Updated News Digest November 2, 2008 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the public interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

                                                                                    -Pierre Joseph Proudhon

 

Welcome to Obamaland by Pat Buchanan

Coming Pleasures by Paul Gottfried

Obama and the Left by Daniel Flynn

Don’t Drop the Soap, Ted Stevens!

Methamphetamine Runnin’ ‘Round My Brain by Alix

Reality Overthrows “History’s Actors” by Paul Craig Roberts

Scenes from the Global Class War by Michael Hudson

How to Smuggle Cannabis

Is That Your Appetite? by Rad Geek

Proudhon on the Origin of Property by Shawn Wilbur

The Real Heroes in Afghanistan

The US and Political Killings by Niccolo Adami

The Opium Commodity by Niccolo Adami

Sarah Palin Linked to Terrorist by Francois Tremblay

McCain and Pinochet by John Dinges

Obamanations by Niranjan Ramakrishna

Chickenhawks and the Horrors of War by Mike Whitney

Feds Disrupt Skinhead Plot to Assassinate Obama 

October Surprise? by Justin Raimondo

Obama: Appeaser of the Powerful by Alexander Cockburn

Try AIPAC! Grant F. Smith interviewed by Scott Horton

The Failure of “Human Rights” Imperialism by Seumas Milne

Imperialism, Not Islam, is the Problem by Jacob Hornberger

The US Army’s Domestic Deployment by Glenn Greenwald

Alan Greenspan: Ayn Rand’s “Undertaker” by Murray Rothbard

Financial Madness by Bill Anderson

A Review of “W” by Anthony Gregory

Don’t Vote! by Lew Rockwell

The Conservative Rebellion by Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Why Obama Must Win by Niccolo Adami

Ralph Nader for President by Dylan Waco

Don’t Blame Me; I’m Voting for Kodos by Jennifer Abel

Very Cool New Blog By Two Old Broads (in their 80s!)

The World Tires of Dollar Hegemony by Paul Craig Roberts

America’s Half Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s Story of Race and Inheritance new book from Steve Sailer

Cholera or Plague? You Decide! Taki’s Magazine Editors Give Their Endorsements

The Right Choice? American Conservative Editors Give Theirs

Who’s Getting Your Vote? And Now from the Reason Magazine Editors

The US Empire Will Survive Bush by Arno J. Mayer

Untied States by John Schwenkler

Lockdown in Texas Prisons

SWAT PIGS Move in on the Mohawks

Animal Rights Activists Face Repression in the UK

Danish Hell’s Angels Kick Back Against Immigrant Gangs

Archilles Kritikos, R.I.P.

Green Party Slandered by Pro-Torture Zionazi Scumbag Alan Dershowitz

Thousands of Young Anarchists, Fascists and Communists March in Rome

Socialist or National Socialist by Tom DiLorenzo

The Smashing of Dreams is Not Over by Gary North

Faith of Our Fathers by Laurence Vance

Comrade Barack by Anthony Gregory

Is War Good for the Economy? No! by Justin Raimondo

The Other Election by Bill Lind

You Can’t Cut Spending and Spare “Defense” by Charles Pena

Analysts Question Timing of Syria Raid

America’s Slow Motion Fascist Coup Naomi Wolf interviewed by Lew Rockwell

The State Debate: Some or None? by David Gordon

The Next Dear Leader and Perpetual War by Tom Engelhardt and Andrew Bacevich

Making Excuses for Obama by Justin Raimondo

Conservative Fantasies by Doug Bandow

Palestinian Kristallnacht by Jonathan Cook

Strange Stike on Syria by Farrah Hassen

Comrade Obama? by Pat Buchanan

Why I Support Pastor Chuck by John Derbyshire

How I Became a Resentful Naderite by Peter Brimelow

Naderism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice by Justin Raimondo

Bob Barr for President by Alexander Cockburn

R.I.P. Studs Terkel

The Bailout: Bush’s Final Pillage by Naomi Klein

Greed, What’s That? by Patroon

A Question for Statists by Niccolo Adami

The Anarchy Boogey-Man

Nationalizing Banks, Impoverishing Society by Sheldon Richman

Bugs Before People by Niccolo Adami

A Commie’s Take on Anarchism

Hustler Endorses Serra Paylin

Mock the Vote! Reply

By David Heleniak

Jesse Ventura, when he’s not talking about 9-11, makes a lot of sense. Describing the two party system to Larry King, he said,

[W]hat you have today is like walking into the grocery store and you go to the soft drink department, and there is only Pepsi and Coke. Those are the two you get to choose from. There is no Mountain Dew, no Root Beer, no Orange. They’re both Colas; one is slightly sweeter than the other, depending on which side of the aisle you are on.

In an interview with Newsmax, he described politicians in the two party system as pro wrestlers.

More…

Updated News Digest October 26, 2008 Reply

“When I told a right-wing acquaintance of mine about what the president had done, I already knew he would defend it. You see, you have to understand that because Bush is a conservative Republican, he could be caught sodomizing a goat on the front lawn of the White House and they’d say this only showed his love for animals.”

