Libertarianism In One Country Reply

By Justin Raimondo

This week marks the fifteenth anniversary of the bombing of Serbia by President Bill Clinton – and the beginning of as a full-time full-coverage news site. It’s a double anniversary fraught, for me, with irony. Back then the Big Bad Bogeyman wasn’t al-Qaeda, which had barely crept into the American consciousness, although Osama bin Laden was a known quantity. No, the Enemy of the Moment was Russia, which was desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to block Washington’s eastward expansion – and it looks like that moment has returned with a vengeance.

With Russophobia all the rage – they’re even warning us Putin, not content with Crimea, is about to invade the North Pole! – we’ve come full circle, back to where we started. But we aren’t exactly in the same place.

In 1998 the anti-interventionist movement was tiny, and our readership reflected that. With the cold war over, and many conservatives deciding it was time to “Come Home, America,” as Pat Buchanan put it, our audience and base of support came increasingly from the right side of the political spectrum. Liberals were deserting the antiwar movement in droves, cowed – or won over – by the “humanitarian” interventionists and the 24/7 cycle of war propaganda beamed at them by CNN, back then the one and only cable news station. We called it the “Clinton News Network” because there was Christiane Amanpour, married to State Department spokesman James Rubin, lying nonstop for hours on end.


Islam, Globalism and Freedom 1

I wrote this in 2001, during the time between the September 11 incidents, and the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Evaluate for yourself how well my geopolitical analysis holds up thirteen years later, and whether I’ve mellowed any since then.


By Keith Preston

Islam, Globalism and Freedom


“Only an engaged and informed citizenry can bring about a reversal of the neo-imperial
foreign policy that has been foisted upon us…by the elites of both Beltway parties.”

“And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution?…Or will it take
some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price
of empire?”

-Patrick J. Buchanan, speech delivered to the Antiwar.Com
Conference, March 24, 2000
“If you want to be king, some people don’t want to be subjects.” -Jerry Rubin, 1969

I have a co-worker whose aunt worked as a stockbroker on the twenty-sixth floor of the second of the World Trade Center towers to be attacked on September 11. As the phone lines in much of the New York City area were down for a couple of days after the attack, he was unable to contact family members in the area in order to inquire about the fate of his aunt. Finally, on Thursday evening, he was able to get through. His aunt had been in her office when the attack on the first tower occurred. Most of her co-workers ran to the windows after feeling their own building vibrate. His aunt wisely chose to run to the stairs instead. She continued running down the stairways, out of the building and, by the time the second tower had been attacked and the first building collapsed, she was already five blocks away. Still, she received a number of cuts and scrapes from flying debris and rubble. It had been a lucky day for her. More…

Against the Libertarian Cold War Reply

By Anthony Gregory

Libertarian Standard

A controversy has arisen in the libertarian movement over the proper approach to the events concerning Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea. Like many such controversies, it has quickly polarized almost everyone, and has served as a proxy for long-standing factionalism within the movement. People quickly accuse each other of supporting Putin’s aggression or backing violent U.S. intervention. I myself have been accused of both kissing up to the Russian regime and dishing out State Department propaganda. This doesn’t itself show I have the right balance in my position, only that this feud has galvanized libertarians and hardened their rhetorical loyalties.

We might learn something from looking back at the 20th century. During the Cold War, most western critics of state power erred too far in one direction or the other. There were some whose opposition to U.S. wars led them to soften their assessment of communist aggression. Free-market and leftist lovers of peace both made this mistake. At the same time, many who favored economic and political liberty often let their anti-communism translate into support for American militarism and the security state. This confusion pervaded Americans across the spectrum.

We can all see this now: Yes, some antiwar Americans were obscenely soft on the communists. Well-meaning but foolish westerners said nice things about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao—and many of a more moderate tinge had no perspective of just how much worse international communism was than the U.S. system, at least as it concerned domestic affairs. Meanwhile, many libertarians and almost all conservatives ditched their supposed attachment to skepticism of government power and signed onto the U.S. Cold War effort. This American project included dozens of coups and interventions, the instruction of foreign secret police in unspeakable torture techniques, murderous carpet bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of peasants, and wars that indirectly brought about the Khmer Rouge and the rise of Islamist fundamentalism, both of which also became directly funded in the name of anti-communism.


