Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins
By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 19, 3:45 AM ET
BURLINGTON, Vt. – Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett’s.
Dennett, 61, the‘s candidate for , said Thursday she will prosecute for murder if she’s elected Nov. 4.
Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq â€” U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.
She also said she would appoint a Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” a new book.and already knows who that should be: former
“Someone has to step forward,” said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. “Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more.”
Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General , a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.
Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed “overt acts” including the military’s recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.
“No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law,” said Bugliosi.
The White House press office didn’t respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett.
“It’s extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont,” Latoff said. “These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can’t be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general.”
Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It’s the only state Bush hasn’t visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.
In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and .
Last March, the towns ofand Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at to call for his impeachment.
Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn’t believe awould have the authority to charge Bush.
“The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president,” Sorrell said.
“I want to see this guy on death row.” -Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of Charles Manson, on the possible prosecution of George W. Bush for mass murder
Taking a Look at Constitution Party Candidate Chuck BaldwinÂ by Laurence Vance
Ain’t My GovernmentÂ by Manuel Lora
How to Fix Our Depreciating MoneyÂ by Lew Rockwell
We Who Dare Say No to WarÂ Tom Woods interviewed by Lew Rockwell
Krugman and the Nobel FraudÂ by Bill Anderson
The Bolshevization of AmericaÂ by William Norman Grigg
It All Went Wrong When We Left the Gold StandardÂ by Dominic Lawson
Nations by Consent: DeComposing the Nation-StateÂ by Murray Rothbard
Criminals in the MilitaryÂ by Russell Carollo
Watching UkraineÂ by Justin Raimondo
Afghan War is UnwinnableÂ by Gwynne Dyer
A Foreign Policy of FreedomÂ by Ron Paul
Liquidating the EmpireÂ by Pat Buchanan
Does the Bailout Pass the Smell Test?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Stuck in the Cold: Obama’s Nostalgia for the 20th CenturyÂ by Michael Scheuer
Wall Street’s Hostile Takeover of Main StreetÂ by Karen De Coster
Hitchens, Obama and the War PartyÂ by Richard Spencer
H.L. Mencken Club-The Egalitarian TemptationÂ by Richard Spencer
Ike Minds Hard to FindÂ by Eric Margolis
McCain: War Hero or War Criminal?Â by Robert Richter
Charlotte Dennett for Vermont Attorney-GeneralÂ Prosecute Bush for Murder!
Do You Hate the State?Â by Murray Rothbard
America’s Coup D’EtatÂ by Claes D. Ryn
Goodbye, GOPÂ by Justin Raimondo
Criminalizing DissentÂ by Matthew Harwood
Mexico’s Colombian ExchangeÂ by Ted Galen Carpenter
McCain vs AyersÂ by Dylan Waco
National Review Purges BuckleyÂ by Richard Spencer
The Enemy is Always to the RightÂ by Tom Piatak
Thus Spake KristolÂ by Paul Gottfried
Why McCain Should Lose Â by Jack Hunter
My Friend Bill AyersÂ by Thomas Frank
Eternal Recurrence-Is it 1939, Again?Â by Justin Raimondo
Thanks for the Depression, GeorgeÂ by Eric Margolis
The NATO Alliance: Dangerous AnachronismÂ by Doug Bandow
U.S. Journalists and War Crime GuiltÂ by Peter Dyer
Additional Thoughts on the BailoutÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
An Interesting Response to the Economic CrisisÂ by Larry Gambone
How the Banksters Are Making a Killing Off the BailoutÂ by Pam Martens
Martial Law by 2011Â by Roderick T. Beaman
Middle America Radicals and the Libertarian LeftÂ by Patroon
The Martial Law ThreatÂ Rep. Brad Sherman interviewed by Alex Jones
Give Me LibertyÂ interview with Naomi Wolf
Hijacking ConservatismÂ by Joseph Sobran
Gun Owners of America on the Presidential CandidatesÂ by Red Phillips
Can Vermont Break Free of Obama?Â by Patroon
The Decline and Fall of the Soviet StateÂ by Yuri Maltsev
Extremist, Traitorous, Un-American, Un-Patriotic Secessionists-Sign Me Up!Â by Thomas Andrew Olson
Them’s Fightin’ WordsÂ by Mike Tennant
The President is Not a KingÂ by Daniel Ellsberg
A Backlash Against Barack?Â by Pat Buchanan
Blowups and BombersÂ by Alexander Cockburn
This is in response to something posted about me on The Art of the Possible web site:
Says “Anonymous” (geez, that’s creative):
“This web site is dedicated to hosting a dialogue between libertarians and the left, with the goal of encouraging theoretical synthesis and practical cooperation between the best elements of both perspectives.
If this is the case, why is no one protesting the presence of Kieth Preston, a â€˜national anarchistâ€™ who valorises violence and openly collaborates with racists and fascists? Anyone who has any doubt as to the truth of this claim need merely spend a few hours browsing his attackthesystem.com website.
Surely anyone who takes *either* the ideals of social justice *or* the ideals of individualism seriously should be horrified by this!?”
Ugh, another one of those. Here we go:
“This web site is dedicated to hosting a dialogue between libertarians and the left, with the goal of encouraging theoretical synthesis and practical cooperation between the best elements of both perspectives.”
You mean like this:
“If this is the case, why is no one protesting the presence of Kieth Preston, a ˜national anarchist”™ who valorises violence and openly collaborates with racists and fascists? Anyone who has any doubt as to the truth of this claim need merely spend a few hours browsing his attackthesystem.com website.”
First, if you want to attack me, you could at least bother to spell my name right, which shouldn’t be so hard to do given that you’re such a self-proclaimed expert on my work. I’ll let my previous statements on all of these topics stand.
On my actual political views:
“Surely anyone who takes *either* the ideals of social justice *or* the ideals of individualism seriously should be horrified by this!?”
On “social justice”:
“Anonymous”, have you ever heard of something called open debate and free exchange of ideas? I suggest you cancel your subscription to the SPLC’s “Intelligence Report”, stop wasting time at ARA hoodlum shows, stop throwing rocks through McDonald’s windows, tell your Commie professors to fuck off, and read some actual libertarian and radical left works of quality, like Proudhon, Bakunin, Rothbard, H.L. Mencken, or maybe even that dead white male slave owning scumbag, Thomas Jefferson. And while you’re at it, you might want to actually check out some elite theory, some Austrian economics and maybe even some critics of cultural Marxism like Alain De Benoist, Paul Gottfried or William S. Lind.
Quote of the Week:
“As long as I am mayor of this city the great industries are secure. We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, “That man is a Red, that man is a Communist.” You never hear a real American talk like that.”
Â Â Â Â Â -Mayor Frank Hague, speech to the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce, January 12, 1938
Al Gore, Baptist and BootleggerÂ by Bill Anderson
The Near Death of the StateÂ by Lew Rockwell
Why I Do Not VoteÂ by Mike Rozeff
Democracy: The Great SwindleÂ by Becky Akers
The PlunderbundÂ by William Norman Grigg
No More Help, PleaseÂ by Stephen Fairfax
Forget the TerroristsÂ by Mike Rozeff
The Great Bank Robbery of 2008Â by Bob Murphy
The Real Trouble Makers in the Middle EastÂ by Justin Raimondo
A Dial Marked “War”Â by Justin Raimondo
Al-Qaeda’s Opportunity to Hurt the U.S.Â by Michael Scheuer
Joe Biden: Time for ConfessionÂ by Ray McGovern
Republicans on the Left, Democrats on the RightÂ by Ivan Eland
John McCain’s POW Cover-UpÂ Sydney Schanberg interviewed by Scott Horton
God and Man at Taki MagÂ by Paul Gottfried
An Amicus Brief for NevilleÂ by Pat Buchanan
Deconstructing the DebateÂ by Justin Raimondo
Racial Quotas in Malaysia: A Grim WarningÂ by Jared Taylor
American Should Listen to AhmadinejadÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Not One Damned DimeÂ by Rad Geek
What Wall Street Hoped to WinÂ by Pam Martens
The Pitchfork: Elite Panic on Wall StreetÂ by Chris Floyd
The Power of NoÂ by Dave Lindorff
Time for a General Strike?Â by Manuel Garcia
Blaming the Labor UnionsÂ by David Macaray
The Call of the TyrantÂ by Tom DiLorenzo
Iraq: They Make It a Desert and Call It PeaceÂ by Eric Margolis
War on Two FrontsÂ by Bill Lind
What Will the History Books Say About Our Era?Â by Daniel Coleman
McMussoliniÂ by Ilana Mercer
Ron Paul Tells Why He Won’t Vote McCain-PalinÂ by Paul Munshine
Gang of DemocraciesÂ by Justin Raimondo
AmerikaÂ William Norman Grigg interviewed by Scott Horton
The Dark Heart of the Gitmo TrialsÂ by Andy Worthington
Can A Bailout Succeed?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
A New Populism?Â by Grant Havers
What’s the Difference Between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle?Â by John Zmirak
In Praise of Older WomenÂ by Taki Theodoracopulos
Forgotten Founder, Drunken ProphetÂ Dylan Hales reviews Bill Kauffman
Immigration Restriction-Ruined by Success?Â by Richard Spencer
Sockless Jerry Rides AgainÂ by Caleb Stegall
What Bolshevik!Â by Niccolo Adami
It Pays to Rebel!Â by Larry Gambone
The Bailout in Plain EnglishÂ by Joe Bageant
The Free Market Preachers Have LongÂ Practiced State Welfare for the RichÂ by George Monbiot
Can the Middle America Radicals Save McCain?Â by Pat Buchanan
The Bailout is a FraudÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Sarah Goes to AfricaÂ by Richard Spencer
History of an IdeaÂ by Roderick T. Long
The Call of the PresentÂ by Shawn Wilbur
The Power Elite Shows Its HandÂ by Wally Conger
The Case for Drunk DrivingÂ by David Ker Thomson
When is a Holocaust not a Holocaust?Â by William Blum
Chomsky: “The Majority of the World Supports Iran”Â by Subrata Ghoshroy
The Strategic Logic of Suicide TerrorismÂ Robert Pape interviewed by Scott Horton
The Bubble BoysÂ by Justin Raimondo
A Nation of SheepÂ by David Gordon
Where Have All the Real Men Gone?Â by Kathleen Parker
Police State DemocracyÂ by A.C. Grayling
Free Enterprise for the Poor, Socialism for the RichÂ by Gore Vidal
Elmer Gantry EconomicsÂ by William Norman Grigg
Is McCain Insane?Â by Fred Reed
How to Avoid a DepressionÂ by Mike Rozeff
Oslo at 15 Years-A Vanishing DreamÂ by Daniel Levy
The Minutemen Verses the Anarcho-LeftoidsÂ by Brenda Walker
The “Bailout” Has PassedÂ by Dylan Waco
Whatever Happened to the Discourse on Neoliberalism?Â by Shawn Wilbur
Creatures of CapitalÂ by Alexander Cockburn
Quote of the Week:
“Ass usual, the election is a popularity contest run for dimwits. And to elect a dimwit, which is worse. Weâ€™ve got this woman Palin, an angry Betty Crocker, absolutely unqualified for the presidency in case McCain goes tits up. Sheâ€™s ignorant of foreign affairs, at best moderately bright, a whackjob Christian, and a â€œpit bull.â€ This is said admiringly.