                                       -Vincent Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”

 

Will Europe Commit Suicide?  by Paul Belien

Tribal Politics by Pat Buchanan

Making Sense of the American Right by Paul Gottfried

Socialism and Secession by Jack Hunter

Where Inflation Came From by Paul Craig Roberts

Is South Africa Going the Way of Zimbabwe? by Ilana Mercer

Lunatic Right-Wing Christian Group Claims African Witch Doctors Are Placing a Curse on McCain/Palin

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Libertarian Party Candidate for President of the United States by Rad Geek

The Afghanistan Advantage by Bill Lind

Government of Thieves by Paul Craig Roberts

The End of Friedmanite Economics? Robert Pollin interviewed by Mike Whitney

A Supreme Injustice by Alan Maass

Fire to the Prisons

Barack Obama Eats Babies by Tim Swanson

Is Environmentalism Racism? by Eric Englund

A Weapon of Thought by L. Neil Smith

Bush’s War on Civil Liberties by James Bovard

Zero Plus Zero Equals Zero by Philip Giraldi

When Is a Child Not a Child? by Andy Worthington

Susan Sontag Was Right by Justin Raimondo

The Enforcement Arm of the Robber State by William Norman Grigg

Four More Years! by Anthony Gregory

Pauper State USA by Eric Margolis

Why Al-Qaeda is Losing by Bill Lind

Repudiate the National Debt by Murray Rothbard

The Pro-Life Scam by G.C. Dilsaver

The Idiots Who Rule America by Chris Hedges

Obama Embraces the War Party by Justin Raimondo

Is the Sun Setting on the US Empire? by Daniel Luban

Richmond Really Really Free Market

Even Billionaires Get the Blues by Richard Spencer

The Standard of Living Bubble and Why It’s About to Go Pop! by Karen De Coster

Sarko Bids France Adieu by Paul Belien

Our Worthless Elites by Tom Piatak

All the President’s Men by Jack Hunter

The Tyranny of Tolerance by James Kalb

The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard

The Duke Rape Case Frame-Up Saga Continues by Bill Anderson

Big Little Government by Bill Barnwell

The Myth That Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Economic Crisis by George Reisman

Bailing Out Georgia by Justin Raimondo

Al-Qaeda Endorses John McCain by Ivan Eland

Joining the War Over the Constitution by Nat Hentoff

Iraq: Did the Surge Work? by George Hunsinger

Al-Qaeda’s Take on the Election Michael Scheuer interviewed by Scott Horton

Is Martial Law Coming? Matthew Rothschild interviewed by Scott Horton

The Rising Police State Jim Bovard interviewed by Scott Horton

Cannabis Cafe

Democrats and Double Standards by Pat Buchanan

The Candor of Joe Biden by Richard Spencer

The Multicultural Messiah by Tom Piatak

The Lady from Kalamazoo by Paul Gottfried

Even Billionaires Get the Blues by Taki Theodoracopulos

Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and the Maternal State by Dain Fitzgerald

Waiting for the Curtain to Rise by Alexander Cockburn

Nobody for President by Tuli Kupferberg

Why I’m Not Voting for Obama by Todd Chretian

Patriotism and the Labor Movement by David Macaray

You Have the Right to Airport Harassment by Allison Kilkenny

As the Shit Hits the Fan by Ron Sakolsky

Ending State Violence Against Women in San Francisco by Rad Geek

What Hath Ayn Rand Wrought? by Sheldon Richman

Obama is the Republican Candidate by Brad Spangler

Is Ashley Todd Lying? by Brad Spangler

Private Coinage by Murray Rothbard

How Private Coingage Worked in England by George A. Selgin

Breakup of the US May Be Our Only Hope by William Norman Grigg

Michael Moore, Your Heart is in the Right Place, But… by Todd Steinberg

Government Street Thugs by Kathryn Muratore

Coke or Pepsi: Who Are You Voting For? by Paul Armentano

Mondragon Cooperative Corporation: Management for the Future by Niccolo Adami

Mock the Vote! by David Heleniak

2009 TELOS Conference

Translated from Copspeak to English by Rad Geek

Police State New York

Charlotte Dennett for Vermont Attorney General Reply

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_st_lo/prosecuting_bush

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 Progressive Party‘s candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush 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 — 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 special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” a new book.

“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 William Sorrell, 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 Vice President Dick Cheney.

Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.

Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn’t believe a Vermont attorney general would 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.

Updated News Digest October 19, 2008 1

“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 Baldwin by Laurence Vance

Ain’t My Government by Manuel Lora

How to Fix Our Depreciating Money by Lew Rockwell

We Who Dare Say No to War Tom Woods interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Krugman and the Nobel Fraud by Bill Anderson

The Bolshevization of America by William Norman Grigg

It All Went Wrong When We Left the Gold Standard by Dominic Lawson

Nations by Consent: DeComposing the Nation-State by Murray Rothbard

Criminals in the Military by Russell Carollo

One in Three Atlanta Police Academy Grads Has a Criminal Record by Tim Eberly

Is Iceland a Model for America’s Future?

Watching Ukraine by Justin Raimondo

A Blow for Liberty 

Afghan War is Unwinnable by Gwynne Dyer

A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul

Liquidating the Empire by Pat Buchanan

Does the Bailout Pass the Smell Test? by Paul Craig Roberts

Stuck in the Cold: Obama’s Nostalgia for the 20th Century by Michael Scheuer

Wall Street’s Hostile Takeover of Main Street by Karen De Coster

Hitchens, Obama and the War Party by Richard Spencer

H.L. Mencken Club-The Egalitarian Temptation by Richard Spencer

Ike Minds Hard to Find by Eric Margolis

McCain: War Hero or War Criminal? by Robert Richter

Republican National Convention Protestors to be Railroaded on Terrorism Charges

Charlotte Dennett for Vermont Attorney-General Prosecute Bush for Murder!

“Freedom Fries” Congressman to Call for Bush Prosecution?

