerful case against US policy.

Many Americans also have begun to question the White House narrative about how and why bin Laden was killed, particularly as the story has changed a number of times. Indeed, the first accounts that he was resisting with an AK-47 in hand have now somewhat mellowed into a version that has him hiding in a bedroom with his son and his wife, where he and they were shot dead. As the president put it in his official statement on the end of the terrorist leader, “After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden.” The word “after” and its placement is significant as it implies that there was some shooting followed by a targeted assassination. The subsequent rapid disposal of the body at sea also will lead to more questions than answers and is already beginning to do so.

But what is particularly disquieting about the bin Laden story is how it is being used by some media commentators and politicians to support the reactionary war on terror policies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In the press and on Capitol Hill there have been suggestions that the successful tracking of bin Laden came about because of torture, that the key information that led to his hideout in Pakistan was developed in a CIA secret prison. Demagogic politicians like congressman Peter King are extolling the virtues of enhanced interrogation and calling for more of it.

Creating the Bin Laden Reality Reply

Article by Paul Craig Roberts.
I have heard one dozen times today (May 13) from media that the US killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. I heard it three times from National Public Radio, twice from the BBC, and from every TV and radio station I encountered, even those stations that play the rock and roll music of the 1950s and 1960s. The killing of bin Laden has now entered the legends of our time and, no doubt, the history books.

The US government that told us that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and “al Qaeda connections” and that Iran has nuclear missiles that require the US to ring Russia with anti-ballistic missile systems, finally told us the truth for once. Obama found Osama and had him murdered, apparently unarmed in his underwear, defended not by al Qaeda, “the best trained, most dangerous vicious killers on the planet,” but by two unarmed women.

As I offered previously, if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a cheap price.

The government has created another reality for us proles. We won again. Us white hats got the black hat, just like in the western movie. Fantasy is better than fact, and us good guys are on a roll. It makes everybody happy, even those who have lost their jobs, their houses, their pensions.

So, who’s the next black hat? The military/security complex cannot do without a bad guy, or the budget could be cut and billions of dollars in profits would go missing. Without someone for Americans to hate, the show can’t go on.

Homeland Security says the next black hat will be “domestic extremists.” The CIA says it will be the next al Qaeda leader, bin Laden’s replacement, who will terrorize us white hats for killing bin Laden. The neocon brownshirts say it is Pakistan, who hid bin Laden from us, thus protecting him from justice being done. Hillary says it is China, and as the US economy continues its collapse, more and more fingers will point at China.

Airport Security will pat down more babies, feel more genitals, and radiate more air travelers.

But without bin Laden, we will feel safer and more secure, which is counterproductive for the military/security complex. Obama has made a fundamental mistake. He has killed Emanuel Goldstein (bin Laden), the hate figure who justified the trillions of dollars we have blown trying to get him.

Once Homeland Security, the CIA, and the White House decide who the new hate figure is to be, we will be off and running again.

It took 10 years to get bin Laden. This proves that all those security experts who say that the war will last for 30 years might be underestimating the necessary commitment. If it takes 10 years each to find and murder the next two leaders, we are faced with conflict that lasts across generations.

The French Bombshell – Stranger Than Fiction Reply

Article by Eric Margolis.
PARIS – This week, the big buzz for “le tout Paris” (all Paris) – at least until Sunday’s “le grand bombshell” – was that President Nicholas Sarkozy and wife Carla Bruni were boycotting the Cannes Film Festival which just opened with the film, Le Conquest (The Conquest).

No wonder. This acid film is all about how a short, pushy, outsider in elevator heels ruthlessly clawing his way to the top of France’s political establishment. It’s fiction, but you have to be from Uranus not to know this celluloid hatchet job is all about Sarko and his exquisite wife Carla – who, at 43, is rumored to be pregnant, just in time for next year’s presidential elections.

Carla Bruni’s no-show is even more dramatic since she has a role in Woody Allen’s new film, Midnight in Paris, which opens with great fanfare at Cannes. In France, politics and film are inseparable.

The British press, which passionately loathes France, is having a field day running nasty stories about the film and circulating ugly rumors about Carla, who has never been renowned for fidelity or constancy.

However, while this springtime folderol went on, a political bombshell of staggering power exploded in New York City.

An April poll showed Socialist bigwig Dominique Strauss-Kahn running ahead of Sarkozy at 30%, followed by far-right National Front leader Marine LePen at 21%, and, sacré bleu! Sarko trailing at 19% in a first round of the two-part vote. Strauss-Kahn would then wallop Sarkozy in the second round vote.