Oh good. An aggressive ignorant dull-witted-pit bull. How is that better than a passive ignorant torpid pit bull?
Oh god, McCain. A senescent replica of Bush who says he wants to stay in Iraq a hundred years. Actually, the idea has its appeal. Why doesnâ€™t he go there and get a start? A perfect match for Palin, another pugnacious dunce, bottom of his class in boat school â€“ the Naval Academy, I mean. He says he plans to â€œconfront Russia.â€ Now thereâ€™s a plan. It seems that American policy is to make enemies of everyone who has oil or nuclear weapons. Or doesnâ€™t.
Meanwhile the Pentagon prepares for war with China. Is it something in the water?
Next we have Obama, whose only qualification is that heâ€™s maybe a tad less bellicose than the rest of these Oprah Neanderthals. His veep, Biden, is a grey nonentity, a cipher with no characteristics. Well, thatâ€™s better than the other three. I mean, heâ€™s as close to no candidate as we can come.
What are we doing? The country has gone nuts. If a giant squirrel began collecting us and storing us for winter, Iâ€™d understand. Three hundred million people, and these factory rejects the best we can do?”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Fred Reed
The Cause of Gasoline ShortagesÂ by Gary North
Militarized CopsÂ William Norman Grigg interviewed by Lew Rockwell
Banksters Mug AmericaÂ by Jim Quinn
It’s Time for Cold War RevisionismÂ by Dan Spielberg
The Meaning of the Historic Ron Paul Press ConferenceÂ by David Barsallis
Anarchy in Our HeadsÂ by Manuel Lora
The Public Schools Have An Agenda (and it’s not education)Â by Jim Fedako
Should the U.S. Really Murder Persians?Â by William Norman Grigg
The Murdering FDAÂ Bill Sardi interviewed by Lew Rockwell
The American Empire: Too Big To Fail?Â by Justin Raimondo
Ashes of EmpireÂ by Philip Giraldi
The American Left Is Also Claimed by AIPCAÂ by Philip Weiss
Whose Iraq Predictions Have Come True?Â by Ron Paul
Calling Gitmo What It IsÂ by Aaron Glantz
Downhill in AfghanistanÂ by Jonathan Power
Bill Clinton’s Imperialist LegacyÂ by Stephen Chapman
Lesser of Two Evils? No Thanks.Â by Daniel Bein
Amnesty for the Stupid?Â by Pat Buchanan
GOP TurkeysÂ by Paul Gottfried
Where the WASP’s Aren’tÂ by Austin Bramwell
Best Satire EverÂ Â Â from Social Memory Complex
Served and Protected Once MoreÂ by Rad Geek
A Death Row Visit with Troy A. DavisÂ by Patrick Dyer
Hezbollah and the PalestiniansÂ by Franklin Lamb
Oppose Barack Obama? How Dare Thee!Â by Joshua Frank
The Bailout Will Kill the DollarÂ by Dave Lindorff
The Twin Terrors of the Holy LandÂ by Robert Weitzel
A New Cold War Comes to Latin AmericaÂ by John Ross
The Yippie ShowÂ by Jesse Walker
Russia Is BackÂ by Thomas N. Naylor
The Bad Boy of the Philadelphia Constitutional ConventionÂ by Thomas N. Naylor
No Child Left BehindÂ by Sid S. Glassner
Decline and Fall: It’s the Autumn of Our Old RepublicÂ by Justin Raimondo
Impeachable OffensesÂ by Bruce Fein
The Pakistan DilemmaÂ by Charles Pena
The Election Means Almost NothingÂ by Lew Rockwell
Intellectual “Property”Â by Stephan Kinsella
The Blood of DresdenÂ by Kurt Vonnegut
Has Deregulation Sired Fascism?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Libertarianism ShruggedÂ by Kevin DeAnna
Who Is Vladimir Putin?Â by Matthew Roberts
Bosses Beware!Â by Larry Gambone
Palestinians Under the OccupationÂ by Khalil Nakhleh
Bush, the DestroyerÂ by Lew Rockwell
The First Fascist PresidentÂ by Ralph Raico
Iran: And the Beat Goes OnÂ by Justin Raimondo
Banking, Bailouts and War in US HistoryÂ Lew Rockwell interviewed by Scott Horton
A Landmark Torture TrialÂ by Joanne Mariner
Truth and War Mean Nothing at the Party ConferencesÂ by John Pilger
Why is a US Army Brigade Being Assigned to the “Homeland”? by Glenn Greenwald
Joseph Biden: Profile in CowardiceÂ by Gene Healy
We Will Berry You by David Gordon
Day of Reckoning by Pat Buchanan
Sadomasochist NationÂ by John Zmirak
Ron Paul Vs the Bailout LobbyÂ by Richard Spencer
The End of the Ric Flair EraÂ by Jack Hunter
Metropolitan SecessionÂ by Rad Geek
The Brawl in St. PaulÂ by William Gillis
For the People of PakistanÂ by Niccolo Adami
Who Will Show Some Backbone Against the Bailout?Â by Ralph Nader
Democrats and Corporate BailoutsÂ by Sharon Smith
D.C. Heist-Wall Street Gang Hijacks WashingtonÂ by Gerald Celente
A Comment on the Brawl in St. PaulÂ by Niccolo Adami
How McCain Blew ItÂ by Alexander Cockburn
How Major U.S. Neo-Imperialist Wars EndÂ lecture by Robert Higgs
What does it mean that the Vice-Presidential candidate for the ostensibly “conservative” party is a female from a working class background who has the flag of a foreign state associated with a domestic ethnic minority hanging in her governor’s office? What does it mean that the Presidential candidate of the opposition party is a black man with an Islamic name? Essentially, such phenomena demonstrate that the political Left has become entirely status quo and that the core values of the historic Left-cosmopolitanism, internationalism, universalism, liberalism, proletarianism, feminism, anti-racism, anti-anti-Semitism, religious ecumenicalism and anti-xenophobia are more or less mainstream and “normal”. Indeed, such values are very much those of the elite. As Joe Bageant recently observed:
“Elite consensus on the issues of race, sex and role of faith in public life are to the left of public opinion, the only area in which this is the case. Elite opinion is overwhelmingly secular, pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and hostile to overt displays of racism.
Tolerance and liberalism on this front is a very useful tool, since it buys political space to be more conservative on the more important money issues. It also enjoys the advantage of making the right enemies, after all who wants to be on Pat Robertson’s side during weekend dinner parties at the Hamptons.
When social conservative complain about the “Liberal Media” they are not wrong, but only in regard to their issues. The contempt of the American elite for the religious right is quite real. What social conservatives misunderstand is that the hostility against them is not because the threat their ideas represent but only a display of the traditional contempt that the merciless strong have for people they consider to be the feeble minded weak.
The significance of the religious right in our politics is only in the wonderful diversions their issues create. Issues that feed a war between urban educated middle classes against the more numerous, the ever more frustrated lower income fundamentalists on issues that are unsolvable in nature.”
This fact provides a great deal of insight as to why the radical Left is now utterly impotent in resisting the forces of U.S. imperialism, state-capitalism and the expanding police state. Beginning in the 1960s, the Left abandoned its historic position as the party of class struggle, first of the middle classes against the Ancien’ Regime, and then of the proletariat against the old bourgeoisie order. Instead, the Left reinvented itself as the party of cultural politics, shifting its focus to such matters as race, gender, homosexualism, environmentalism, abortion, secularism and so forth. Consequently, we now have a situation where the ostensible “radical Left” maintains essentially the same basic set of cultural values as the “liberal elite”. The more socially conservative poor and working class have subsequently been abandoned to be colonized by the Right.
But what is the Right? If we are to judge by the actions of the Republican Party leadership, we might realize that the so-called “conservatives” really care about only three things. The first of these is the perpetual expansion of the American empire internationally. There must not be a square mile of territory on Earth that the U.S. does not control, or so the policy makers and the jingoist propagandists who dominate the more rightward leaning sectors of the media would have us believe. The second of these is the perpetual advancement of the expansionist interests of Israel. The third is the advancement of the economic interests of those narrow economic sectors that dominate the Republican Party, primarily banking, “Big Oil”, armaments and so forth.
Of course, the Republican leadership has to pretend to be social conservatives so that all of the yahoos, jingos, flag-wavers, Bible-thumpers, “homophobes”, money-grubbers and amateur cops who fill the ranks of their most enthusiastic supporters will still come out and vote for them. Â But do they take their social conservatism seriously? Of course not. American society is now more liberal than ever before. Do they care one iota about the right-to-life cause, countering the influence of the gay movement, or restoring prayers in schools? No, they have made zero progress on these matters, while making much progress on the things that really mean something to them, like enriching the corporate fatcats, building a police state and conquering the world. Do they take their rhetoric of fiscal conservatism seriously? Not if the federal deficit and the national debt are any indication.