Ron Paul Is Right About Crimea Reply

By Justin Raimondo


The libertarian movement has always been a contentious arena: that’s the nature of the beast. After all, we’re talking about libertariansindividualists to a fault: getting them to agree on anything is often like trying to herd cats. Aside from this question of temperament, however, there have been some very substantial ideological differences over the years, and – not surprisingly – many of these internal conflicts have been over US foreign policy.

That’s because it’s relatively easy to ascertain the libertarian position on matters domestic: government spying on our emails? We’re against it. Higher taxes? We’re against all taxes, period. The National Endowment for the Arts? Abolish it.

Easy stuff. But when it comes to foreign policy – where historical context and knowledge of facts on the ground are decisive factors – it gets more complicated. And not all are up to the task: certainly Alexander McCobin, unelected “President” of Students for Liberty (SFL), isn’t. His article for the Panam Post, entitled “Ron Paul is Wrong When He Speaks About Secession and Crimea,” is an amalgam of misinformation and smears.

After waffling on about how libertarians have to be against “unnecessary wars” (although he doesn’t say which ones are or were necessary), and paying lip service to the idea that “our generation” has a “critical attitude toward foreign intervention” (only “critical”?), he finally gets to the point:

“While it’s important criticize misconduct of the United States and some of its Western allies exacerbating the turmoil in the Middle East over the past two decades, it is also important to remember that there are other aggressors in the world; Russia – with its ongoing wars in the Northern Caucasus, the invasion of South Ossetia, and it’s most recent annexation of Crimea – being key among them.

“Former Congressman Ron Paul, whose views are interpreted by many as wholly representative of the libertarian movement, gets it wrong when he speaks of Crimea’s right to secede. Make no mistake about it, Crimea was annexed by Russian military force at gunpoint and its supposedly democratic ‘referendum’ was a farce. Besides a suspiciously high voter turnout without legitimate international observers, the referendum gave Crimeans only two choices – join Russia now or later.”

McCobin is wrong about South Ossetia: like the Crimeans, the Ossetians held a referendum and voted to separate from Georgia’s central government. In response, Georgia invaded the region, sending in its troops before the Russians ever got there. They bombarded Tsinskvali, capital of the rebel province, deliberately targeting civilians, killing and wounding hundreds. According to Human Rights Watch, Georgian artillery fired directly into basements – where civilians were sure to be hiding. As the BBC put it:

“The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August. Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.”

McCobin hasn’t even bothered to do the most basic research: he’s simply swallowed the new cold war mythology whole. It’s easier that way.

As “evidence” for his contention that the Crimean referendum was invalid, he links to a piece by David L. Phillips, Director of the “Program on Peace-building and Rights” at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights,” and Carina Perelli, formerly head of the UN’s Electoral Assistance Division. Absurdly, the authors aver:

When a referendum is properly conducted, both winners and losers accept the outcome. However chastened, losers resign themselves to defeat because of guarantees that their rights will be preserved through constitutional and other means.”



Would America Go to War with Russia? Reply

By James S. Robbins

The National Interest

Vice President Biden was in Warsaw last week to reassure our eastern NATO allies that they have the support of a “steadfast ally.” But if Russia moved against Poland or the Baltic States, would the United States really go to war? Or would we do nothing and effectively destroy the NATO alliance?

President Obama has ruled out a “military excursion” in Ukraine. America is not obligated legally to take action against Russia for annexing Crimea. We would not go to war if Russia mounted a large-scale invasion of Ukraine to restore the ousted, pro-Moscow government of Viktor Yanukovych, currently under U.S. sanctions. And we would not even send troops if Ukraine was partitioned, or absorbed by Russia. Americans have no interest in such a conflict, and no stomach for it.

NATO allies are a different matter. The North Atlantic Treaty is a mutual-defense pact, and Article 5 says that an armed attack against one member state “shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a clear red line. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and most NATO allies sent troops to support the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Could the current crisis expand to touch NATO? The developing situation in Ukraine has been compared to Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938, or the subsequent partition and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Hillary Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, which by extension puts President Obama in the role of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who famously failed to achieve “peace in our time” at Munich.