Do You Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard

America’s Coup D’Etat by Claes D. Ryn

Goodbye, GOP by Justin Raimondo

Criminalizing Dissent by Matthew Harwood

Mexico’s Colombian Exchange by Ted Galen Carpenter

McCain vs Ayers by Dylan Waco

National Review Purges Buckley by Richard Spencer

The Enemy is Always to the Right by Tom Piatak

Thus Spake Kristol by Paul Gottfried

Why McCain Should Lose  by Jack Hunter

My Friend Bill Ayers by Thomas Frank

Cultural Marxism Shows Its Fangs

Eternal Recurrence-Is it 1939, Again? by Justin Raimondo

Thanks for the Depression, George by Eric Margolis

The NATO Alliance: Dangerous Anachronism by Doug Bandow

U.S. Journalists and War Crime Guilt by Peter Dyer

Additional Thoughts on the Bailout by Paul Craig Roberts

An Interesting Response to the Economic Crisis by Larry Gambone

How the Banksters Are Making a Killing Off the Bailout by Pam Martens

Martial Law by 2011 by Roderick T. Beaman

Middle America Radicals and the Libertarian Left by Patroon

The Martial Law Threat Rep. Brad Sherman interviewed by Alex Jones

Give Me Liberty interview with Naomi Wolf

Hijacking Conservatism by Joseph Sobran

Gun Owners of America on the Presidential Candidates by Red Phillips

Can Vermont Break Free of Obama? by Patroon

The Decline and Fall of the Soviet State by Yuri Maltsev

Extremist, Traitorous, Un-American, Un-Patriotic Secessionists-Sign Me Up! by Thomas Andrew Olson

Them’s Fightin’ Words by Mike Tennant

The President is Not a King by Daniel Ellsberg

A Backlash Against Barack? by Pat Buchanan

Blowups and Bombers by Alexander Cockburn

The Mormon Worker

Reply to a "Horrified" Leftist Reply

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 ‘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.


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:


https://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/


https://attackthesystem.com/what-would-an-anarcho-socialist-economy-look-like/


https://attackthesystem.com/beyond-conservatism-reclaiming-the-radical-roots-of-libertarianism/

 

“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 national-anarchism:


https://attackthesystem.com/national-anarchism-and-the-american-idea/

 

On violence:

 

https://attackthesystem.com/armed-struggle-against-the-state/


On race:


https://attackthesystem.com/a-calm-anarchist-look-at-race-culture-and-immigration/


On fascism:


https://attackthesystem.com/am-i-a-fascist-an-open-letter-to-the-left-wing-anarchist-movement-2/


On my actual political views:


https://attackthesystem.com/american-revolutionary-vanguard-twenty-five-point-program/


https://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/


“Surely anyone who takes *either* the ideals of social justice *or* the ideals of individualism seriously should be horrified by this!?”


On “social justice”:

 

https://attackthesystem.com/the-richmond-city-jail-as-a-component-of-the-american-police-state/

 

https://attackthesystem.com/the-politicial-economy-of-the-war-on-drugs/

 

https://attackthesystem.com/the-last-minority/

 

https://attackthesystem.com/the-other-civil-war/

 

On Individualism:


https://attackthesystem.com/in-defense-of-libertarian-absolutism/


https://attackthesystem.com/why-i-am-not-a-cultural-conservative/

“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.


https://attackthesystem.com/the-new-totalitarianism/

Updated News Digest October 5, 2008 Reply

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.”

     -Mayor Frank Hague, speech to the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce, January 12, 1938

 

Al Gore, Baptist and Bootlegger by Bill Anderson

The Archbishop of Canterbury Speaks in Support of Karl Marx

The Near Death of the State by Lew Rockwell

Why I Do Not Vote by Mike Rozeff

Democracy: The Great Swindle by Becky Akers

The Plunderbund by William Norman Grigg

No More Help, Please by Stephen Fairfax

Forget the Terrorists by Mike Rozeff

The Great Bank Robbery of 2008 by Bob Murphy

How Congressmen Voted

Blow It Out Your Ass, David Brooks!

A Veteran Speaks Out

The Real Trouble Makers in the Middle East by Justin Raimondo

A Dial Marked “War” by Justin Raimondo

Al-Qaeda’s Opportunity to Hurt the U.S. by Michael Scheuer

Joe Biden: Time for Confession by Ray McGovern

Republicans on the Left, Democrats on the Right by Ivan Eland

John McCain’s POW Cover-Up Sydney Schanberg interviewed by Scott Horton

God and Man at Taki Mag by Paul Gottfried

An Amicus Brief for Neville by Pat Buchanan

Deconstructing the Debate by Justin Raimondo

Racial Quotas in Malaysia: A Grim Warning by Jared Taylor

American Should Listen to Ahmadinejad by Paul Craig Roberts

Not One Damned Dime by Rad Geek

What Wall Street Hoped to Win by Pam Martens

The Pitchfork: Elite Panic on Wall Street by Chris Floyd

The Power of No by Dave Lindorff

Time for a General Strike? by Manuel Garcia

Blaming the Labor Unions by David Macaray

The System Works…for the Rich

Interview with Political Prisoner Lori Berenson

Put the Bailout on the Ballot

The Call of the Tyrant by Tom DiLorenzo

Iraq: They Make It a Desert and Call It Peace by Eric Margolis

War on Two Fronts by Bill Lind

What Will the History Books Say About Our Era? by Daniel Coleman

McMussolini by Ilana Mercer

Police Lieutenant in Taser Case Commits Suicide

How Did “Your” Senator Vote on the Bailout?