As contemptible a lot as the Republicans are, the Democrats are equally if not more pathetic. The Demos are struggling with a very thin and narrowing lead in this year’s election in spite of the dismal performance and unpopularity of the incumbent party and President. Ultimately, the Democrats represent the same set of interests as the Republicans. The Demos are beholden to the same kinds of banking, petroleum, armaments, pharmaceutical and communications interests as their rival party. The Demos are likewise firmly in the grip of the Israel Lobby. They are just as committed to the expansion of the empire, though they may prefer slightly more covert methods. Consequently, they have no real alternative to offer. Additionally, the Demos are much more reflective of the social and cultural values of the elite classes than the Republicans, hence their intransigence on these matters and their impotence on virtually everything else. Their best hope is to rally the array of left of center constituents group who share their cultural outlook and anyone else who wants to vote for “Anybody but a Republican”. Meanwhile, the Left will continue crying “racism, sexism, homophobia” (as if these were the most pressing matters in politically correct twenty-first century North America) while the ruling class drives things further down the tubes on matters of political economy, law and foreign policy.
The creation of a new radicalism capable of resisting the forces of State, Capital and Empire requires the development of a genuine “third way” beyond Left’s habit of appealing to traditional outgroups or the Right’s habit of appealing to “traditional values”. Instead, the new dichotomy pits those who are against the system versus those who are for the system. Enemies of the system may come from the extreme Right or the extreme Left, with a common denominator being a desire to attack the system! Pan-secessionism is our methodology, and perhaps some sort of lumpenproletarian-oriented anarcho-pluralist populism is our ideology. Our natural constituents are neither cultural conservatives or cultural leftists per se but enemies of the states wherever and whoever they may be.
August 30 / 31, 2008
What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby?
By B. R. GOWANI
Abu Faisal was White House press secretary (instead of Ari Fleischer)
Altaf Adham was deputy national security advisor
(instead of Elliott Abrams)
Sofian Bishr was Supreme Court Justice instead of Stephen Breyer
Tarf Kaukab was Nightline host (instead of Ted Koppel)
Dawud Bushr was New York Times columnist (instead of David
Rukan Badar Ghiyath was Supreme Court Justice
(instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
Thamer Furud was New York Times columnist (instead of Thomas Friedman)
Laith Keid was host of Larry King show (instead of Larry King)
Yousuf “Yo” Luqman was US Senator from
Connecticut (instead of Joseph “Joe” Lieberman)
Zuhaa Midlaj was New York Times reporter (instead of Judith Miller)
Dawud Fouad was Bush’s speechwriter (instead of David Frum)
Lu’ay Labib was Cheney’s Chief of Staff (instead of Lewis Libby)
Polat Walif-Rizk was Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary
of Defense (instead of Paul Wolfowitz)
Mahdi Parvez was editor of The New Republic
magazine (instead of Martin Peretz)
Basil Kishwar was the editor of The Weekly
Standard instead of (Bill Kristol)
Ali Wisam was the famous Nobel Peace laureate (instead of Elie Wiesel)
Jaafer Ghawth-Badr was a staff writer at New
Yorker (instead of Jeffrey Goldberg)
Rifat Pir was the Chairman of the Defense Policy
Board AdvisoryCommittee (instead of Richard Perle)
Yaman Sikandar was the famous filmmaker (instead of Steven Spielberg)
Ibrahim Faqih-Ma’n was the head of the
Anti-Defamation League (instead of Abraham Foxman)
Alam Daoud-Vida was the famous lawyer (instead of Alan Dershowitz)
Imagine the above Muslims in key positions. There are 2 per cent Jews in the US and the same percentage of Muslims. Now consider for a moment that both communities have exchanged places as it happens on that TV show “Wife Swap.” Here not only wives but the entire community exchanges places. Or a still better example would be the 1970 film “Watermelon Man” in which a white man wakes up in the morning and discovers he has turned into a black person. Blackness becomes his fate.
However, first let us check out the power Jews have in the United States in order to imagine how things would have been different if the Muslims had exactly the same power.
This article, however, realizes that Jews are not a monolithic group. For instance: 75 per cent of Americans supported the war in 2003 in US, whereas the Jewish support was at 50 per cent.
Like many other Jews, the billionaire George Soros favors a dialogue between the Hamas (the elected government in the Palestinian territories) and the Israelis:
“… Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did
not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel….”
There have always been Jewish people and institutions who have tried to work for some peaceful solution of the Palestinian/Israeli problem but the Jewish Lobby and pro Israel individuals have always succeeded in silencing or marginalizing those voices.
Bill and Kathleen Christison explain how the word “anti-Semite” is abused:
“Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word `domination’ anywhere in the vicinity of the word `Israel,’ as in `U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East’ or `the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,’ and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.”
A Few Clarifications
Before proceeding any further, it is important to remember the historic injustices suffered by the Jewish people. The past has not been especially nice to the Jews; rather it has been extremely cruelÂ, mainly, in the form of European Christianity. The atrocious climax reached between 1939 and 1945 under Nazi Germany. Between five to six million Jews were murdered. But since then, although there have been some instances of
targeting Jewish people and desecrating their cemeteries in Europe and elsewhere, these have not in any way affected their survival and growth as a distinct religious and cultural entity. And economically they are one of the few most powerful groups in the world.
In addition: There are many interest groups or lobbies in the United States who are doing immense harm to people within and without, and the dominant corporate press is one of those groups. People who want to register their protest or recommend changes are at the mercy of the media managers. So, the Jewish Lobby is not the only one exerting influence. Nevertheless, the Lobby’s power is enormous and it has wielded it
in such a devastating way that the whole of Middle East has been burning for quite a long time now Â and in turn it affects the entire world.
There is, of course, a convergence of the US interest to control the oil; and, the Israeli interest to be the sole regional power. If one thinks from that perspective, then without doubt the US would have been in a better shape if it would have avoided the 2003 complete destruction of the almost-destroyed Iraq of 1991 and if it had left Saddam Hussein pitted against Iran. Not only would this have saved the US billions of
dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives but would have preserved its hegemony a little longer.
Anti-Arab, anti-Palestine, anti-Iran, anti-Muslim?
When a corporation exploits its workers it is
called an exploiter. When a member of the
majority discriminates against a member of the
minority then she/he is called a racist. When a
male discriminates against a woman he is called a
sexist. When one person discriminates another on
the basis of religion then that person is called
a communalist. When anyone hates or kills a Jew
(simply because he is a Jew), that person is
called an anti-Semite. When a Muslim kills
someone in the name of Islam, he is called a
What would you call those influential Jews,
individuals and those belonging to the Lobby, in
the US who played an important role in the war to
destroy an Arab country of Iraq without any
reason or are now pushing for a war against Iran?
They are beardless, suited, booted. They are not
overtly religious like Taliban and so we can’t
call them Jewsratics or Jews who are Israel
Fanatics. However, their religion is Israel and
so the appropriate word (for their world
devastating pro Israel stand) should be “Israel
Fanatics” or “Isratics.” These Isratics are on a
revenge path for past injustices.
The victims are now the victimizers. Their
victims are not the white Europeans but the Palestinians and other Arabs.
And the Isratics are equipped with a WMD or word
of mass destruction, and so the moment anyone
points out their control over the US Congress,
government, news media, etc. she/he will be labeled an “anti-Semite.”
Auschwitz, located in Poland, (then under German
control) was the largest of the many
concentration camps where the Jews were
transported and were murdered using all sorts of
inhuman methods. Other communities suffered too.
For the organized Jewry, the “Holocaust” has
become a profitable enterprise, as Norman
Finkelstein’s insightful study, “The Holocaust
Industry,” makes clear. Just one example: The
Swiss banks’ offer of $600 million was rejected
by the Jewish leaders and so in August 1998, they
agreed to pay $1.25 billion. A press release by
Swiss banks explained “the aim of the additional
payment” “is to avert the threat of [US]
sanctions as well as long and costly court
proceedings.” Back in March, Edgar Bronfman,
president of World Jewish Congress had warned the
Swiss banks: “If the Swiss are going to keep
digging their heels in, then I’ll have to ask all
US shareholders to suspend their dealings with
the Swiss [emphasis mine].” Finkelstein reminds
us that the United States is equally guilty of
the three categories (Swiss denial of asylum to
refugees, claimants to inactive Swiss bank
accounts, and victims of slave labor which proved
advantageous to the Swiss) for which the Swiss
had to pay; whereas, the US has not even been
threatened, let alone charged.
“Many” lawyers were charging $600 an hour for
filing claims, and one lawyer wanted $2,400 for
reading Tom Bower’s book “Nazi Gold.”
Many other European governments, including
Germany, have also paid huge sums of money to organized Jewry.
The US itself has never paid any money to the
Native Indians, the blacks, and many others. One
may wonder as to why the US government threatens
other governments or their institutions to pay reparations to the Jews!
(In 1986, the World Court ordered the US to pay
$17 billion to Nicaragua for multiple crimes. The US ignored the verdict.)
Most interesting to note: Finkelstein says, “The
Holocaust’s mystery, Wiesel avows, is
`noncommunicable;’ `we cannot even talk about
it.’ Thus, for his standard fee of $25,000 (plus
chauffeured limousine), Wiesel lectures that the
`secret of Auschwitz’s `truth lies in silence.'”
Daniel McGowan provides a good portrait of this peace laureate.
“He is a multi-millionaire, but carefully
cultivates the image of a perpetually disheveled
professor. Although he has won the Nobel Peace
Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
Guardian of Zion Medal, and the Oprah Book Award,
many people in Israel resent the way he has used
the Holocaust to make his living. Some Israelis
refer to him as a `sho’an.’ The word `sho’a’ is
Hebrew for Holocaust; with the suffix it
indicates a professional specializing in the
subject. So it is both funny and derogatory, not
unlike Norman Finkelstein referring to Wiesel as
the `resident clown’ of the Holocaust circus.”
Wiesel was awarded a Noble Peace Prize in 1986.
In 1983, according to the Norwegian Nobel
Committee’s secretary, his name was recommended
by half of the US Congress.
Noam Chomsky says that in the US, Wiesel is
respected as a “secular saint” and is considered a “critic of fascism.”
However, the saint keeps his mouth shut where Israel’s crimes are involved:
“I support Israel, period. I identify with
Israel, period. I never attack; never criticize
Israel when I am not in Israel.”
This so called harbinger of peace was in the
White House on February 27, 2003 to see the
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
President George Bush was also there. Wiesel
echoed the same old nonsense of comparing Germany
of the late 1930s with 2003’s Iraq. In simple
words he wanted Bush to start a war. He said:
“It’s a moral issue. In the name of morality how
can we not intervene.” “I’m against silence.” So
he wanted Bush to scream out loud with weapons.