Push the analogy further. The Second World War was sparked by Warsaw’s resistance to Berlin’s demand to annex the Polish Corridor, a small stretch of land—smaller than Crimea—separating the German provinces of Pomerania and East Prussia. Hitler responded by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviet Union. Britain and France had pledged to defend Polish independence, and two days after Germany invaded, they declared war. In his war message, Chamberlain explained that Hitler’s actions showed “there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”

This may or may not describe Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton alleged. But if similar circumstances arise in the near future, will the United States honor security guarantees made to Poland and the Baltic States when the Russian threat was only a theory?

Mr. Biden stood with Estonian president Toomas Ilves Tuesday to “reconfirm and reaffirm our shared commitment to collective self-defense, to Article 5.” He wanted to make it “absolutely clear what it means to the Estonian people” and that “President Obama and I view Article 5 of the NATO Treaty as an absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor—we will honor.” Shortly thereafter, Moscow “expressed concern” about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Estonia. Mr. Putin justified his actions in Crimea as “restoring unity” to Russian people. Estonia’s population is 25 percent ethnic Russian, compared to 17 percent in Ukraine, mostly in the north and east part of the country. Suppose anti-Russian riots “spontaneously” broke out in Estonia. What would the United States do if Moscow invoked a “responsibility to protect” these people and bring them “back” to the Motherland? Would President Obama take military action against Russia over a small, secluded piece of a tiny, distant country? Would it be like the Polish Corridor in 1939? This is highly doubtful—highly doubtful.


Domestic Drones Are Inevitable 1

By Lucy Steigerwald

As the weekly – sometimes daily – news stories never tire of telling us, domestic drones are coming. And as ABC News reported on March 17, they are arriving faster than the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can suss out the rules over their use. Though it’s technically illegal, and the FAA may issue fines if they catch you, ABC reports that commercial use of drones is starting to happen whether or not the government approves – as long as it doesn’t notice.

In February, the FAA sent a cease and desist letter to the Lakemaid Brewing Company – the beer makers may not use drones to send ice fishermen a six-pack of cold ones. Even for such a charming purpose, their commercial use is banned at least until 2015, when the FAA will issue rules on drone integration into U.S. airspace. The FAA is also currently appealing a judge’s decision rejecting the $10,000 fine it tried to levy against a Virginia filmmaker for unauthorized drone flights. At this point, the US is actually trailing far behind the rest of the world in terms of domestic drones – we’re skittish about their dystopian potential, and our privacy laws are (relatively) strong compared to some.


Marching as to War Reply

Once again, Pat Buchanan reveals himself to be the most sensible of any mainstream foreign policy commentator.

By Pat Buchanan

Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”

Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.

From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.

No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.

Secretary of State John Kerry says that in the Ukraine crisis, “All options are on the table.” John McCain wants to begin moving Ukraine into NATO, guaranteeing that any Russian move on the Russified east of Ukraine would mean war with the United States.


The Stark Truth: Robert Stark Interviews Keith Preston Reply

Listen to the interview at Counter-Currents.Com

Robert Stark welcomes back Keith Preston of Attack the System. Topics include:

  • Keith’s article “Who am I? Left, Right, or Center”:
  • How his anti imperialist views on foreign policy overlap with the far Left as well as Paleoconservative and New Right thinkers
  • How he finds his critique of capitalism often overlaps with both those of the far Left but also those of Catholic distributists and social nationalists on the far Right
  • How he shares some views on social issues with the Left, but swings back to the Right on decentralist, anti-statist or civil libertarian grounds
  • His support for regionalist and ethno-identitarian movements as a bulwark against imperialism and the Leviathan state
  • The cult of guilt by association versus intellectual freedom
  • Making a case against mass immigration to anarchists
  • His podcast “Who Are the Power Elite?”:
  • The difference between power elite analysis and conspiracy theories
  • Power elite analysis versus theories of democratic pluralism
  • How the power elite uses demographic, cultural, and class conflict to protect its own position of dominance
  • Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone and the concept of social capital
  • His podcast “Creating Alternative Infrastructure”:

Was the Crimean Secession Vote ‘Legitimate’? Reply

By Justin Raimondo

The Crimean plebiscite resulting in a vote of over 95 percent in favor of union with the Russian Federation has been roundly denounced by Western governments as “illegitimate” and in violation of “international law.” Putative presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went so far as to compare Vladimir Putin to Hitler and the Crimean accession to Russia to Germany’s conquest of Sudetenland in the run up to World War II – prefiguring, perhaps, her Amazonian approach to foreign policy in 2016. Twitter is ablaze with hyperbole of a similar tone, and the foreign policy pundits have been quick to take up the cry of “Putin the Aggressor.”

