August 18, 2000
Taiwan independence advocates would have an impressionable American public believe that Taiwan independence is a "grass roots movement reflecting Taiwan’s democratic will of the majority."
Classical liberal and libertarian anti-interventionists who happened to catch Taiwan independence "spokespersons" being interviewed on CNN this past week, or who surf the pages of the neocon Weekly Standard or liberal New Republic know what I’m talking about.
In fact the Taiwan independence movement is nothing of the sort.
Historians of western European history have noted wryly that, toward its end, "the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
The same could be said of the "Taiwan independence movement," which from its postwar inception has been neither Taiwanese, nor independent, nor a bona fide grass roots movement.
The Taiwan independence movement is not a grass roots movement, but an elitist agenda. An antidemocratic, realpolitik agenda, imposed from the top down by three foreign policy elites:
A Quisling Nomenklatura in Taipei, Samurai Fascists in Tokyo, and Benevolent Global Hegemonists in Washington.
The aims of these three elites sometimes coincide, and sometimes collide. Taiwan "independence" thrives in the pestilential swamp where the three elites’ special interests overlap.
These elites’ power to foist their private agendas on the wider public is concentrated, focused. Their own citizenry’s power to resist, let alone overturn these elites’ agendas, on the other hand, is dilute, diffused.
These elites have no objections to framing their Taiwan independence agenda in populist terms to bolster public support, or neutralize popular opposition.
But make no mistake, these elites rule not by the consent of the governed, but by the whim of the governors. When push comes to shove, when ordinary ROC citizens get in the way of the juggernaught known as the Taiwan Lobby, do not delude yourself about whose privileges have priority, and whose rights will be steamrollered.
The first of these three foreign policy elites is an obsequious Quisling Nomenklatura in Taipei, which sees itself as Japanese, not Chinese.
Not ordinary, decent, hardworking Japanese, but the worst, most treacherous elements of Japanese society, Japan’s fanatical right-wing militarists. Prominent among them are Rape of Nanking denier Shintaro Ishihara, neofascist Governor of Tokyo.
This Quisling Nomenklatura’s raison d’être, its prime directive, its niche in the malignant political ecology of Taiwan independence, is to act as willing puppets, proxies, "front men," for Samurai Fascists in Tokyo and Benevolent Global Hegemonists in Washington, both of whom need pretexts for the revival of naked gunboat diplomacy against China.
Many China "experts," handicapped by psychological naiveté when it comes to the mind set of Taiwan’s separatist elite, have been baffled by Lee Teng-hui’s frequently erratic behavior.
Former ROC legislator Fu Kuen-chen, ROC legislator Fung Hu-hsiang, and dissident scholar Li Ao, Taiwan’s own Vaclav Havel and current nominee for the Nobel Prize in Literature have noted on the other hand, just how easy it is to understand Lee Teng-hui, once you appreciate how he sees the world.
If you want to understand Lee Teng-hui’s position on just about any issue under the sun, simply ask yourself "How would a right-wing Japanese militarist determined to reconquer Taiwan and transform it back into a Japanese colony see the issue?"
You will then have your answer.
Consider the following news headline, which flew beneath the radar of most China-watchers, but speaks volumes, providing one is familiar with the context and able to read between the lines.
"ROC President’s New Book Rolls off the Press in Japan, Tokyo, July 25 (CNA)"
The book is Asia’s Strategy. It is the third book to be written by Lee Teng-hui in Japanese, to be published first in Japan and to hit the bestseller lists first in Japan. It is the third book of its kind to be be translated into Chinese and published in Taiwan only after making its debut in Japan.
Published by the Kobunsha Publishing Company of Tokyo, "Asia’s Strategy" was in fact ghostwritten by Mineo Nakajima, president of the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
A 250 page volume nominally authored by a Chinese president, presumably representing the national interests of the Republic of China, was in fact written by a Japanese rightist, in Japanese, published first in Japan for the edification of Japanese readers.
Within this Japanese rightist authored and published anti-China tract, not the first but the third of its kind, Lee vows to "devote the rest of his life to strengthening relations between the people of Taiwan and Japan." Not the people of China and Japan, mind you, but the people of Taiwan and Japan.