Ron Paul Tells Why He Won’t Vote McCain-Palin by Paul Munshine

Gang of Democracies by Justin Raimondo

Amerika William Norman Grigg interviewed by Scott Horton

The Dark Heart of the Gitmo Trials by Andy Worthington

Can A Bailout Succeed? by Paul Craig Roberts

A New Populism? by Grant Havers

What’s the Difference Between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle? by John Zmirak

In Praise of Older Women by Taki Theodoracopulos

Forgotten Founder, Drunken Prophet Dylan Hales reviews Bill Kauffman

Immigration Restriction-Ruined by Success? by Richard Spencer

Sockless Jerry Rides Again by Caleb Stegall

What Bolshevik! by Niccolo Adami

It Pays to Rebel! by Larry Gambone

The Bailout in Plain English by Joe Bageant

The Free Market Preachers Have Long Practiced State Welfare for the Rich by George Monbiot

Can the Middle America Radicals Save McCain? by Pat Buchanan

The Bailout is a Fraud by Paul Craig Roberts

Sarah Goes to Africa by Richard Spencer

History of an Idea by Roderick T. Long

The Call of the Present by Shawn Wilbur

The Power Elite Shows Its Hand by Wally Conger

The Case for Drunk Driving by David Ker Thomson

When is a Holocaust not a Holocaust? by William Blum

Chomsky: “The Majority of the World Supports Iran” by Subrata Ghoshroy

The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism Robert Pape interviewed by Scott Horton

The Bubble Boys by Justin Raimondo

Insurgency Comes to America

A Nation of Sheep by David Gordon

The Encroachment of Totalitarian Humanism

Where Have All the Real Men Gone? by Kathleen Parker

Police State Democracy by A.C. Grayling

Free Enterprise for the Poor, Socialism for the Rich by Gore Vidal

Elmer Gantry Economics by William Norman Grigg

Is McCain Insane? by Fred Reed

How to Avoid a Depression by Mike Rozeff

Oslo at 15 Years-A Vanishing Dream by Daniel Levy

The Minutemen Verses the Anarcho-Leftoids by Brenda Walker

The “Bailout” Has Passed by Dylan Waco

Whatever Happened to the Discourse on Neoliberalism? by Shawn Wilbur

Creatures of Capital by Alexander Cockburn

How to Be Inhuman Reply

reason.com
Ronald Bailey

Biotechnology holds the promise of some day allowing people to enhance themselves and their children using pharmaceuticals or genetic interventions. This prospect is welcomed by some, but causes a great deal of anxiety in many people: Are there enhancements whose benefits would come at the price of our humanity?

The President’s Council on Bioethics worries that people who choose to use biotech enhancements would somehow lose themselves: The Council’s report “Beyond Therapy” warns “we risk ‘turning into someone else,’ confounding the identity we have acquired through natural gift cultivated by genuinely lived experiences, alone and with others.” Liberal bioethicist George Annas from Boston University is pushing for a global treaty that would ban all inheritable modifications to any person’s genetic makeup. He favors such a treaty because he believes that “species-altering genetic engineering [is] a potential weapon of mass destruction, and [that] makes the unaccountable genetic engineer a potential bioterrorist.”

More…

Updated News Digest September 28, 2008 3

Quote of the Week:

“Ass usual, the election is a popularity contest run for dimwits. And to elect a dimwit, which is worse. We’ve got this woman Palin, an angry Betty Crocker, absolutely unqualified for the presidency in case McCain goes tits up. She’s ignorant of foreign affairs, at best moderately bright, a whackjob Christian, and a “pit bull.” 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 doesn’t he go there and get a start? A perfect match for Palin, another pugnacious dunce, bottom of his class in boat school – the Naval Academy, I mean. He says he plans to “confront Russia.” Now there’s a plan. It seems that American policy is to make enemies of everyone who has oil or nuclear weapons. Or doesn’t.

Meanwhile the Pentagon prepares for war with China. Is it something in the water?

Next we have Obama, whose only qualification is that he’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, that’s better than the other three. I mean, he’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, I’d understand. Three hundred million people, and these factory rejects the best we can do?”

                                                                                                                                  -Fred Reed

The Cause of Gasoline Shortages by Gary North

Winston Churchill: Stalin-Loving Tyrant 

Militarized Cops William Norman Grigg interviewed by Lew Rockwell

China Wants a New World Currency

Banksters Mug America by Jim Quinn

It’s Time for Cold War Revisionism by Dan Spielberg

The Meaning of the Historic Ron Paul Press Conference by David Barsallis

Anarchy in Our Heads by Manuel Lora

The Public Schools Have An Agenda (and it’s not education) by Jim Fedako

Should the U.S. Really Murder Persians? by William Norman Grigg

The Murdering FDA Bill Sardi interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Ron Paul Takes Bob Barr’s Advice (Barr Shoots Himself in the Ass)

The American Empire: Too Big To Fail? by Justin Raimondo

Ashes of Empire by Philip Giraldi

The American Left Is Also Claimed by AIPCA by Philip Weiss

Whose Iraq Predictions Have Come True? by Ron Paul

Calling Gitmo What It Is by Aaron Glantz

Downhill in Afghanistan by Jonathan Power

Bill Clinton’s Imperialist Legacy by Stephen Chapman

Lesser of Two Evils? No Thanks. by Daniel Bein

Amnesty for the Stupid? by Pat Buchanan

GOP Turkeys by Paul Gottfried

Where the WASP’s Aren’t by Austin Bramwell

Best Satire Ever   from Social Memory Complex

Served and Protected Once More by Rad Geek

A Death Row Visit with Troy A. Davis by Patrick Dyer

Hezbollah and the Palestinians by Franklin Lamb

Oppose Barack Obama? How Dare Thee! by Joshua Frank

The Bailout Will Kill the Dollar by Dave Lindorff

The Twin Terrors of the Holy Land by Robert Weitzel

A New Cold War Comes to Latin America by John Ross

The Yippie Show by Jesse Walker

Russia Is Back by Thomas N. Naylor

The Bad Boy of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention by Thomas N. Naylor

No Child Left Behind by Sid S. Glassner

Economic 9-11 Hits Wall Street

Decline and Fall: It’s the Autumn of Our Old Republic by Justin Raimondo

Impeachable Offenses by Bruce Fein

The Pakistan Dilemma by Charles Pena

The Election Means Almost Nothing by Lew Rockwell

Intellectual “Property” by Stephan Kinsella

The Blood of Dresden by Kurt Vonnegut

Terrified Oligarchs: A Renewal of Class Struggle?