Perhaps the most reasonable-sounding arguments in favor of the official US government position have been made by Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Writing in the Guardian, Drezner takes on the Russian claim that if Kosovo’s secession from Serbia was legitimate, then so is Crimea’s decision to separate from Ukraine. Drezner gives some credence to this view, writing:

“The parallels seem pretty obvious: not entirely unlike Crimea, Kosovo was an autonomous republic with a majority of citizens that belonged to an ethnic minority. And the ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo feared Serbian repression, just as Russians living in Crimea feared the newly-empowered Ukrainian nationalists that has assumed power in Kiev.”


Indivisibility? 10

The consequences of mistaking the divisible for the indivisible or Moscow next Tuesday

It’s hard to ignore the blatant contradictions and rank hypocrisy of the “Free World ™” exposed by the Ukrainian Crisis.  Indeed if the goal of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation was to demonstrate the gap between the stated values and actions of The West then its difficult to imagine how they might better have succeeded.  The spectacle of Western politicians gravely denouncing interference in “sovereign” nation’s affairs, while they themselves are openly engaged in exactly that all over the planet, is sickening to anyone who has any regard for integrity.  The horror expressed by the establishment of the West over the use of force to pursue geo-political aims when they have used precisely that routinely and systematically for at least two decades marks them out as the most shameless of hypocrites.  What can be said which would do justice to the contradiction between the West’s position on The Crimea’s unalterable status as a Ukrainian province (it was made part of it in 1954) and its actions in “liberating” Kosovo from Serbia (of which it had been an integral part for eight centuries)?  More…

Sticking to what they know: Israeli firm wins bid for wall construction on U.S.-Mexico border Reply

By Chloe Benoist


Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)
Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)

An Israeli military contractor, whose surveillance technology is used along Israel’s apartheid wall constructed in the Palestinian West Bank, has been chosen by the United States to provide similar services on the southern border with Mexico, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.

Elbit Systems announced on Sunday that the US Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had awarded its subsidiary a $145 million contract to deploy border surveillance technology in southern Arizona, Reuters reported.

But according to Bloomberg analyst Brian Friel, quoted by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the one-year contract could expand to a broader $1 billion deal if the US Congress passes stringent immigration legislation.

Elbit Systems is set to install watch towers along the border with sensors for spotting, tracking, and classifying data, along with command and control centers.


The Russians Are Coming! Reply

By Justin Raimondo




When the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union imploded shortly afterward, the world breathed a sigh of relief—except in the faculty lounges of our more exclusive universities, the last bastion of Marxism in the developed world.  But these hothouse exotics weren’t the only losers.  Their opposite numbers, the professional anticommunists, had far more to lose in terms of prestige, employment, and, yes, cold hard cash.  Their area of expertise was no longer relevant or marketable, and their employment prospects were grim until September 11, 2001, when they switched to the “antiterrorism” racket.


Tune Out the War Party! Reply

By Pat Buchanan


With Vladimir Putin’s dispatch of Russian troops into Crimea, our war hawks are breathing fire. Russophobia is rampant and the op-ed pages are ablaze here.

Barack Obama should tune them out, and reflect on how Cold War presidents dealt with far graver clashes with Moscow.

When Red Army tank divisions crushed the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, killing 50,000, Eisenhower did not lift a finger. When Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall, JFK went to Berlin and gave a speech.

When Warsaw Pact troops crushed the Prague Spring in 1968, LBJ did nothing. When, Moscow ordered Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski to smash Solidarity, Ronald Reagan refused to put Warsaw in default.

These presidents saw no vital U.S. interest imperiled in these Soviet actions, however brutal. They sensed that time was on our side in the Cold War. And history has proven them right.

What is the U.S. vital interest in Crimea? Zero. From Catherine the Great to Khrushchev, the peninsula belonged to Russia. The people of Crimea are 60 percent ethnic Russians.