Do I really need to say more?
See also "Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome."
During the four months following Chen Shui-bian’s narrow victory, hopes have run high. Maybe, just maybe "A-Bian," as he is in the habit of referring to himself, in the third person, would be more pragmatic, more realistic, more reasonable than his Kamikaze pilot predecessor Lee Teng-hui.
Lately those hopes have fallen in synch with Taiwan’s stock market.
"Taiwanization" is a Quisling euphemism for Japanization. "Taiwanization" is a Trojan horse whose belly conceals the forces of Japanese neocolonialism.
According to an August 5 Straits Times article "It’s called ‘Taiwanisation," "under President Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party, the Taiwanisation process begun during President Lee Teng-hui’s last term, would continue and even gather pace... Chinese history would be taught as foreign history."
On inauguration day a pleased as punch A-Bian, grinning ear to ear, went on television and exhorted the ROC public to "Buy stocks!"
Their democratic will frustrated by "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui’s manipulation of the election, ROC voters, millions of whom are also investors, promptly held an unofficial runoff election of their own. This time they voted with their NT Dollars. They phoned their brokers and yelled "Sell!"
An election ballot for Taiwan’s presidential election may have be free for the asking, but shares of Taiwan Semiconductor are not.
The TAIEX has slipped steadily since Chen Shui-bian was elected on March 18 and inaugurated on May 20. From a 52 week high of 10,393, Taiwan’s Weighted Index has fallen to a recent low of 7670.
The problem is not Taiwan’s market fundamentals, which are relatively healthy. The problem is Taiwan’s political climate, which is anything but.
The problem is Taiwan’s arrogant separatist nomenklatura, which cares more about converting 23 million citizens of the Republic of China into citizens of a "Republic of Taiwan" against their will, from the top down, than it does about protecting their lives and livelihood.
These numbers, alarming as they are, do not begin to tell the whole story behind public lack of confidence in the pro-independence Chen regime. Lee Teng-hui and now Chen Shui-bian have been propping up TAIEX share prices for the past several years. They have been desperately throwing money misappropriated from government pension funds and Post Office Certificates of Deposit at the problem, to little avail.
Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura is nearing the end of its rope. Over half the available cash reserves available to defend the TAIEX have already been frittered away.
Investor confidence remains shaky.
All that is necessary for Taiwan’s stock market to drop off a precipice into uncontrolled freefall is another separatist induced political crisis. The remaining funds would be utterly inadequate to stem the panic selling that would ensue. Millions of ordinary ROC citizens’ hard-earned wealth would be wiped out in a single trading week.
The astonishingly accurate Rule of Thumb for Lee Teng-hui applies equally to Annette Lu, Chen Shui-bian’s vice-president, whom former political prisoner Li AO refers to as "that crazy woman," "that mad harridan."
Annette Lu recently attended a lovefest hosted by right-wingers in Japan, where she gushed about how grateful she was that Japan defeated China during Japan’s 1894 war of aggression against China and occupied Taiwan for 50 years, because "efficient" Japanese colonial governance spared Taiwan from "incompetent Chinese rule."
Annette Lu considers herself a feminist. Ms. Lu will expound at great length to anyone who will listen why she deserves to be considered the "Godmother of Taiwanese Feminism."
Ms. Lu did not comment on whether the "comfort women" of Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines, who were abducted at bayonet point by the Japanese Imperial Army and subjected to gang rape by up to 60 Japanese soldiers a day, who were promptly executed if they refused to comply, shared her nostalgia for "efficient" Japanese colonial governance.
Ms. Lu did not comment on whether the 300,000 unarmed civilian victims of Japan’s 1937 Rape of Nanking, including women who were first raped, then disemboweled, then photographed as "souvenirs," whose infant children who were tossed into the air and impaled on the tips of Japanese soldiers’ bayonets, shared her warm recollections of Japanese "efficiency."
According to a Straits Times report Annette Lu met with Koki Kobayashi, a member of Japan’s Parliament in Taipei today. She declared that Japan should create a coalition of Northeast Asian nations that would include Taiwan and South Korea, but not China. She "did not say why she did not suggest allowing China to join the proposed group," but "the Japanese lawmaker agreed with Ms Lu."