Has Deregulation Sired Fascism? by Paul Craig Roberts

Libertarianism Shrugged by Kevin DeAnna

Who Is Vladimir Putin? by Matthew Roberts

Bosses Beware! by Larry Gambone

Welcome to the Occupied States of America

Palestinians Under the Occupation by Khalil Nakhleh

Man Arrested for Farting on Cop

Bush, the Destroyer by Lew Rockwell

The First Fascist President by Ralph Raico

The Bailout Reader

Iran: And the Beat Goes On by Justin Raimondo

Banking, Bailouts and War in US History Lew Rockwell interviewed by Scott Horton

A Landmark Torture Trial by Joanne Mariner

Truth and War Mean Nothing at the Party Conferences by John Pilger

Why is a US Army Brigade Being Assigned to the “Homeland”? by Glenn Greenwald

Joseph Biden: Profile in Cowardice by Gene Healy

We Will Berry You by David Gordon

Day of Reckoning by Pat Buchanan

Sadomasochist Nation by John Zmirak

Ron Paul Vs the Bailout Lobby by Richard Spencer

The End of the Ric Flair Era by Jack Hunter

Metropolitan Secession by Rad Geek

The Brawl in St. Paul by William Gillis

For the People of Pakistan by Niccolo Adami

Who Will Show Some Backbone Against the Bailout? by Ralph Nader

Democrats and Corporate Bailouts by Sharon Smith

D.C. Heist-Wall Street Gang Hijacks Washington by Gerald Celente

Credit Crunch: The Return of Depression?

Has Our Revolutionary Moment Arrived

A Comment on the Brawl in St. Paul by Niccolo Adami

How McCain Blew It by Alexander Cockburn

Call for Papers: Anarchism, Labor Unions and Working People

How Major U.S. Neo-Imperialist Wars End lecture by Robert Higgs

Beyond Conservatism and Leftism 2

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:

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/08/moving-to-the-c.html

“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.  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.

What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby? Reply

Weekend Edition
August 30 / 31, 2008

Part One

What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby?

By B. R. GOWANI

What if:

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
Brooks)

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 cruel­, 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 ­ 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
Muslim fundamentalist/militant/fanatic/etc.

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.”

Holocaust

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 people­because 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. . .

DS: Personally.

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 [1991] 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” – on Capitol Hill – “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?) … ”

Abraham Foxman

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 ­ although in military means, the fourth
most powerful country in the world.

To be continued Monday

Updated News Digest August 31, 2008 2

Quote of the Week:

“We can expect as little from society as from the state. Salvation lies with the individual.”

                                                                                                             -Ernst Junger

 

Neocon Leader Bill Kristol Calls on McCain to pick Lieberman as his Running Mate (Dog?)

Fed-Bank-Wall Street Fraud

Biden for Vice-Dictator by Glenn Greenwald

When the Cure is Worse Than the Disease by Bill Sardi

World War Looms by Simon Jenkins

You Can’t Trust the FDIC by Doug French

Tribal Syndicates Block Sale of Amazonian Lands

The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

Russell Kirk, the Canon and the Conservative Movement by Gerald Russello

Did Somebody Say Elitism? by Taki Theodoracopulos

Mika Etchebehere, POUM Militia Captain by Larry Gambone

The Long Silence: American Jews and the Palestinians by Howard Lisnoff

New Issue of “Republic” Magazine Is Out! (Thanks to Flavio Goncalves)

Traitors Beware: A History of Robert DePugh’s Minutemen by Eric Beckemeier (Thanks to Ean Frick)

Anarcho-Syndicalism in Brazil

Black Fez Manifesto by Hakim Bey

Toward Secession by Richard Kostelanetz

Big-Tittied Terrorists

Democrats Claim Racism is the Only Reason Obama Will Lose (Go figure!)

Driving With Air Fresheners is Suspicious

Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Foreign Policy by Justin Raimondo

The Hideous Horror of the Biden Selection by Arthur Silber

Pushing Russia Into the Cold by Pat Buchanan

War with Russia is on the Agenda by Paul Craig Roberts

On Obama’s Move to the Center by Joe Bageant

McCain-The Ugliest American

Strip-Search Nation by Dave Lindorff

The Politics of Avoidance by Ralph Nader

Saakashvili: The gun went off by itself while I was just holding it  by Steve Sailer

Milwaukee City Government Steals Disabled Man’s Home

Failed States and Other Good News by William Norman Grigg

Bush’ Armada of Aggression by Gary North

The Militarized States of America by Fred Reed

Both Parties Want Dictatorship by Lew Rockwell

Obama’s Cheney by Justin Raimondo

Obama’s Fascist Security Corps by Dario McDarby

What If Obama Loses? by Pat Buchanan

The Obama Transformation: From Antiwar Leftist to Liberal Hawk by Richard Spencer

How to Make Health Care Anarchistically Better by Francois Tremblay

McCain’s Useful Fools by Libby Spencer

Poison As Food, Poison As Antidote by Roderick T. Long

How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy by Mike Whitney

Berkeley Activists Attacked by PIGS

Anarchists Attack Wells Fargo in Minneapolis

Three Greek Anarchists Arrested in Big Kidnapping Case

Jailed Cuban Punk Rocker to Stand Trial Friday

Goodbye by Charley Reese (he’s retiring)

When Desertion is a Duty by William Norman Grigg

Massive Police Raids on Protestors in Minneapolis by Glenn Greenwald

A Map of US Military Presence All Over the World

A Better Question Might Be, “How Isn’t It Fascism?” by Tom Harrington

America’s Unwelcome Advances by Chalmers Johnson

Stunning Statistics on Prison Labor by Francois Tremblay

Paleos for Palin? Not This One by Dylan Waco

The Ethics of the Homestead Strike by Shawn Wilbur

This is the Face of Fascism by Mona

Obama’s Speech, McCain’s Palinomy by Alexander Cockburn

Missouri Police Kill Motorist for Driving Poorly 

Sufic Notes on Proudhon, Rothbard and Anarchism 5

(Thanks, Sean!) 