Further, there are people like the late Nahum
Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress,
who have criticized those who exploited the Jewish tragedy:
“We will have to understand that Jewish suffering
during the Holocaust no longer will serve as a
protection, and we certainly must refrain from
using the argument of the Holocaust to justify
whatever we may do. To use the Holocaust as an
excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, for instance,
as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of “Hillul
Hashem” [sacrilege], a banalization of the sacred
tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust], which must not
be misused to justify politically doubtful and
morally indefensible policies.”
The letter H in the word “Holocaust” is in
capital letter because many influential Jewish
leaders firmly believe that theirs is the unique
tragedy. In other words, they have a copyright
over the word “Holocaust” and thus the millions
of Native Indians, African slaves, Armenians
(victims of Turks), the Congolese (victims of
Belgium), the Bengalis of East Pakistan, later
Bangladesh, (victims of West Pakistan, now
Pakistan), Roma and Sinti people or gypsies
(victims of Nazi Germany), and others can’t claim
their tragedies as holocaust.
Robert Fisk tells us that the word holocaust has
been in currency since the 18th century. The
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as a
matter fact, used it for the Armenians:
“In 1915 the Turkish Government began and
ruthlessly carried out the infamous general
massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia
Minor.” The “war criminals,” that is the Turks,
massacred “uncounted thousands of helpless
Armenians – men, women and children together;
whole districts blotted out in one administrative
holocaust – these were beyond human redress.”
Money Talks, Politicians Walk
It is the power of the influential Isratics. And
they are everywhere in the US. The third richest
man in the US (and the richest Jew in the world)
and the owner of two of Las Vegas’s huge casino
resorts, the Palazzo and the Venetian, Sheldon
Adelson, opposes the two-state (Israel/Palestine)
solution. In October 2007, during Republican
donors’ visit to the White House, he warned
President George Bush that the policy which
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pursuing
in the Middle East would ruin him.
His both arms around Adelson and his wife’s
shoulders, Bush replied: “You tell your Prime
Minister [Israel’s Ehud Olmert] that I need to
know what’s right for your peopleÂbecause at the
end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not
Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.”
AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
The Jewish Lobby is made up of several Jewish
groups. The Israel Lobby includes some pro Israel
Evangelical Christians and Christian Zionists.
AIPAC is one of the most important of the Jewish groups.
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in 2005 that AIPAC’s
“leaders can be immoderately frank about the
group’s influence.” Years back, while dining with
AIPAC’s Steve Rosen, Goldberg asked if the 1992
incident involving the then AIPAC President David
Steiner had hurt the AIPAC’s influence. “A half
smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a
napkin across the table. `You see this napkin?’
he said. `In twenty-four hours, we could have the
signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.'”
The above conversation is not an isolated incident.
On October 22, 1992, New York businessman Haim
(Harry) Katz [HK] recorded his conversation with
AIPAC President David Steiner [DS] without his
knowledge. Later, when the conversation became
public, Steiner resigned. Excerpts of that conversation:
DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees
which a fabulous thing, $3 billion was in
foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a
billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.
DS: … I said look Jim [Baker, Papa Bush’s
Secretary of State], “You don’t want a fight
before the election. It’s going to hurt Bush….
HK: … But you met with Baker. . .
HK: Personally. Because you know, he’s the one
who cursed, who cursed the Jews.
(When the Jewish influence in the US was
mentioned at a government meeting on Middle East,
Baker supposedly said, “Fuck the Jews. They don’t
vote for us [Republicans] anyway.”)
DS: Of course, do you think I’m ever going to forgive him for that?
DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for
what he did September 12th  a year ago?
What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?
(Bush Sr. had said: I was “up against some
powerful political forces . . . I heard today
there was something like 1,000 lobbyists on the
Hill working on the other side of the question.
We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”)
HK: … I thought [presidential candidate Rose]
Perot did marvelous in the debates.
DS: He doesn’t know how to govern. He’s not going
to make it. And there was an incident where his
daughter was going out with a Jewish professor at
school and he said, “I wouldn’t have my daughter marry a Jew.”
DS: … you ought to think about coming to some
of these things. I’ll have a dinner this fall.
I’ll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in
Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy’s
house last month kosher dinner. I brought
foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the
couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore’s house.
DS: I personally am not allowed, as president of
AIPAC, to get involved in the presidential
campaign, because I have to deal with whoever wins.
HK: … what will he [Bill Clinton] do for Israel, better than Bush…
DS: … Gore is very committed to us.
(Gore once said: “I have a 100 percent voting
record for Israel, even though there wasn’t one
synagogue in my congressional district.” And this
person had lectured Jesse Jackson for meeting Yasser Arafat.)
DS: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years …
One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler,
one of my officer’s daughters works there. We
gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences
to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen
people in that campaign, in the headquarters.
DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10
billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have
the first year. We have authorization from
Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the
president every year thereafter, so if Bush is
there, he could say, you know, use it as a club,
you know. `If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t
give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’
DS: … A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood
up for them [Clintons] at their wedding. Hillary
lived with her…. We have never had that with Bush…
DS: … He’s got something in his heart for the
Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.
DS: Reagan had something . . . He knew Jews from
the film industry; he was one of the best guys
for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews.
Bush doesn’t have it…. Bush is, there’s a man
with no principles. Absolutely no principles.
HK: … I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president.
DS: I don’t think the country’s ready.
HK: … I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh,
would have, if he wasn’t Jewish….
(Lieberman was Albert Gore’s running mate in the
2000 presidential elections.)
DS: I’d like to see him on the Supreme Court.
HK: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who
he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?
DS: We’re talking now…. We’re more interested
right now, in the secretary of state and the
secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.
HK: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?
DS: I’ve got a list…. I’m not allowed to talk about it.
John Mersheimer and Steven Walt point out the use
of pro-Israel congressional staffers as one more
source for the Lobby. They quote former AIPAC chief Morris Amitay:
“There are a lot of guys at the working level up
here” â€“ on Capitol Hill â€“ “who happen to be
Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain
issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These
are all guys who are in a position to make the
decision in these areas for those senators . . .
You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.”
A former AIPAC staff member Douglas Bloomfield
sheds light on how the congresspersons conduct their research:
“It is common for members of Congress and their
staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need
information, before calling the Library of
Congress, the Congressional Research Service,
committee staff or administration experts.”
“[AIPAC is] often called on to draft speeches,
work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform
research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes.”
A senior congressional staffer, writing under the
pen name George Sunderland, here on the
CounterPunch site, explains how the politicians
attending the annual AIPAC meetings act:
“Command performances before AIPAC have become
standard features in the life of a Washington
elected official, like filing FEC reports and
hitting on interns. The stylized panegyrics
delivered at the annual AIPAC meeting have all
the probative value of the Dniepropetrovsk
Soviet’s birthday greeting to [the Soviet leader,
Joseph] Stalin, because the actual content is
unimportant; what is crucial is that the
politician in question be seen to be genuflecting
before the AIPAC board. In fact, to make things
easier, the speeches are sometimes written by an
AIPAC employee, with cosmetic changes inserted by
a member of the Senator’s or Congressman’s own staff.”
Talking to the New York Sun in January 2003,
Howard Kohr said, “Quietly lobbying Congress to
approve the use of force in Iraq was one of
AIPAC’s successes over the past year.”
Occasionally AIPAC is not successful. In 1981, it
vehemently opposed the US sale of AWACS (Airborne
Warning and Control System) to Saudi Arabia but
failed to block the sale. Former President Gerald
Ford was infuriated at the AIPAC antics and
called a Republican senator and fumed: “Are we
going to let the fucking Jews run American foreign policy?”
Reagan announced the AWACS sale on national
television with these words: “It is not the
business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”
But Edward Tivnan sees this sale as not much of a victory:
“… AIPAC had taken on the President of the
United States, and almost, as Ronald Reagan
himself had claimed, embarrassed him in front of
the whole world. (What kind of President couldn’t
sale five airplanes to a small Arab country,
particularly one sitting on billions of dollars
of oil crucial to American prosperity?) … ”
In March 2003, Collin Powell had said: “It is not
driven by any small cabal that is buried away
somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me
or Vice President Cheney or [National Security
Adviser Condoleezza] Rice or other members of the
administration what our policies should be.”
But the reality is exactly opposite.
Foxman, National Director of Anti-Defamation
League, is a very important figure; his power can
be gauged by the meeting he had with Colin
Powell, the US Secretary of State, i.e., foreign minister,
“`In his [Powell’s] own State Department there
was a keen awareness of the strength of the
Jewish lobbyists. Secretaries of State did not
usually meet with lobbyists, but both Jewish
officials and Jews that did not officially
represent specific groups from Abe Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League to Ronald Lauder, could
meet with Powell on short notice…. At the State
Department, Foxman had an aura of omnipotence. He
was held responsible for the appointment of
[Martin S.] Indyk as Undersecretary of State
under Clinton, and was thought to have played a
role in the appointments of Secretaries of State
[Warren] Christopher and [Madeline] Albright.
Powell related to Foxman almost as if he were
someone to whom he must capitulate. Once Foxman
told one of his deputies that Powell was the weak
link. When the Secretary of State heard this he
began to worry. He knew that in Washington a
confrontation with the Jewish lobby would make
his life difficult. Once he arranged a meeting
with Foxman, but the busy Foxman postponed the
meeting three times. When they eventually met,
the head of the Anti-Defamation League apologized
to the Secretary of State [for the
postponements]. “You call, we come,” replied
Powell, paraphrasing a well known advertisement
for a freight company. That statement had much
more meaning than just a humorous polite reply.'”
(from Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelah, Boomerang…).
Nevertheless, one has to accept the fact that
even though Powell had been a part of governments
during the 1991 Iraq War and the 2003 Iraq War,
he was not in favor of war. One can argue that in
that case he should have quit his position and
thus boosting the morale of the anti-war movement.
Once on a visit to Jerusalem, he stood his
ground, when he refused to comply with Sharon’s order.
Sharon: I don’t want you to go to Damascus
[Syria]. I don’t think it serves the interests of
peace, and we don’t like it here in Israel when you go to Damascus.