Taiwan independence zealots, demagogues and buffoons do not rate the appellation "hard-liners." Normally an epithet, "hard-liner" flatters them. Despite negative connotations, "hard-liner" implies positive attributes like firmness, toughness and resolve. Taiwan independence "hard-liners" however, are anything but firm, tough and resolute.
Pro-reunification legislators recently confronted "hard-line" DPP legislator Lin Chung-mo on a live "McLaughlin Group" type talk show on Taiwan television. They demanded to know what DPP "hard-liners" proposed to do if DDP separatism provoked a shooting war with the mainland.
Lin’s reply, without the slightest hesitation or hint of irony, was "Heng jian dan. Bao ze mei guo de da tueh."
"Very simple. Hide behind America’s skirts."
"Bao ze mei guo de DA tueh" is literally "hug America’s thigh," but "cling to America’s skirts" or "hide behind America’s skirts" is more idiomatic.
Lin’s attitude was typical. The only thing atypical was Lin’s candor. Most Taiwan separatists know better than to flash their "Ace in the Hole" so casually, so freely.
The term for "independence" in Chinese is "du li." Du means alone. Li means to stand. Du li means "to stand alone." Taiwan’s separatist elite never tires of asserting that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation."
Maybe it’s just me. But strident Taiwan separatist assertions that Taiwan is "in-dependent," i.e., "not dependent," and "stands alone," are a little hard to reconcile with the image of the Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura as terrified children in diapers, sucking on their thumbs and clinging to Uncle Sammy’s thigh for dear life.
Political cartoonists could have a field day.
The second foreign policy elite is comprised of diehard Samurai Fascists in Tokyo who have never forsaken their megalomaniac dreams of a Japan-dominated "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Twelve of the nineteen members of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s Cabinet, and the Governors of Tokyo and Osaka, are Taiwan independence fellow travelers.
This has not escaped the notice of Annette Lu, who urged Chen Shui-bian "not to pass up this rare opportunity to strengthen ties with Japan." For Taiwan independence forces to place far more emphasis on relations with the United States, Lu warned, was "not necessarily a wise strategy."
The third and final leg of this unsavory triad of arrogant elites consists of our very own, homegrown "Benevolent Global Hegemonists," whose job is to be the Enforcer, the hired muscle, the leg-breakers for the Taipei and Tokyo elites.
Stimulus: Lee Teng-hui provokes a crisis in the Taiwan Straits.
Response: William Jefferson Clinton dispatches two carrier battle groups to the rescue.
The World’s Only Remaining Superpower, Madeleine Albright’s "Indispensable Nation," which "stands tall and sees further into the future," at the pinnacle of Charles Krauthammer’s "Unipolar Moment," is in the trenchant words of former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, being "played like a fiddle."
Pity the poor hegemonists.
What is uppermost in the hearts and minds of these foreign policy elites? What exactly is it that they’re after? What’s their angle?
Is it, as they never tire of assuring us in the oily tones of used car salesmen, heartfelt compassion for suffering of the Chinese people?
China has an estimated population of 1.329 billion. One point three billion on the mainland. Another twenty-three million on Taiwan. Another six million in Hongkong.
After a century and a half of humiliating abuse by foreign powers, the one feeling shared by China’s 1.329 billion people is relief. Relief that the Chinese people need no longer endure further abuse by the same foreign policy elites now affecting such tender concern for their well-being.
Does anybody believe Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura and their Samurai Fascists fellow travelers in Tokyo actually feel what China’s 1.329 billion people feel?
Or do they feel something very different?
Is the emotion they’re feeling instead, anxiety?
Anxiety that "bad karma" may be coming back to haunt them? Anxiety that what went around in the 19th century, may come around in the 21st? Anxiety that China may be, gasp, a superpower sometime during the 21st century? Perhaps even, God forbid, THE superpower of the 21st century?
The China Threat theorists should chill out.
China is neither Nazi Germany, nursing grievances about the unjust Treaty of Versailles, nor fascist Japan, nursing grievances about the unjust Treaty of Kanagawa.