[These are my musings from correspondence with a like-minded proprietor of a homepage, which I thought some here would find interesting. -SJ]:
 
Sufic Notes on Proudhon, Rothbard and Anarchism
 
I concur with your disavowal from the false dialectic of Left and Right: We have transcended beyond that limited spectrum and have arrived at a Third Position, one which seeks a comprehensive solution outside the dominant framework. We should not remain conditioned to this evolutionist dialectic which views everything based upon an ill-defined spectrum of “right” and “left”. Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi has written on this matter under his Scottish birth-name:
 
“The false dialectic of capital and communism, right and left, has for decades veiled from thinking people the possibility of grasping that what happened after 1945 was not only the collapse of the final phase of christian culture but the rise of a syncretic pseudo-culture, grafted onto the ruins of the old. A juden-kultur disguised as the previous model, but replacing it with a set of new values and expression whose unique driving force was the thrust of the market economy in its moments of expansion” (Ian Dallas, Oedipus and Dionysus, Freibourg Books, 1992).
 
I would also agree with your admiration for anarchism, purely in its classical sense and not the modern (mis)understanding. True anarchism is the anarchism of the Syndicalists and not the Cultural Marxists who have hijacked the movement to promote “alternative lifestyles” and the Cult of Political Correctness. It is a harmless nuisance which the elite tolerates since it does nothing to disrupt their power-structures.
 
Economics the Enemy of Anarchists
 
Proudhon’s maxim that “Anarchy is Order” brings to the surface a deep metaphysical reality latent until then. For he recognized that economics was a new religion and that economic ideas would become deified on an altar of ritualistic servitude. The masses are conditioned to believe that usury and taxation are two necessities of life (i.e., the old adage that nothing is certain except for death and taxes, and the fact that the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates is accepted as a gospel truth by those in awe of the economists).
 
Umar Ibrahim Vadillo has pointed out that the deification of economics has an esoteric underpinning. The rise of the State cannot be divorced from the rise of the modern bank. The two have a symbiotic relation, as both derive from esoteric origins. The State serves to perpetuate Finance, and vice versa. To increase their hold upon the society, they have reduced the temporal power of religions so that the latter serve to provide theological justification for the State. To quote Proudhon:
 
“The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them….What capital does to labor, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason” (Les confessions d’un revolutionnaire, Paris: Garnier, 1851, p. 271). 
 
Nihilism and Violence for its own Sake
 
Proudhon shunned nihilism, warning in no uncertain terms about the need for political movements to adopt a political agenda. He was reluctant to support the revolutionaries of 1848 at first, due to their violence. He came to oppose the new revolutionary regime, since it sacrificed socio-economic reforms for political reform. History demonstrates that revolutions have always succeeded when they had a clear program outlined and failed when they worshipped violence. Proudhon understood this danger of political movements:
 
“He saw that their intellectual paralysis was the cause of helpless nihilist terrorism. Political idealism, once put in place, enforces an increasing separation between the outside world and the membership. In order to create a sense of progress among the membership, the critique of the outside world, seen as part of education, has to aggressively increase in magnitude week after week. This tendency, once adopted, leads inevitably to an absurd dualism consisting of an utterly demonised outside world and an undeserved assumption of pure goodness on their own part. This is what Carl Schmitt (d. 1985) defined as political theology. One side of this nihilistic philosophy produces helpless terrorism and suicidal strategies” (Vadillo, The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, CapeTown: Madinah Press, 2003, pp. 534-535).
 
Proudhon understood clearly that the socio-economic reforms were more pertinent than the political reform, as reforms at this realm would naturally lead to those at the political realm. In this regard, it is quite interesting that all those screaming for “change” in this country likewise talk merely in political terms, ignoring any consideration for monetary reform or changing the economic structures at a fundamental level. Rather, they all serve to perpetuate the State just like their alleged opposite.
 
His opposition to nihilism also has relevance to our own opposition to the neo-Takfiri heresy. They scream at the top of their lungs about “Jihad” and declaring takfir of the governments, but they offer no program once they (hypothetically) come to power. In this sense the program of the Jihadi movements is nihilistic: an endless cycle of violence seemingly for the sake of violence, hence their focus on martyrdom. So rather than providing real solutions to remedy the situation, it is actually an escape from realities.
 
Usury and Wage-Labor
 
Proudhon opposed anyone who earned their income from rent, interest, and wage labor. He recognized that the workers create a productive capacity greater than their individual sum, but they don’t come to benefit from their own labor. Here the materialist device of “freedom” comes to play: Exercise your “freedom” to enter into a subservient work position or your “freedom” to not work, at which case the conditions of the society will ensure that you lose the basic human freedoms.
 
This is why successive opponents of the State have called for a return to the Guild-System, which they now understood was the only structure which could transform the society and eliminate the State. The workers of the Guilds were far more “free” (to use the modern rhetoric) than the workers in this age of “rights”, where employment is the new framework of relations and wages become the only fruits of labor. This fact has been expressed by Vadillo:
 
“The slave is now called the employee. This employee belongs to a class of employees. Freedom, as understood by medieval guilds which upheld a social ethos in which the master/apprentice relationship dominated the degrading employer/employee relationship of today, was already superior to what was being aimed at under the banner of rights. But guilds became viewed as centres of resistance to the
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).
 
Private Property
 
I would finally concur with your point about an individual’s right to hold property. The “property” that was condemned by Proudhon was solely the type that was used and abused according to the whims of the one holding it, while true private ownership of land possesses it so as to maintain economic independence. He championed the rights of the small landowners against the State, for which he was criticized by Marx (who actually sought to increase the power of the State against the workers). Proudhon recognized “property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State” (Theory of Property).
 