Powell: Ariel, thank you very much but I am going
anyway. I am Secretary of State of the United
States of America and not the foreign minister of Israel.
Powell was fed up with the neo-cons pushing for
war and called them the “fucking crazies.”
It is obvious that it is the Israel Lobby’s power
that enabled Sharon to order Powell; otherwise,
in reality, he was just a premier of a tiny
country Â although in military means, the fourth
most powerful country in the world.
To be continued Monday
Quote of the Week:
“We can expect as little from society as from the state. Salvation lies with the individual.”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Ernst Junger
Biden for Vice-DictatorÂ by Glenn Greenwald
When the Cure is Worse Than the DiseaseÂ by Bill Sardi
World War LoomsÂ by Simon Jenkins
You Can’t Trust the FDICÂ by Doug French
The Underground History of American EducationÂ by John Taylor Gatto
Russell Kirk, the Canon and the Conservative MovementÂ by Gerald Russello
Did Somebody Say Elitism?Â by Taki Theodoracopulos
Mika Etchebehere, POUM Militia CaptainÂ by Larry Gambone
The Long Silence: American Jews and the PalestiniansÂ by Howard Lisnoff
New Issue of “Republic” Magazine Is Out! (Thanks to Flavio Goncalves)
Traitors Beware: A History of Robert DePugh’s MinutemenÂ by Eric Beckemeier (Thanks to Ean Frick)
Black Fez ManifestoÂ by Hakim Bey
Toward SecessionÂ by Richard Kostelanetz
Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Foreign PolicyÂ by Justin Raimondo
The Hideous Horror of the Biden SelectionÂ by Arthur Silber
Pushing Russia Into the ColdÂ by Pat Buchanan
War with Russia is on the AgendaÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
On Obama’s Move to the CenterÂ by Joe Bageant
Strip-Search NationÂ by Dave Lindorff
The Politics of AvoidanceÂ by Ralph Nader
Saakashvili: The gun went off by itself while I was just holding itÂ by Steve Sailer
Failed States and Other Good NewsÂ by William Norman Grigg
Bush’ Armada of AggressionÂ by Gary North
The Militarized States of AmericaÂ by Fred Reed
Both Parties Want DictatorshipÂ by Lew Rockwell
Obama’s CheneyÂ by Justin Raimondo
Obama’s Fascist Security CorpsÂ by Dario McDarby
What If Obama Loses?Â by Pat Buchanan
The Obama Transformation: From Antiwar Leftist to Liberal HawkÂ by Richard Spencer
How to Make Health Care Anarchistically BetterÂ by Francois Tremblay
McCain’s Useful FoolsÂ by Libby Spencer
Poison As Food, Poison As AntidoteÂ by Roderick T. Long
How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the EconomyÂ by Mike Whitney
GoodbyeÂ by Charley Reese (he’s retiring)
When Desertion is a DutyÂ by William Norman Grigg
Massive Police Raids on Protestors in MinneapolisÂ by Glenn Greenwald
A Better Question Might Be, “How Isn’t It Fascism?”Â by Tom Harrington
America’s Unwelcome AdvancesÂ by Chalmers Johnson
Stunning Statistics on Prison LaborÂ by Francois Tremblay
Paleos for Palin? Not This OneÂ by Dylan Waco
The Ethics of the Homestead StrikeÂ by Shawn Wilbur
This is the Face of FascismÂ by Mona
Obama’s Speech, McCain’s PalinomyÂ by Alexander Cockburn
centralisation of the power of the state and therefore in their view an impediment to progress. The words liberty, equality, fraternity meant very little more than the paper they were written on. In their name the guilds that dominated the Middle Ages were abolished giving way to the capitalist wage system. We have accepted the idea that employment is a decent goal for the unemployed, without confronting the fact that employment is the lowest form of economic activity: that is, a man reduced to mechanical functions,
deprived of the capacity to fully enjoy the fruits of his work. This fact is today ignored, neither understood nor realised by the modern analysts within the new economic ethos. And yet this man, who is a slave by most standards of the past, is considered free because it says so in the constitution” (Vadillo, op. cit., pp. 142-143).
Los Angeles Times
Â Letters to the Editor
Re: The extreme-right way to make a buck,” by Tim Rutten, LA Times, Aug. 16, 2008
Â Dear Sirs,
The title of Mr. Rutten’s piece suggests that the surest way for a conservative scholar to become rich is by embracing an extreme right philosophy. This proposition does not sound convincing given that Rutten’s target, Dr Jerome Corsi, in his book The Obama Nation, discusses a topic which defies the canons of political correctness and which, in addition, could easily fall under the legal category of hate speech. In Europe, Dr Corsi would likely be subjected to thought police scrutiny, his tenure revoked, and his circle of friends would shrink to ground zero.
Also, Corsi was to be interviewed by a relatively small radio station, the “Political Cesspool” from Memphis, whose source of income is very frugal. Having been myself a Political Cesspool guest, I was amazed at the quasi monastic modesty and genuine courtesy of its staff. Its main host, Mr. James Edwards and his guests, debate issues ranging from ante-bellum Southern literature to international politics, including the rising tide of political censorship in Americ. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which Mr Rutten cites as his source, would have us believe that the Political Cesspool is run by baseball club wielding skinheads, sporting swastikas and harassing minorities. This is not true. Labeling a person “white supremacist,” if he or she opposes the multicultural experiment, is the ugliest form of hate speech in which apparently the SPLC excels. Feigned multicultural conviviality, as recent history shows, always yields opposite results regardless of someone’s racialist or ecumenical beliefs. What happened in the Balkans yesterday is happening today in the Caucuses and will likely be tomorrow’s scenario in LA. Both Mr. Rutten and myself had some foreboding of race riots in April 1992. Note being able to reside on my professorial salary in a gated community in south LA, I decided to search for safer pastures, i.e. my “in-group” of my native and racially homogenous Croatia.
Â Pursuant to the prevailing codes of intellectual duplicity Mr. Corsi and scores of other thought criminals in the USA and Europe, who lost their jobs or who are often maligned as racists, would have been better off had they not rocked the boat of political rectitude, and had they wisely avoided guilt by association. Instead, there are brave enough to tackle the topics that secretly preoccupy the minds of millions of white Europeans and Americans; uncontrolled non-European immigration and US military over-extension around the globe. Alas in the land of the brave and its appendage the European Union, modern Soviet-style ukases of political correctness prevent hundreds of “right wing” intellectuals from being heard.
Which purported right wing scholar, which white supremacist — as modern masters of discourse, dub their traditional conservative opponents — would not be happy to have access to the mainstream media or even catch a glimpse of his photo next to some op-ed in a big mainstream journal? This opportunity is rarely granted to them. They can only go on air at some small radio shows like Political Cesspool, a rare conservative outpost still resisting the onslaught of left-leaning intellectual mendacity.
On a personal level let me add the following. Having spent a good portion of my life both in communist multicultural Yugoslavia and in the capitalist West, including America, I pride myself on knowing rather well how these two systems work. The advantage of communism was that its party hacks and scribes lied so brazenly, they themselves had a hard time believing in their Communist Kingdom Come stories. By contrast the liberal discourse, coached in the fine semantics of human rights and masquerading as free speech, is more difficult to decipher. Its meta-language relies on generic expressions that are successfully deployed against would-be dissidents. Dreaded, shut-up words, such as “Nazi”, “anti-Semite”, and “white supremacist” float over dissenting opinion like an intellectual death sentence. Among academics in America and in Europe the intellectual ostracism of opponents is total. A professor without tenure must comply with an inventory of bizarre legal and verbal constructs of Bolshevik provenance, such as “ethnic sensitivity training,” “affirmative action,” “diversity,” etc, just to keep his job.
The author of the article might have avoided hasty conclusions about the right wing scene. May it come true, though, one day when he writes that “American publishing houses decided that there’s money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints…” Alas, with the current leftist-liberal cultural hegemony this is far likely for now.
Â Dr. Tom Sunic
Â Tel. 00385-1- 6261-55
Â cell: 00385-91-793-9454
(Tom Sunic is a former US professor in political science, author and translator). His latest book is Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007. He currently resides in Croatia.
Quote of the Week:
“In 2042, the Republican Party platform will include a plan for comprehensive reform of the US’s national health care program. Republican Congressmen will engage in furious debate in an attempt to limit the penalties for discrimination against homosexuals to fines rather than imprisonment.
Anybody who really merits the moniker “conservative” had better prepare to be a revolutionary at this point.”