See "A Republic, Not an Empire: The Conventional Wisdom is Wrong, Dead Wrong."
China does not thirst for revenge. The Chinese, like the Spanish, know that "living well is the best revenge," and that "an eye for an eye only makes everyone blind."
All China demands of the Tokyo and Washington elites is "Don’t tread on me!" Surely America, among all the nations of the world, ought to be able to understand that.
A Chinese expression says "those who engage in thievery assume others are out to rob them."
China demonizers, the dedicated, hardworking professional Sinophobes on the so-called "Blue Team" in particular, would do well to consider whether the panic they’re experiencing doesn’t originate in the dark recesses of their own subconscious.
Americans who want to know the true "democratic will of the Taiwan people" need only consult the results of the recent ROC presidential election of March 18, 2000.
Sixty-one percent of ROC voters who went to the polls voted AGAINST the candidate and party distinguished by their advocacy of Taiwan independence, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP.
So why did the pro-independence candidate win?
The reason Chen won, with a 39% plurality, was the anti-independence vote was split. Two anti-independence candidates, James Soong and Lien Chan, received 37% and 23% of the vote respectively.
But why was the anti-independence vote split?
The anti-independence vote was split because Newsweek’s "Mr. Democracy," Lee Teng-hui, then Chairman of the ruling KMT, wanted his own party’s candidates TO LOSE.
Millions of loyal KMT members wanted the immensely popular James Soong, former Governor of Taiwan Province, to run on a Soong/Lien or Lien/Soong ticket with then Vice-president Lien Chan. Such a ticket would have meant a landslide victory for two candidates opposed to Taiwan independence.
This was intolerable to Lee Teng-hui, who openly declared that he considered himself the Moses of Taiwan independence, and the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian his successor Joshua.
To ensure that his own party’s candidates LOST, KMT Chairman Lee deliberately blocked efforts to set up a Soong/Lien or Lien/Soong ticket, eventually forcing James Soong out of the party.
When Soong subsequently ran as an independent, he did so in the belief he could win, even with Lien splitting off part of his support. As the results show, he wasn’t far from wrong. He got 37% to Chen’s 39% and Lien’s 23%. He lost by a slim 2% margin.
But why did a candidate with less than an absolute majority win? Doesn’t the ROC have run-offs for presidential elections?
No it doesn’t.
Why the hell not?
The ROC doesn’t have run-offs for presidential elections because four years ago "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui and "Taiwan’s Son" Chen Shui-bian successfully blocked a New Party proposal to amend the ROC’s election laws.
Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura is painfully aware of how few voters support Taiwan independence. Dyed in the wool Taiwan separatists have never amounted to more than 15% of the island’s population.
A run-off election this March would have put the reformist, pro-reunification "mainlander" James Soong, not A-Bian, in the president’s office.
An absolute majority requirement would make it impossible for a pro-independence candidate to become president and impose a pro-independence agenda on the ROC electorate.
See "Taiwan’s Fraudulent Election."
If the ordinary man in the street actually yearned for Taiwan independence, why didn’t he vote for Chen Shui-bian of the pro-independence DPP?
Here was his chance to do so.
Was anybody stopping him?
More to the point, if the ordinary man in the street actually demanded Taiwan independence, why didn’t Chen Shui-bian ringingly affirm his previously expressed dream of declaring independence the moment he got into office, as part of his campaign platform?
Why instead did Chen promise that if elected, he absolutely, positively would NOT make the slightest move toward independence during his four year term?
Could it have been because during the runup to election day even DPP legislators and party officials were muttering under their breath how "Taidu shi piao fang du yao," or "Taiwan independence is box office poison?"
Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura knew this was their moment of truth. Obstinately cleave to "Taiwan independence forever!" and remain an opposition party, forever. Or uphold, or pretend to uphold Chinese reunification, and become the ruling party, now.
We all know what Chen chose.
At watershed moments in history, tiny but determined elites can and have decided the fates of millions, for good or for ill.