U.S. Defense Policy: Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff Reply

By Ivan Eland

Independent Institute

President Obama’s defense plan has positive aspects, but is not part of a coherent strategic vision for the nation. With this failing, Obama, as commander-in-chief, is not unique. Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States has lacked a vision of what it wanted to do in the world and how its military should carry out part of that plan. In the hysteria that followed the 9/11 attacks, the counterterrorism mission received all the publicity but not all the money. The tragic terrorist strikes were used to justify a 50 percent increase in the defense budget, when fighting rag-tag groups of terrorism was, and is, fairly cheap; the extra cash was used to satisfy a wish list by the military services that had little to do with fighting al Qaeda. Of course, the justifiable counterterrorism mission then morphed into unnecessary and disastrous nation-building occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan against guerrilla fighters—that is, long counterinsurgency wars that actually increased blowback terrorism.


John Kerry: How Foolish Can One Man Be? 1

Now I remember why I didn’t vote in the 2004 election. What kind of deluded moron makes comments like this one?

“It’s an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country,’ Kerry said on ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday, adding that Russia has violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and several of its obligations under international agreements. ‘You just don’t in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.'”


Secretary of State John Kerry warned Russia Sunday that it should rethink its military intervention in Ukraine, warning of possible economic consequences and embarrassment on the world stage.

Tensions flared over the weekend as Russian President Vladimir Putin sought and received permission from his parliament Saturday to use military force to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine. Troops have already stationed themselves in Crimea, a Black Sea peninsula that is home to one of Moscow’s naval bases.

“It’s an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country,” Kerry said on “Face the Nation” Sunday, adding that Russia has violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and several of its obligations under international agreements. “You just don’t in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.”

He urged Russia to consider other options, the message pushed by the White House in the wake of a 90-minute call between President Obama and Putin Saturday. The hope is that Putin will have to withdraw after vigorously arguing for the sovereignty rights of states like Syria and Iran on the world stage, inconsistent with Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

Several foreign powers are already preparing a set of economic consequences if Russia does not withdraw its forces. Kerry said he spoke to ten of the foreign ministers of the countries most engaged on the issue, and “all of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They’re prepared to put sanctions in place, they’re prepared to isolate Russia economically.”


An open letter on the situation in Venezuela, to the comrades of the FEL and El Libertario – Nosotros los Pobres Reply


An open letter to anarchists in Chile and Venezuela, taking a nuanced look at the wave of protests against the Maduro government.

Two weeks ago, Nosotros los Pobres had the good fortune to host a presentation by two members of the Federacion de Estudiantes Libertarias of Chile, with whom we had a very productive exchange of ideas. Soon after that, I saw a statement published by the FEL, commenting on the situation in Venezuela, in which they expressed sympathy for the “Venezuelan people” in their resistance against a coup d’etat. As a member of Nosotros los Pobres, I wanted to share some thoughts about Venezuela and what’s going on there, both now and for the last 15 years, and I hope they will be useful for especifista comrades as well as for concerned and informed people generally.

The first observation, in response to the assertions of my Chilean comrades, is that there isn’t going to be a coup de etat en Venezuela. With what army? The Venezuelan army, part of which was always a stronghold for Chavez, has been thoroughly purged and ideologized—this isn’t the same kind of army as in any other Latin American country. Possibly a sector of the Chavistas themselves would move against Maduro’s faction, but they wouldn’t be doing it in league with Lopez and Machado or the MUD.


Ukraine: the protest movement and the fascists 1

Dreams Deferred

November. Kiev’s main square has been occupied, there have been dramatic scenes of heavy fighting between militant protestors and police, and government buildings have been stormed and occupied too.

But it was the fascist flags that first caught my eye when the protests escalated suddenly to draw in hundreds of thousands in the first days of December.

Many reports were accompanied by pictures like the one above, an AP photo that appeared on the top of a Guardian piece (where it has since been replaced) and in this BBC report.

They didn’t mention that the flags with the three-fingered logo are those of the fascist Svoboda party.

This does not mean that all or most of the protestors are fascists. But it was clear from pictures coming out of Ukraine that the fascists had an open and sizeable presence in the protest, and this was accepted by the mass of the movement.