The right of private ownership of property was already recognized before even the creation of human beings as was noted by the Qur’an: “Wa iz’ qaala Rabbuka lil-Malaa’ikati, ‘Inni jaa’ilunfil-ardi Khalifah'” (Sura al-Baqara, verse 30). “Behold, they Lord said to the angels, ‘I will create a vicegerent on earth.'”
 
This verse speaks about successive generations upon the earth, but more importantly it mentions that we have been entrusted with the land as an awqaf. This was also exemplified in the Guilds, which ensured a social network of welfare for the members and through which they could find their livelihood. We recognize that any elimination of the State means the evolution (excuse the word) of decentralized Guilds and communities as the new structure of our societies.
 
Rothbard as a Complement to Proudhon
 
The importance of private property as a protection of individual rights at the expense of the State was studied by Murray Rothbard. He was in many senses a complement to Proudhon, providing further intellectual framework for anarchism in a mass-industrialized society. This is the importance of Anarcho-Capitalists or Anarcho-Libertarians, who covered up the faults of the Anarcho-Syndicalists in monetary issues and closed these gaps within anarchism.
 
Rothbard defined property as that which is acquired and transferred without any interference from the State. It should only be acquired through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. He defined the self-ownership principle:
 
“The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or ‘mixes his labor with’. From these twin axioms – self ownership and ‘homesteading’ – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles” (Rothbard, “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Spring 1982, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-99). 
 
This matter of property represents the fundamental difference between the modern Cultural Marxist, PC form of “anarchism” and the pure anti-Statism of the individualist anarchists. The former propose the abolition of private property, which would certainly increase the authority of the State and make people vulnerable to its inherent excesses. On the other hand, Anarchism by its very nature is voluntarist. In true nihilist fashion, the anarcho-communists advocated the abolition of money (see Rothbard, “The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists,” The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970), but this is another matter entirely. What is the meaning behind anarchism?
 
“I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights” (Rothbard, Society and State). 
 
Sufism and the End of Metaphysics
 
These individual rights mentioned by Rothbard were already protected by Islam. We have transcended these other forms of thinking about the world, including the heresies of fundamentalists and modernists alike. Our belief is an-archic, in the sense that it reflects the culmination of the Heideggerian understanding that metaphysical foundations of thinking have been eliminated.
 
We understand that with the end of philosophy, Islam is the only force which can take over the gauntlet to roll back the power of the State. The other religions have already been subverted by the Global Capitalist world-view which have relegated them to mere theologies without any relevance on the social, economic and political realms. Hence, all have acknowledged the superiority of Economics – except for Islam.
 
Islam stands as a distinct alternative to the process of deconstruction which has reduced other religions to a position that will not disrupt the Capitalist order. Jean Baudrillard condemned this trend towards a relativism which defines itself in terms of political correctness and the cult of victimology, confiding to the Catholic conservative Rene Girard that “the whole world, including China and Japan, is implicated in the postmodern fragmentation and uprootedness that leaves values behind. There is one exception: Islam. It stands as a challenge to the radical indifference sweeping the world” (Global Viewpoint, 11 May 2005).
 
The potential role of Islam, in its purest Sufi understanding, to reverse these trends has been recognized by a number of truth-seekers who have submitted to the truly “anarchist” understanding that there is no Might nor Power except Allah – La Hawla wa la Quwata illa-billah. There is no Force except the Lord, hence our submission is only to Him because we find in this Tawhid the key to realizing our liberation from both our own soul (nafs) and the coercive pressures of others.
 
Sufi masters have always challenged the powers that be, whether they be tyrants or invaders. The ranks of liberation struggles have always been illuminated with their example. There is a lengthy story where Harun al-Rashid sought out a true teacher who was not a sycophant. He found such a teacher in Fuzail, who told him when the former asked if he could enter: “There is no such thing as authority. If you enter by force, you know what you are doing.”
 
There is much behind the aphorism “Anarchy is Order”. The Islamic conception of order is structuring one’s life according to the transcendent Divine Will, not according to the concepts of authority and control now dominant in this world. This understanding of Islam attracted such anarchists as Isabelle Eberhardt, Ivan Agueli, and Gustave-Henri Jossot, each of whom found its fullest expression in the Sufi tariqas. I have found that this structure is manifested in the Shadhili-Darqawi movement Murabitun, whose communities are quite de-centralized and have forged an alternative at all levels to the dominant Capitalist order.

Dr. Tomislav Sunic Writes to the Los Angeles Times Reply

Los Angeles Times
 Letters to the Editor
 letters@…
 timothy.rutten@…

 
Re: The extreme-right way to make a buck,” by Tim Rutten, LA Times, Aug. 16, 2008

 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.

 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.
 
Sincerely,
 Dr. Tom Sunic
 http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com
 Croatia
 Tel. 00385-1- 6261-55
 cell: 00385-91-793-9454
 tom.sunic@…
 
(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.

Updated News Digest August 24, 2008 Reply

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.”

  –“Senor Doug”

 

Afghanistan: Where Empire Goes to Die by Michael Scheuer

Jackbooted Airport Thugs by Emily Feder

ATF Hoodlums Attack Gun Store Owner

Buffalo PIGS Terrorize Family

Fat Children To Be Taken From Parents?

Texas School District to Arm Staff

Neocon Crybabies by Steven LaTulippe

The U.S. Government is Corrupt from Top to Bottom by Charley Reese

Warp Speed, Mr. Sulu?