Strauss-Kahn was expected to step down shortly as head of the International Monetary Fund and announce his run for president. He is expected to easily beat out the other truly boring Socialist contenders for the nomination: Francois Hollande, Martine Aubry, and Segolene Royal.

However, if Strauss had decided to stay in his cushy IMF job, Sarkozy would likely have whipped these weak Socialist candidates who are furiously squabbling among themselves and are bereft of public respect.

France’s hardcore left was not happy with Strauss-Kahn, known to all as DSK. A millionaire with a four million euro Paris penthouse and 140,000 euro Porche, DSK is lambasted by leftists as a champagne Socialist and establishment fat cat – which he certainly is.

France’s sullen anti-business, anti-globalization left had to decide whether it wanted ideological purity or a candidate who could beat Sarkozy – who, of course was praying every night that DSK won’t run.

Sarko’s prayers, or Carla’s Italian witchcraft, were amazingly answered this past Sunday in New York City.

The Mystery of Marine Reply

Article by Richard Spencer.

Last weekend, the New York Times Magazine (!!) featured a largely fair and sympathetic story on the new leader of France’s Front National, Marine Le Pen, daughter of Jean-Marie, the long-time warrior of the nationalist Right.

With Sarkozy floundering and the likely Socialist candidate, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, accused of sodomizing an African chambermaid, Le Pen most certainly has a shot at the presidency. But as the Times alludes to, if Le Pen were to do well, the “mainstream” Left and Right would, no doubt, combine forces in order to prevent the ascension of an “extremist,” much as Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin teamed up against Jean-Marie in 2002. Despite its pretensions of “liberal democracy,” the Western world is essentially a one-party state.

A Book Critiquing PC from the Left 2

Is anyone familiar with this? It looks to be an interesting read.

Introduction: Political Correctness as Antitransformational.

PC, Opportunism, and Transformative Deficit on the Left.

Affirmative Action: Hanging Separately While the Gentry Feast.

Transformative Values: Synergy, Entropy, and Social Change.

Beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism: The Invisible Hand of Synergy.

The Missing Child in Transformational Politics.

Beyond Adultism: Political Empowerment for Young People.

Family Empowerment in Social Transformation: The Politics of Birthing, Nursing, and Parenting.

Missing Synergies in Ecology, Crime, and Political Economy.

Conclusion: Ideology as Friend and Foe of Transformation.

What Ethnocentrism Looks Like… 2

The former president of Latina sorority explains. Race traitor? That sounds like Brown Metzgerism.
The media is always on the hunt for ethnic chauvinism, racism, and cultural supremacism on a college campus, ready to pounce and run breathless exposes. Colleges and universities have speech codes, disciplinary bodies, and an entire apparatus of repression that have been built to make sure that no racist group can ever raise its ugly head in polite society again.

Unless, of course, it’s for non-whites. Then it is celebrated and funded. Take the case of La Unidad Latina, Lambda Upsilon Lambda Fraternity, Inc. (LUL).

Now, if you are like most people reading this, you can’t criticize them, you’re white. However, according to some unwritten rule I can because I’m half-Hispanic, and I will tell you how just like a myriad of other culturally based greek organizations, they are a hotbed for far left activism and anti-American rhetoric. How do I know? I was the chapter president of a sorority just like it.

LUL is a Latino-based greek organization that was founded at Cornell University in 1982. Their mission statement asserts that their goals are to uplift the Latino community through academic achievement, cultural awareness, community service and promotion of the Latino culture and people.

IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn accused of attempting to rape NY hotel maid 1

From MSNBC. He was only doing to the maid what the IMF does to entire nations.
The leader of the International Monetary Fund was pulled from an airplane and arrested Sunday in connection with the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid, New York police said.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was taken off the Air France flight at John F. Kennedy International Airport by officers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey about 10 minutes before it was to take off for Paris.

He was turned over to police for questioning Saturday afternoon, said Paul J. Browne, New York Police Department spokesman.

Strauss-Kahn, 62, was arrested at 2:15 a.m. ET Sunday on charges of a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment, and was awaiting arraignment, police said.

Strauss-Kahn’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told The Associated Press that his client will plead not guilty at his expected Sunday afternoon arraignment.

“He denies all the charges against him,” Brafman said. “And that’s all I can really say right now.”

The news rocked France, where latest opinion polls ranked Socialist Strauss-Kahn as front-runner for the nation’s presidential election next April and May.