When Mao’s Communists defeated Chiang’s Nationalists in 1949, less than 5% of China’s population were members of the Chinese Communist Party. Most of China consisted of illiterate, apolitical peasants whose ideology began and ended with not wanting to starve to death.
The life and death struggle between communism and capitalism in 1949 China was a life and death struggle between two educated political elites.
Mao’s victory forced the Chinese mainland to take a tragic, three decade long detour down a socialist blind alley.
Fortunately Deng Xiaoping, the man whom Mao denounced as the "Number Two Capitalist Roader," saw the error of Mao’s dirigiste ways. Deng’s successor Jiang Zemin is dismantling China’s money-losing state owned enterprises as fast as humanly possible, and bringing mainland China back onto the path of free market capitalism.
China bashers, predictably, dismiss mainland China’s reforms as "too slow." Too slow? Compared to what?
No nation in history has reformed its economic system and improved the lives of as many of her people as swiftly as China has during the last two decades.
Sure, mainland China still has a long way to go, but let’s not pretend we don’t appreciate how astonishingly far she’s already come. Not only economically, but socially.
Beijing is arguably more tolerant toward private social conduct that doesn’t threaten China’s political stability, such as homosexuality, than authoritarian neoconservatives Gary Bauer or Jesse Helms.
"Taiwan doesn’t want to reunify with mainland China because it doesn’t want to live under totalitarian communism" just doesn’t cut it as an excuse any more.
Remember the epidemic of doomsday scenarios conjured up by professional China bashers within our liberal media and neocon think tanks?
PLA tanks rolling into Hongkong. Hongkong Democrats rounded up and jailed a la Tienanmen Square, Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring or the Hungarian Uprising.
Hongkong has been unmolested now for three straight years.
Even former British appointed Hongkong Governor Chris Patten, whom no one can accuse of being an apologist for Beijing, has freely acknowledged that Beijing has kept its word regarding Hongkong.
Hongkong Democrats were wrong in 1997 about Hongkong, and the DPP is wrong in 2000 about Taiwan.
Since inauguration Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu have defied a broad-based, grass roots public outcry demanding that they state unequivocally "I am Chinese."
They have refused to comply. They have bobbed and weaved. They have played lawerly word games.
Annette Lu’s mealy-mouthed response was a real gem, "If being Chinese means being a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, then I am not Chinese."
Excuse me Annette, but that wasn’t the question. The question was "Are you Chinese?"
How can the Vice-president of the Republic of China not be Chinese?
How can the Vice-president of these United States of America not be American?
What are patriotic Americans to make of an American politician who after being elected to the office of Vice-president of these United States of America, evades demands that he ringingly affirm "I am an American?"
What are patriotic Chinese to make of a Chinese politician who after being elected to the office of Vice-president of the Republic of China, evades demands that she ringingly affirm "I am Chinese?"
If Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu want to be "Taiwanese" and "Citizens of Taiwan" so badly, they should have declared their candidacy for President and Vice-president of the "Republic of Taiwan."
They should not have run, under false pretenses, for President and Vice-president of the Republic of China.
One of the eligibility requirements for President and Vice-president of the Republic of China is that the candidates be Chinese.
What can I say? The Chinese Constitution is funny that way.
The Republic of China is not "Taiwan." Taiwan is a Chinese province. Taiwan is merely one of thirty odd Chinese provinces.
The Republic of China on the other hand, is a nation. A nation whose territory includes not only Taiwan, but the Chinese mainland as well.
There is no nation on God’s green earth named Taiwan. There is only the Republic of China.
Article Four of the Constitution of the Republic of China spells out Taiwan’s legal status, clearly and unambigously. Both the Chinese mainland and all offshore Chinese islands, including Hainan Island and Taiwan, are inseparable parts of a single, unified, indivisible China.
Even though the mainland portion of China is currently under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, a rival Chinese political party, it is nevertheless an integral part of China.
Even though the mainland portion of China is referred to as the People’s Republic of China, it is not a foreign country.
Rather, the regions controlled by the CCP and the regions controlled by the KMT (and now DPP) are autonomous regions of a single, unified, indivisible China.
If the Taiwan separatist elite can accept this premise, then there is no problem.