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

Neocon Michael Ledeen Labels Italy a Terrorist Nation

“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 Exile   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

Yellow Peril!-How the Beijing Olympics Became the Most Politicized Show on Earth by Brendan O’Neill

Drug Legalization as a Defensive Measure

Berlin: Seven Banks Attacked in Protest of Energy Companies

The Politics of Prisons

Thoughtful Anarchy by John Steele

Martial Law in America

International Criminal Court Should Leave Georgia Alone  by Helen Rittelmeyer

China’s Religious Problem-And Ours by Grant Havers

And None Dare Call It Treason-McCain Advisor’s Georgia Connection by Pat Buchanan

Scalia on the Loose by Daniel Koffler

The Paradoxical Nature of the Geopolitics of Secession by Thomas N. Taylor

Interview with Pam Africa and Ramona Africa

The Anarchists Are Coming

National Day of Action Against Electoral Politics

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

Why Not to Trust Your School

For or Against? Attitudes Towards Capitalism in German or Italian Fascism by Troy Southgate

Street Justice: Good or Evil?

Afghanistan Invasion Going From Bad to Worse by Werner Scott

More Mischief from the Gangsters in Blue by Rad Geek

Texas Truant Students to be Tracked by GPS Anklets

Why Not Let the Republicans Deals with this Mess? by Dave Lindorff

Biden: “I Am A Zionist”

Please Donate to Antiwar.Com!

The Politics of Transhumanism 3

changesurfer.com

Version 2.0 (March 2002)

   

James J.  Hughes, Ph.D.

Originally Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the
Society for Social Studies of Science
Cambridge, MA
November 1-4, 2001

For more information please contact:
James Hughes Ph.D.
Public Policy Studies, Trinity College,
71 Vernon St., Hartford CT, 06106, 860-297-2376,
jhughes@changesurfer.com, www.changesurfer.com

Abstract

Transhumanism is an emergent philosophical movement which says that humans can and should become more than human through technological enhancements. Contemporary transhumanism has grown out of white, male, affluent, American Internet culture, and its political perspective has generally been a militant version of the libertarianism typical of that culture. Nonetheless transhumanists are becoming more diverse, with some building a broad liberal democratic philosophic foundation in the World Transhumanist Association. A variety of left futurist trends and projects are discussed as a proto-“democratic transhumanism.” The essay also discusses the reaction of transhumanists to a small group of neo-Nazis who have attempted to attach themselves to the transhumanist movement.  For the transhumanist movement to grow and become a serious challenge to their opposites, the bio-Luddites, they will need to distance themselves from their elitist anarcho-capitalist roots and clarify commitments to liberal democratic institutions, values and public policies. By embracing political engagement and the use of government to address equity, safety and efficacy concerns about transhuman technologies, transhumanists are in a better position to attract a larger, broader audience.

More…

Updated News Digest August 3, 2008 Reply

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.              

                                                                 -Friedrich Nietzsche

ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods

There Is No Statute of Limitations on Murder  Vincent Bugliosi Speaks to the House Judiciary Committee

Plug the Plug on the War State  by Charley Reese

Daniel Ellsberg’s Lesson for Our Time  by James Bovard

Book Review-Reclaiming the American Right by Justin Raimondo  by Dylan Waco

Christopher Hitchens vs Waterboarding: Waters Wins   by Francois Tremblay

McCain More Hawkish Than Bush? from Thus Spoke Bellinsky

Exit Strategies  by Pat Buchanan

Batman: Anarcho-Fascist or Unassimilated Jew?  by Richard Spencer

Republican Hypocrites  by Paul Gottfried

The Birth of an Obsession by Paul Gottfried

Founder of Utopian Commune Dies at 77

The Military-Industrial Complex  by Chalmers Johnson

The War Party’s Credo: Power Before Profits-why the left’s analysis of imperialism is inadequate by Justin Raimondo

The Death of Rachel Hoffman  by Paul Armentano

Call for a Chicago Student Strike How About a Nationwide Student Strike??!!

Obama Plans to Make Afghanistan into Vietnam  by Pat Buchanan

Twenty Years for Pot Possession  by Paul Armentano

A Peoples’ Court for America?  by Jacob Hornberger

Foundations for the New Economy  by Kevin Carson

Feudalism vs Anarchism?  by John Zmirak

Feminazis Say No Platform with Weightists

The Public-Private Imperial Police State  Interview with Chalmers Johnson

Is the Surge Working?  by Justin Raimondo

Choosing a King in November   Glenn Greenwald Interviews Daniel Ellsberg

The Father of Lies  by Philip Giraldi

In Praise of Inequality  by Richard Spencer

Worthwhile Books

2008 Connecticutt Liberty Forum

Against Trademarks  by Stephan Kinsella

The Unfortunate Case of Herbert Spencer  by Damon W. Root

Cop Assaults Man on Bicycle

SWAT PIGS Who Terrorized Innocent Family Rewarded with Medals

Cops Shoot Cop in Long Beach

Ron Paul Defends Marijuana Legalization

Maryland PIGS Terrorize Family, Kill Two Dogs

Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn  by Enrico Peppe

Ecuador Resists Drug War

He Ventured Forth to Bring Light into the World  by Gerard Baker

Hegemony Everywhere But At Home by Paul Craig Roberts

The Believer: Obama Gets the Left Closer to God  by Daniel Flynn

Egoism vs Natural Rights Theory by Wendy McElroy

Whitey Need Not Apply  by Pat Buchanan

Authentic Black Conservatism  by Dylan Waco

Federal Slavery  by William Norman Grigg

“Common Knowledge” About World War Two  by Richard Spencer

Was Wilhelm Just Another W?    by Paul Gottfried

Central Banks Warn of Great Depression

A Free Market Agenda for Healthcare Reform  by Kevin Carson

Jewish Neoconservatives  by Daniel Koffler

Medical-Industrial Complex Supports Ban on Midwifery

McCain’s Police State and Military-Industrial Complex

Demagoguery Works  by Charley Reese