Afghanistan: Where Empire Goes to Die by Michael Scheuer
Jackbooted Airport Thugs by Emily Feder
Neocon Crybabies by Steven LaTulippe
The U.S. Government is Corrupt from Top to Bottom by Charley Reese
Russophobia: A Political Pathology by Justin Raimondo
War in Georgia Shows US Foreign Policy is a Bust by Sheldon Richman
Who Started Cold War Two? by Pat Buchanan
For Most People, College is a Waste of Time by Charles Murray
Back in the U.S.S.R. by Daniel Koffler
Antiwar Conservatism by Dylan Waco
Georgia Versus Mother Russia…Another Neocon Scam? by Werner Scott
What is the White House Smoking? by Eric Margolis
Ambivalence of War by Charley Reese
George, Stay Out of Georgia by Bill Lind
Are You Ready for Nuclear War? by Paul Craig Roberts
Constitutions and Organic Bases by Shawn Wilbur
Blood in August: On Avoiding World War Three by John Zmirak
What Will a White Minority Mean for America? by Steve Sailor
Russia Threatens Nukes from AnarchoNation
“Sweet Neo Con” by The Rolling Stones
America’s Outrageous War Economy by Paul B. Farrell
Western Political Correctness Obscures Communist Atrocities by John Markley
I Resign from the Imperialist-loving Mount Pelerin Society by Paul Craig Roberts
Back in the USSA by William Norman Grigg
Gore Vidal: The Last Republican by Bill Kauffman
What Libertarianism is Not by Johnny Kramer
The Narrative Versus the News by Justin Raimondo
Rice Goes Deeper Into the Absurd by Glenn Greenwald
War: Why Your Gas is so Expensive Scott Horton Interviews Greg Palast
US Role in Georgia Cannot Be Ignored by Stephen Zunes
Musharraf Out, Like Nixon; Bush Still In, Like Flynn by Ray McGovern
Why Is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? by David Klein
Norman Finkelstein: A Pariah in ExileÂ by Stewart Ain
The Pyramid of the Capitalist System by Francois Tremblay
America’s New Economic Plan…Nationalize Banks? Werner Scott
Extending NATO to Russia’s Borders is Insane by Thomas Sowell
Thoughtful Anarchy by John Steele
International Criminal Court Should Leave Georgia Alone by Helen Rittelmeyer
China’s Religious Problem-And Ours by Grant Havers
Scalia on the Loose by Daniel Koffler
The Paradoxical Nature of the Geopolitics of Secession by Thomas N. Taylor
The Military Commissions, So Far by Joanne Mariner
The Middle Kingdom’s Middle Way by Jean-Louis Rocca
All Experts Agree-Legalize Drugs by Julian Critchley
The Shape of Cuba’s Reforms by Saul Landau and Nelson P. Valdes
The Futility of Hope by James Leroy Wilson
Soldier Worship by Laurence Vance
The State’s Legitimacy Crisis by Bill Lind
Bizarro Imperialism by Justin Raimondo
Afghanistan Invasion Going From Bad to Worse by Werner Scott
More Mischief from the Gangsters in Blue by Rad Geek
Why Not Let the Republicans Deals with this Mess? by Dave Lindorff
Quote of the week:
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Friedrich Nietzsche
There Is No Statute of Limitations on MurderÂ Vincent Bugliosi Speaks to the House Judiciary Committee
Plug the Plug on the War StateÂ by Charley Reese
Daniel Ellsberg’s Lesson for Our TimeÂ by James Bovard
Christopher Hitchens vs Waterboarding: Waters WinsÂ Â by Francois Tremblay
McCain More Hawkish Than Bush?Â from Thus Spoke Bellinsky
Exit Strategies Â by Pat Buchanan
Batman: Anarcho-Fascist or Unassimilated Jew?Â by Richard Spencer
Republican HypocritesÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Birth of an ObsessionÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Military-Industrial ComplexÂ by Chalmers Johnson
The Death of Rachel HoffmanÂ by Paul Armentano
Call for a Chicago Student StrikeÂ How About a Nationwide Student Strike??!!
Obama Plans to Make Afghanistan into VietnamÂ by Pat Buchanan
Twenty Years for Pot PossessionÂ by Paul Armentano
A Peoples’ Court for America?Â by Jacob Hornberger
Foundations for the New EconomyÂ by Kevin Carson
Feudalism vs Anarchism?Â by John Zmirak
The Public-Private Imperial Police StateÂ Interview with Chalmers Johnson
Is the Surge Working?Â byÂ Justin Raimondo
Choosing a King in NovemberÂ Â Glenn Greenwald Interviews Daniel Ellsberg
The Father of LiesÂ by Philip Giraldi
In Praise of InequalityÂ by Richard Spencer
Against Trademarks Â by Stephan Kinsella
The Unfortunate Case of Herbert SpencerÂ by Damon W. Root
Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Â by Enrico Peppe
He Ventured Forth to Bring Light into the WorldÂ by Gerard Baker
Hegemony Everywhere But At HomeÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
The Believer: Obama Gets the Left Closer to GodÂ by Daniel Flynn
Egoism vs Natural Rights TheoryÂ by Wendy McElroy
Whitey Need Not ApplyÂ by Pat Buchanan
Authentic Black ConservatismÂ by Dylan Waco
Federal SlaveryÂ by William Norman Grigg
“Common Knowledge” About World War TwoÂ by Richard Spencer
Was Wilhelm Just Another W? Â Â by Paul Gottfried
A Free Market Agenda for Healthcare ReformÂ by Kevin Carson
Jewish NeoconservativesÂ by Daniel Koffler
Demagoguery WorksÂ by Charley Reese
Of all the contemporary scholars and theorists of the state of which I am aware, the one whose work I find by far the most compelling is the Dutch-Israeli military historianÂ Martin Van Creveld. It is his position that the conventional nation-state system that emerged from the time of the Treaty of Westphalia is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, for a variety of reasons. Van Creveld outlined his theories in a lecture to the Mises Institute some years ago. The text of it can be viewed here:
A recent work that has gotten some attention in the mainstream press is Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, aÂ book that describes how Americans are in the process of mutually self-segregating along cultural, political, economic, ethnic, racial and religious lines, not only on the basis of the well-known “red state/blue state” divide but also on a more localized, neighborhood basis.
Now comes a new poll from the highly respected Zogby International polling group, commissioned by the Middlebury Institute, that indicates support for secession is much higher than many, including myself, would have suspected. What do the numbers show?
More than 20 per cent of American adults – one in every five – agrees that â€œany state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.â€ Another similar percentage (18.2 per cent) even says that they â€œwould support a secessionist effort in my state.â€
This is rather extraordinary. I would have predicted something like three percent agreeing on the “right to secede” with maybe one percent supporting such an effort.
The support for secession held true for every region in the country, though the percentage was slightly higher in the South (25.8) and the East (23.6). The figures were also consistent for every age group, but backing was strongest among younger adults, as high as 39.9 per cent in the 18-24 year category and 23.6 for 25-34 year olds.
Not much surprise here. Of course, support for secession is going to be highest in the South. The higher support among young people is consistent with Van Creveld’s view that the state is breaking down in partÂ because of its inability to hold on to the allegiance of younger people. The super-patriotic WW2 generation is starting to die out, and the older generation is now the Vietnam generation.
Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (42.6) and African-Americans (39.5), with â€œother and mixedâ€ accounting for 21.1 per cent and whites 17.1 per cent. On the question of giving support to secessionist efforts, slightly more blacks (32.7 per cent) than Hispanics (31.6) agreed, with 20.2 per cent â€œotherâ€ and 14.5 per cent white.
This is interesting. Apparently, many racial minorities do not regard secessionism as “racist”, despite the claims of professional “anti-racists” to the contrary. The higher support among Hispanics is possibly due to the influence of the reconquista movement, and it is also possible that the influence of groups like the Nation of Islam have much to do with the higher support among blacks. Indeed, the higher support in the South may ironically be due in part to the large black population in the South. Also, I have long believed that a genuine revolutionary movement would have to be rooted in the lumpenproletarian and underclass populations, and the racial minorities are disproportionately represented in these socio-economic groupings.
The currently faltering economy may have played a part in the endorsement of statesâ€™ right to secede, with 18.7 per cent of those considering themselves in the â€œinvestor classâ€ agreeing, along with 21.2 per cent of non-investors.
This is a bit confusing. How is an “investor” defined? An “investor” can be anyone who owns a single share of stock anywhere. A method of defining class positions more precisely might have indicated a wider gap between classes on this issue than what these numbers would indicate, although it is certainly possible support for secession can come from the affluent as well as the poor. The Lombard League of Northern Italy has considerable middle to upper-middle class support.
To gauge the extent to which support for secession comes from a sense that the country as it is now made up is not working, a separate question was asked about agreement that â€œthe United Statesâ€™ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.â€ As many as 44.3 per cent agreed strongly or somewhat, as against 29.9 per cent who strongly disagreed.
These are about the numbers I would have expected.
-32 percent of mainline liberals were sympathetic to secession as an idea.
-28 percent of “ultra-liberal” were supportive.
-17 percent of mainline conservatives were supportive.
This should dispel the myth of secession as a “right-wing extremist” movement. What this seems to indicate is that “conservatives” are hindered by jingoism and can’t bear to countenance an end to the empire, and the hard-core Left does not want to cede territory to the Right. Hence, the lower numbers of supporters among these than among “liberals”, a generic term that probably includes a wide assortment of people who are genuine liberals, moderates, non-jingoist paleoconservative types, libertarians, progressives, anti-authoritarian leftists, ecological radicals, counterculturalists, ACLU-types, populistsÂ or simply those who would classify themselves as “not a Republican”.
-38 percent of those with less than a high school diploma would support secession, while less than 10 percent of college graduates were pro-secession.
This probably represents a class division as much as anything else. The more educated tend to be more affluent, with a greater stake in preserving the system, and less inclined to sympathize with radicalism or upheaval.
-18 percent would support a secessionist effort in their state.
That’s roughly one in six. We need to double or preferably triple this percentage so as to give ourselves either a majority or a large, well-organized, vocalÂ minority. So how do we do this?
As I see it, supporters of secesssionist movements could probably be broken down into three basic categories:
1. Leaders and Activists. Many of these are likely to be people who are culturally and politically alienated from the mainstream to a much greater degree that the “average” person expressing political discontent. For instance, thus far the leadership of various secession groups has been drawn from the ranks of environmental radicals, anarchists, hard-core libertarians, neo-confederates or “southern nationalists”, members of the religious right who are to the right of the Republican Party, anti-establishment conservatives and others whose ideology is not exactly representative of prevailing opinion in American society at large. This is to be expected, as a greater degree of political alienation is naturally going to spawn greater support for something like secession.
2. Constituents. These would be those who support secessionist ideas and sympathize with secession movements in their own communities or regions, but are probably not as ideologically radical as many hard-core activists are. For instance, these people simply think the Empire has gotten too far out of hand with its war-mongering or civil liberties abuses, or its economic policies, or they might simply think it would be better if their town, county, city, state or region had more or complete autonomy over their own affairs.
3. Critical Mass. A “critical mass”, as I’m using the term here, would be those persons who either support secession, either actively or passively, or who do not actively oppose secession, out of a sense of immediate personal self-interest or some single issue they feel will be advanced under a secessionist regime. These people are not likely to be ideological radicals in any serious way, and may well be indifferent to higher political considerations like foreign policy, the overall state of the economy, and major social questions but feel, for example, that they will simply profit personally from the likelihood of lower taxes in the event of secession, or the greater availability of health care (whether public or private), or that some issue of importance to them personally, like the right to bear arms or abortion rights or the repeal of municipal zoning ordinances or legalized marijuana, will be advanced if secession takes place.