If the Taiwan separatist elite can accept this premise, then there will be no Straits conflict.
If the Taiwan separatist elite can accept this premise, then everything else can be discussed, calmly, peacefully, between fellow Chinese.
If on the other hand, Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura remains obdurate, and persists in its efforts to turn China’s Taiwan province back into a Japanese colony, de facto or otherwise, then all bets are off.
Patriotic Chinese on both the mainland and on Taiwan, including within the ROC armed forces, will not sit idly by for fifty years, but will reunify China by force, NOW.
Then instead of One Country, Two Systems, Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura will find themselves living under One Country, One System.
They will no longer need to concern themselves about a shrinking New Taiwan Dollar, because they will be using Renmingbi.
Beijing can be rigid and inflexible in some areas, but if the Taiwan separatist elite will acknowledge the truth of One China, in earnest and not merely as a cover for ongoing covert separatism, then the Taiwan region of China will be left alone for a half century, while the mainland liberalizes politically and catches up economically.
At the end of this half century, both sides can then reunify peacefully, in the manner of east and west Germany, and in the near future, north and south Korea.
The ball is in Chen Shui-bian’s court. Is Chen going to obediently live out the role of Joshua assigned him by Lee Teng-hui? Or is he going to surprise us all and transform himself into a statesman on the order of Korea’s Kim Daejung? Only time will tell.
Beijing’s offer of "One Country, Two Systems, Fifty Years, No Change," is eminently reasonable and surprisingly accommodating. Yet Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura has repeatedly rejected it out of hand, based on utterly subjective, non-rational considerations.
Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura’s real sticking point, as they have conceded in their more candid moments is, "We don’t want to be Chinese."
Taipei’s Quisling nomenklatura prefers instead to be Japanese, or ersatz Japanese, as I noted in "Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome"
This, naturally, is not the objection Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura will cop to when western observers wonder why they continue to drag their feet, when German reunification has already made history, and Korean reunification is about to.
They know that their real motivation, however much it may ingratiate them with Japanese rightists, is extremely unlikely to elicit the slightest sympathy from Americans, certainly not veterans of WWII’s Pacific Theater. Certainly not survivors of the Bataan Death March. Certainly not survivors of the Japanese Imperial Army Unit 731’s ghastly "medical" experiments.
Instead Taipei’s Quisling Nomenklatura will recite the comforting catechism they know western sympathizers want to hear. Freedom, democracy, human rights, undying enmity to godless communism.
Whether individual American states have a right to secede from the Union is for Americans to decide. It is none of China’s business, and China to her credit has never presumed to make America’s internal politics her business. China’s Manchu court after all, did not to take sides in our American Civil War back in 1861.
Now would sanctimonious liberal and neocon interventionists Sam Gejdenson and Dana Rohrabacher return the favor, and butt out? Please?
China is not America. The Republic of China, or for that matter the People’s Republic of China, is not "These United States of America."
China is not a federation of sovereign states like "These United States of America," or even "The United States of America."
Rather, China is more akin to ONE of America’s fifty sovereign states. The Republic of China in this sense is more akin to The Sovereign State of Virginia or The California Republic.
Just as an individual county belonging to one of America’s sovereign states is an administrative region of that state, and does not have a constitutional right to secede from that state, so China’s provinces are administrative regions of a sovereign China, and do not have a constitutional right to secede from China.
Both the ROC and PRC versions of China’s Constitution agree. The Province of Taiwan is indivisible part of China. Taiwan does not have any constitutional right to secede from China.
The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution. There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One Taiwan Constitution.
Elected officials of the Republic of China who honor the"One China Principle" are patriots fulfilling their solemn duty to uphold the laws of the nation in which they hold office.
Elected officials of the Republic of China who violate the "One China Principle" by promoting Taiwan independence once they have gotten into office, are cowards guilty of high treason.
All patriotic, pro-reunification Chinese on Taiwan demand of their elected officials is that they uphold and defend the Constitution of the Repulic of China.
Is that really so much to ask?
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Have an e-gold account?
Contribute to Antiwar.com via e-gold.
Our account number is 130325
Your Contributions are now Tax-Deductible