Since then, the fascists have gained alarmingly in strength and influence, by taking the lead in some of the most militant actions. Hard-core fascists have been at the heart of the occupation of Kiev city hall and the heavy fighting against the police at the barricades of Hrushevskoho street.

What’s happening?

So what is going on? There have been differing interpretations on offer.

• Much of the mainstream coverage in the Western media, in line with EU and US politicians, has been sympathetic to the “Euromaidan” protests which began when Ukraine’s president Victor Yanukovych pulled out of signing an association agreement with the EU at the eleventh hour.

EU ministers, including British foreign secretary William Hague have backed the pro-EU protestors as fighters for democracy against Yanukovych’s pro-Russian government. US Secretary of State John Kerry has weighed in too.

• Not all commentators have fallen in behind this line, however. In a Guardian column Seumas Milne pours scorn on these arguments, pointing to the strategic interests of the EU and Nato in the Ukraine, as well as the presence of the fascists.

Milne is not uncritical of Yanukovych and speaks out against the government’s repression. He does not ignore the anger and frustration in Ukraine at poverty, inequality and political corruption.

But his piece concentrates its fire on Euromaidan and its western backers. He concludes with a warning about the dangers of “outside interference” in Ukraine, a warning clearly directed at the Western powers rather than Russia. In this he echoes Russian president Putin.

• Elsewhere, some on the left have identified the protests as part of the anti-capitalist movement. The huge protests in the main square of the capital and the fighting with police look familiar.

I disagree with all three of these positions. Here’s why…


The FBI Announces Gangs Have Infiltrated Every Branch Of The Military 1

By Robert Johnson

Business Insider

The FBI has released a new gang assessment announcing that there are 1.4 million gang members in the US, a 40 percent increase since 2009, and that many of these members are getting inside the military (via Stars and Stripes).

The report says the military has seen members from 53 gangs and 100 regions in the U.S. enlist in every branch of the armed forces. Members of every major street gang, some prison gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) have been reported on both U.S. and international military installations.

From the report:

Through transfers and deployments, military-affiliated gang members expand their culture and operations to new regions nationwide and worldwide, undermining security and law enforcement efforts to combat crime. Gang members with military training pose a unique threat to law enforcement personnel because of their distinctive weapons and combat training skills and their ability to transfer these skills to fellow gang members.

The report notes that while gang members have been reported in every branch of service, they are concentrated in the U.S. Army, Army Reserves, and the Army National Guard.


Russia Under Attack 5

The overthrow of the government of the United States should be the primary objective of all those presently seeking to advance world peace.

By Paul Craig Roberts

In a number of my articles I have explained that the Soviet Union served as a constraint on US power. The Soviet collapse unleashed the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. Russia under Putin, China, and Iran are the only constraints on the neoconservative agenda.

Russia’s nuclear missiles and military technology make Russia the strongest military obstacle to US hegemony. To neutralize Russia, Washington broke the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements and expanded NATO into former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire and now intends to bring former constituent parts of Russia herself–Georgia and Ukraine–into NATO. Washington withdrew from the treaty that banned anti-ballistic missiles and has established anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s frontier. Washington changed its nuclear war doctrine to permit nuclear first strike.

All of this is aimed at degrading Russia’s deterrent, thereby reducing the ability of Russia to resist Washington’s will.


Switzerland Goes Fascist… 3

Say the totalitarian humanist bureaucrats and parasite of the EU.

By Eric Margolis

Democracy can be so inconvenient. Take Switzerland, the closest thing the world has to a perfect democracy.

Switzerland’s eight million citizens vote by referendum on all major issues. The Swiss cantons have made key decisions this way for over eight hundred years.

Last week, Swiss voters decided by a razor-thin 50.3% to begin limiting immigration from the European Union within three years, perhaps much sooner. The vote in non-EU member Switzerland sent shock waves across Europe and brought a storm of abuse down on the Swiss.

In recent years, the Swiss have signed a number of agreements with the EU harmonizing Swiss law with Europe that allowed unfettered Swiss commercial access to the European Union. Now, 56% of Swiss exports go to the EU.

The Swiss grudgingly agreed to adhere to the EU’s basic tenet of free movement of citizens across the EU’s member states.