If one in six Americans would support a secession movement in their state, then it is important to have a secession movement in every state and also to identify those states where secesssion is likely to be the most popular (probably in the South and the East according to the Zogby poll). It is also important to begin cultivating leaders, activists, and constituents for such movements with the eventual goal of achieving a critical mass. Individual secession movements should orient their political programs towards the political and cultural environment they find themselves in. Most of the currently existing secession movements are doing this. The League of the South reflects the conservative values typical to many Southerners while the Second Vermont Republic represents the unusual liberal-libertarian hybrid that state is known for.
The need to reach a wider constituency can present certain conflicts. One of these involves the radical versus moderate dichotomy. Should secessionists “tone it down” in order to make secession more palatable to those with stronger residual attachments to the empire? Or should secessionists “turn up the volume” and adopt a more confrontational approach? I think a happy medium is in order. There is a such thing as trying to appeal to fence-straddlers to such a degree that the hard-core that acts as the real engine of any movement loses its morale in the face of perceived constant sell-outs. However, the inflammatory approach is not necessary advisable, either. Not only will this drive away potential converts, but it will be increasingly dangerous in the ever-degenerating political environment we find ourselves in. A certain amount of prudence is in order.
Another matter concerns the issue of ideological conflicts within particular secession movements, or between the leaders and activistsÂ of these movements and their prospective constituents. Here, a certain amount of prudence and pragmatism is necessary as well. Serious ideological conflicts can only be resolved with still more secession. Bishop’s The Big Sort indicates that Americans are naturally separating themselves not only on a regional but on a highly localized basis. Therefore, some degree of hard-core decentralization is in order. A realistic pan-secessionist movement will likely feature “red state” secessionist tendencies with “conservative” leadership and values, with serious territorial concessions made to others, while “blue state” secession movements will display “liberal” values, and make similar concessions out of necessity. Alan recently raised this issue in the Comments section:
“Most and perhaps all secessionist movements need to reduce their territorial claims and this certainly includes the LOS. They need to claim only a small contiguous area that avoids the big cities and probably the communities of color. SVR will probably have to reduce their territory as well, and Cascadia certainly must abandon itâ€™s claims on Idaho and Montana. There just arenâ€™t enough secessionists to build majorities in whole states and regions like that. Ideology is OT but territoy is certainly not and both LOS and Cascadian territorial claims are hugely excessive. Secessionists without excessive territorial claims include Christian Exodus, Free Town Project, and Liberty Districts.”
There is nothing inherently wrong withÂ a secession movement making seemingly extravagant territorial claims. After all, that’s the way it’s frequently done in business negotiations or in lawsuits. One party asks for an outlandish price or settlement and then negotiates their way down. Yet, as a practical matter, secession will only work if large numbers of people do not view it as forcing them under a political roof they find even more objectionable than the present system.
It is also important to distinguish the single-issue of secession from wider ideological agendas. An excellent role model on how to deal with this matter is conservative Christian and Texas Independence activist Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore would be considered a “right-wing Christian theocrat” by the standards of all “mainstream” ideologies, yet he ran for the Senate in the Republican primary this year and received around 225,000 votes. He did so not as an ideological Christian theocrat but as a single-issue advocate of Texas independence, campaigning on a platform of using his position as Senator solely for the purpose of advocating and negotiating Texas independence if he were to be elected.
The issue of the relationship between “extremist” movements and secessionism is likely to be a sticky one. Some secession movements may be guided by ideological outlooks that are relatively middle of the road while others may seem bizarre or threatening to many people. The standard answer to objections raised by the participation of “extremists” should be that the worse their ideas or beliefs are, the better that they be separated from others. Also, persons with unusual beliefs are likely to be much more motivated to do the groundwork for a secession movement that someone who shares many beliefs with supporters of the System. As a hypothetical illustration, a secession movement in Oklahoma or Kentucky might have cults of polygamists, UFO believers, racists, or users of hallucinogenic drugs among its most hard core adherents. It may well be from the ranks of these people that the movement’s most dedicated activists and even some leaders are drawn. Yet it is unlikely that such groups would ever be numerically large enough to conquer significant pieces of territory. Instead, the scenario might be that a state secedes, and the “extremists” who comprise its hard-line activists congregate into a single town and set up a sovereign city-state while everyone else goes about their business as usual.
There is also the need to actually address issues that are of interest or concern to large numbers of people. Economic questions are foremost among these. What will be done about Social Security? Welfare recipients? Veterans? State-dependent business entities? Banking? Some like, Sean Gabb and Kevin Carson, have offered some viable and practical solutions to these matters. Race is another issue. Support for secession is apparently surprisingly high (relatively speaking) among the minorities. Perhaps an offer of reparations and sovereignty along the lines proposed by the Americans for Self-Determination Plan would push those numbers higher.
Of course, there is the wider consideration of how to proceed once the critical mass is finally achieved. In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe offers some suggestions. Hoppe argues that “an important lesson must be learned by comparing the failed second American experiment with secession with the first one.”
The first American secession was facilitated significantly by the fact that at the center of power in Britain, public opinion concerning the secessionists was hardly unified. In fact, many prominent British figures such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, for instance, openly sympathized with the secessionists. Apart from purely ideological reasons, which rarely affect more than a handful of philosophical minds, this lack of a unified opposition to the the American secessionists in British public opinion can be attributed to two complementary factors. On the one hand, a multitude of regional and cultural-religious affiliations as well as of personal and family ties between Britain and the American colonies existed. On the other hand, the American events were considered far from home and the potential loss of the colonies as economically insignificant. To be sure, at the center of political power, which had shifted to the northern states of the U.S. by then, opposition to the secessionist Southern Confederacy was not unified, and the Confederate cause also had supporters in the North. However, fewer cultural bonds and kinship existed between the American North and South than had existed between Britain and the American colonists, and the secession of the Southern Confederacy involved about half the territory and a third of the entire population of the U.S. and thus struck Northerners as close to home and as a significant economic loss. Therefore, it was comparatively easier for the northern power elite to mold a unified front of “progressive” Yankee culture versus a culturally backwardÂ and “reactionary” Dixieland.
I’m not quite certain how the first part of Hoppe’s argument applies to the present political situation in the United States. To be sure, secession by regions of any size would be a significant and, from the perspective of the “power elite”, unacceptable economic loss. That much is understood. However, it is far less clear that cultural homogeneity of the type shared by American colonists and Englishmen in the eighteenth century is currently present. If anything, the “cultural divide” is wider today than it was at the onset of the Civil War in 1861. The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the U.S. Constitution minus certain points of economic contention. Then as now, the South was a hotbed for religious fundamentalism, but there was a thriving evangelicalism in the North that would be considered “fundamentalist” by today’s standards. Slavery was certainly a major point of contention, yet most whites of the time, North or South, were certainly “racist” by modern standards and not a few opponents of slavery actually favored repatriation of the slaves to Africa. It is likely there are fewer “cultural bonds and kinship” among Americans today than there were in 1861. The Civil War was toÂ a large degree a war between left-wing evangelical Christians and right-wing evangelical Christians and anti-slavery racists and pro-slavery racists. Other than that and some regional economic differences pitting southern agriculture against northern industry, the Union and the Confederacy were virtally identical in terms of race, religion, preferred political and economic systems and, for the most part, culture.
Where Hoppe’s analysis is more solid relates to his pointÂ about the efforts of the northern elite to depict the “war between the states” as a battle of enlightened progressives and backward reactionaries. This is precisely how groups like the SPLC attempt to depict anti-government movements today. It doesn’t appear to work very well if the statistics gathered by Zogby are accurate, as sympathy for secession appears to be higher among the “left-wing” constituents like racial minorities, young people, the poor, the less educated and “liberals”, though there’s no doubt plenty of secessionist sentiment among the “far right” (those so far right as to be outside the Republican Party)Â as well. Hoppe offers his own ideas on how secession might be achieved:
” In light of these considerations, the, it appears strategically advisable not to attempt again what in 1861 failed so painfully: for contiguous states or even the entire South trying to break away from the tyranny of Washington, D.C. Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the twelfth until well into the seventeenth century (with the emergence of a modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominately feudal social structure. By choosing this model and striving to create a U.S. punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities-a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent-two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedinly difficult for the central state to create a unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists which would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.”
I would agree thatÂ a strategy of secession by scattered units rather than by a contiguous geographical region is more viable for a number of reasons. First, such an arrangement is more conducive to the prevention of the emergence of yet another tyrannical central state following secession from the present tyrannical central state. Second, such an approach is likely more compatible with the need to accommodate the kinds of cultural and ideological diversity that would be found in a modern pan-secessionist effort. Third, as Hoppe recognizes, secessionist potential varies widely from location to location. Fourth, the current process of self-separation Americans are undergoing is just as much a matter of conflict between cities and counties, races and ethnic groups, social classes and religious, cultural or “moral” outlooks as it is a conflict between regions.
However, I am not convinced that the present ruling class would be any less offended by secession on the part of scattered clusters of city-states than it would by secession by a unified block of states in the South, West, East or on the West Coast. Yes, the latter may end up suffering the same fate as the Confederacy, but the former may well suffer the same fate as the people at Waco in 1993. This is an empire that claims the right to interfere in the internal politics of remote African nations. The overlords of this system will certainly not let, say, Chicago or Dallas or even Kennesaw County simply say, “So long, feds, we ain’t payin’ you no more taxes.”
Secession will likely need to be doneÂ by clusters of insurgent city-states of the type Hoppe suggests, and these may well reflect an amazing variety of beliefs and cultural systems, but they will need to be at least somewhat supportive of one another in the political and military realm (though not necessarily in the wider cultural or ideological realm) if they are to avoid the fate of the Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese.
Quote of the Week:
“Soledad Oâ€™Brien, at the beginning of CNNâ€™s â€œBlack in America:Â Reclaiming the Dream,â€ cited as evidence of the at least partial fulfillment of Dr. Kingâ€™s dream that â€œSome are CEOs.Â Some are Secretaries of State.â€
Well, I have a dream of my own:Â To strangle the last CEO with the entrails of the last Secretary of State.
Seriously, thereâ€™s something really nauseating about a model of â€œProgressiveâ€ politics thatâ€™s perfectly willing to leave the present structures of political and economic power intact, so long as the board rooms and cabinets contain a representative selection of races and genders (â€look like America,â€ as Slick Willie put it).
As a white man, I can tell you, I derive very little satisfaction from the knowledge that Iâ€™m being screwed over by people who look like me.Â Instead of worrying about the racial and gender makeup of the board rooms and cabinets, Iâ€™d like to tear them down.”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Kevin Carson
When You SeeÂ a Turtle Sitting on a FencepostÂ by Kevin Carson
James Dobson: Neocon StoogeÂ by Dylan Waco
The Mother of All MessesÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
A Brazen EvilÂ by Justin Raimondo
How Good Was the Good War?Â by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Obama: The Democratic War PresidentÂ by Eric Margolis
The State is Above the LawÂ by Glenn Greenwald
A Tattoo for Every Politician’s ForeheadÂ by Charley Reese
Children in GuantanamoÂ from AnarchoNation
The Un-Tied States of AmericaÂ by Chellis Glendenning
Who Really Rules?Â by Paul Gottfried
The Rebellion in OklahomaÂ by Walter Williams
The Religious Right is AWOL From the Real WarÂ Â by Chuck Baldwin
Thoughts on the Canadian Genocide and the “Apology”Â byÂ Larry Gambone
Videos from 15th London New Right Conference:
WarÂ by Soren Renner
CosmotheismÂ by Larry Nunn
ImperiumÂ by Norman Lowell
On CarlyleÂ by Jonathon Bowden
The State vs. GuerrillasÂ by Bill Lind
Obama on the BrinkÂ by Robert Scheer
Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Honorable Exit From EmpireÂ by Pat Buchanan
Labor Struggle in a Free MarketÂ by Kevin Carson
Obama Will Probably Win Â by Christopher Roach
Grand New Party, Same Old IllusionsÂ by Austin Bramwell
Having an Agenda: The Black Libertarian’s Greatest Fear?Â by Wilton Alston
Quagmire ExchangeÂ by Charley Reese
Abetting Police Aggression: The COPS EffectÂ by William Norman Grigg
Hitchens on the Sectarian LeftÂ by Alexander Linklater
Pim Fortuyn and the Next European LiberalismÂ from BraveNewWorldWatch
If we were Soviet or East European citizens in the 1950s, 60s or 70s, and we were attempting to build a revolutionary underground, classical criticisms of the state would certainly be helpful. For instance, the Augustinian view of the state as a “robber band writ large”. However, we would be selling ourselves short by simply criticizing “the state” as an entity unto itself without focusing the nature of the particular kind of state we wished to resist. For this, we would need to look further than simple critiques of statism qua statism and delve deeper into criticisms of Marxist states as particular manifestations of the state. Further, we would need to critique the ideological underpinnings of Marxist states: the ideologies of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism, etc.
So it is with those of us who would resist the present day regimes of the West. Most manifestations of the state except one are considered illegitimate in modern societies. Very few people take seriously the supposed philosophical justifications for monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, fascism, communism, or military dictatorship. Only “democracy” is considered legitimate, and not just any kind of democracy. Iran is arguably just as democratic in the political sphere as any of the Western countries, yet it is considered a pariah nation. Instead, “democracy” must be fused with “the free-market” (state-capitalism), “the public sector” (the welfare state), “multiculturalism” (state-enforcement of compulsory racial/ethnic/cultural integrationism), state-regulation of “public health” (the therapeutic state) and a number of other things.
Additionally, the Western nations have, over the past 30-50 years, undergone a de jour cultural and social revolution and a de facto revolution in politics, law, education and a number of other institutions. Fifty years ago, racism was nearly universal and frequently mandatory. Today, it is regarded as the ultimate horror. A friend of mine’s sixtyish mother was told as a young girl that her aspirations to become a physician were inappropriate, “as boys become doctors, girls become nurses”. Such sentiments would be considered laughable today, even by most social conservatives. A generation ago, homosexuality was a serious felony. Five years ago, the US Supreme Court declared it to be a constitutional right. Abortion and pornography were once criminally prohibited vices, akin to drug use at the present time, yet these have likewise been declared constitutional rights.
No doubt many people, including myself, would consider most of these changes to be positive in nature. No one wants to return to Jim Crow, or endorse crass sexism, or hail the persecution of homosexuals by the state. And the rights of free speech, freedom of the press and privacy are essential to keeping the state at bay. But that brings us to another interesting matter. As all of this supposed liberation and breakdown of oppressive social structures has occurred, the state has become increasingly ruthless and pernicious in its expression. For instance, the US Constitution allows for the prosecution of only three federal crimes-treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Today, there are over 3,000 federal crimes and forty percent of these have been created since 1970. Prior to the mid-1980s, drugs were illegal, with drug crimes being treated in a manner comparable to serious property offenses like burglary or grand larceny. Today, even the most minor players in drug offenses are frequently sentenced to greater periods of incarceration than even some who commit violent crimes.Â Asset forfeiture laws were originally used to go after the holdings of members of drug trafficking cartels. Today, such laws apply to 140 other types of “crimes”. The US prison population has increased a dozen times over since the 1960s. Paramilitary policing was a new phenomenon in the 1970s, and originally intended as a means of dealing with either civil unrest or particularly difficult matters of law enforcement like hostage situations. Today, paramilitary policing is normal, even for routine police work, like execution of a search warrant. Even at the height of the Nixon era, the idea that a president would claim the right to unilaterally suspend habeus corpus and imprison suspects indefinitely in secret prisons without trial would have been considered absurd.
As the state has grown more pernicious, so has the economic position of the working class declined as US elites have adopted the Third World economic model. The American state, for the first time, is openly proclaiming a policy of reserving the right to wage “preemptive war” against virtually any other state it wishes, for any reason, at any time. Further, the cultural revolution of the past generation is being used as the foundation of a whole new kind of authoritarianism. Babies are now accused of “racism” for disliking exotic ethnic foods. A university janitor is reprimanded for reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan during his break time, even though the book in question was anti-Klan. A mother is arrested for spanking a child even when no evidence of genuine abuse exists.
One thing that is rather interesting about this new totalitarian humanism that seeks to establish a Big Brother state to make sure no one is ever being abused or discriminated against is its arbitrariness. Spanking a child is “child abuse” yet the US federal government can roll over dozens of children with tanks at Waco and no one from the System raises an eyebrow. “Racism” is regarded as the ultimate horrorshow, yet the single policy that inflicts the greatest amount of harm upon black communities, the War on Drugs, continues unabated.
It is this totalitarian humanism that is the foundation of modern state tyrannies. Just as we need the traditional critiques of statism found in the works of various historic thinkers, just as we need a coherent critique of the relationship between “big government” and “big business” of the kind that Kevin Carson has developed, so do we need a similar critique of totalitarian humanism and its tentacles like cultural Marxism and the therapeutic state.
The overwhelming majority of North American and probably European “radicals” still proceed as if it were perpetually 1968, if not 1928. Just as the simultaneous rise of the global economy and the decreased viability of the welfare state has mandated a search for new economic alternatives, so does the rise of totalitarian humanism necessitate a critique of this phenomenon beyond what most “radicals” could ever offer. A primary barrier to the formulation and dissemination of such a critique is the fact that most “radicals” essentially share the same value system as the proponents of totalitarian humanism. Yes, many liberals and leftists, for instance, oppose some of the excesses of Bush and cronies concerning civil liberties, but most of them also hold to the view that state-enforced multiculturalism, state-regulated “public health”, state interference in private institutions and local communities to prevent or deter illiberal social practices are legitimate and share the view of the current ruling class that racism, sexism, gay discrimination, fundamentalism, xenophobia, carrying a handgun, failing to attend public schools until age eighteen, etc. are the ultimate sins. Perhaps this explains why the antiwar movement has been utterly impotent and ineffective in opposing the neocons’ wars,i.e., because they share they same fundamental values of spreading “enlightenment”, “democracy”, “equality”, yet may have some reservations about the neocons’ methodology (like American unilateralism and defiance of international law). And, of course, some, like Christopher Hitchens, do not possess even those qualms.
One reason I find tendencies like the national-anarchists or the left-conservatives or the national-Maoists or the neo-secessionists to be rather refreshing is that they represent an outlook that genuinely rejects establishment values. After all, what would be more frightening to the American ruling class and political establishment: A bunch of college students, middle class leftists and hippies marching in the streets in a manner that looks more like a rock concert protesting global warming, racism, and Third World honor killings or a disciplined, orderly march of hard-core revolutionaries drawn from the ranks of inner-city gangbanger/ghetto types,Â Appalachian rednecks, or ex-convicts and other genuinely lumpen elements carrying banners with menacing slogans like “Death to the System!”, wearing all-black and red outfits and demanding overthrow of the government, smashing the ruling class and dissolution of the system into separatist/secessionist communities?
I know which team I’d pick.
Quote of the Week:
“Â Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
– Thomas Paine
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 2 notes, Pt. 1 by Shawn Wilbur
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 1 notes, by Shawn Wilbur
Bush Acts Like an Oaf at Gang of Eight ConferenceÂ by Eric Margolis
A Phony Crisisâ€”and a Real One, On The Path To War With IranÂ by Pat Buchanan
Enabling Tyrannyâ€”Brigitte Bardot And Other VictimsÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Police Quotas Motivate Unfair Treatment from Left Conservative Blog
The Lesser Evil Just Keeps Getting More EvilÂ by Kevin Carson
Â All You Need to Know About ObamaÂ Â by Brad Spangler
Why They’re Called “Cockroach Caucuses”Â by Kevin Carson
“Have Nothing to Do with Conquest”Â by Michael Scheuer
Conservative Confusion on Iran by Philip Giraldi
Just Another Drug War RantÂ by Kevin Carson
You Say You Want a RevolutionÂ by Kevin Carson
One Million Terrorists?Â Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam WarÂ by Ted Rall
John McCain is the Candidate of Mars, God of WarÂ by Doug Bandow
Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’tÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
America’s First Affirmative Action CandidateÂ by Pat Buchanan
Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?Â by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Myth of the Conservative Legal Movement Â Â Â by Kevin R. C. Gutzman
Housing and SquattingÂ Â Â Â Â from AnarchoNation
Notes on the Revolution MarchÂ Â Â Â Â from Social Memory Complex
Drug War HogwashÂ Â Â Â by Charley Reese
Panarchy: A Means to Jeffersonian IdealsÂ by Mike Rozeff
We’re in a World Economic CrisisÂ by William Norman Grigg