days, alas, are gone forever. Militarism, like every other
institution in our rotten culture, has gone politically correct.
The War Party has modernized, updated and streamlined itself,
and, most importantly, it has learned to speak a different
language: the language of "human rights," multiculturalism,
and loony leftism. The "hawks" and the Colonel Blimps
of old are gone, replaced by such notables as Rep. Barney
Frank and Noam Chomsky.
CALL BOYS TO DOUGHBOYS
Frank, until recently famous for his taste in call-boys, has
now become one of the leading lights of the War Party. Having
succeeded, at least in part, in his crusade for gays in the
military, Frank has recently seemed all too eager to show
how this new gay-friendly army can perform in action, so to
speak. "An army of lovers can never be defeated"
or so the ancient Greeks thought, and during the Kosovo war
the leading congressional voice of Greek love could hardly
wait to put this old adage to the test. Now he takes to the
House floor and bellows that "the government of Indonesia
should be made to understand the terrible consequences it
will pay if it continues the barbarous oppression of the people
of East Timor." Ah, and what price is that? Frank is
fuzzy on the details, but clear about the moral "right"
of the U.S. to intervene, unilaterally if necessary:
GREAT MILITARY LEADER SPEAKS
those who say we must withhold, let us look at Serbia and
Kosovo. The moral case for an international force intervening
in East Timor is as great as the moral case was in Kosovo,
and the legal case is greater. We ignored Serbia's claim of
sovereignty over Kosovo and gave in to the moral imperative
to save people. In Indonesia, the government in power held
a referendum. Overwhelmingly, in the face of great intimidation,
the brave people of East Timor voted for independence. That
gives us an even stronger right to send a multinational force
MORALISTS LIKE THIS, WHO NEEDS IMMORALISTS?
it a hate crime to remember that Frank was charged, some years
ago, with allowing a prostitution ring to be run out of his
home? His live-in lover of the time, apparently an entrepreneurial
type, used Frank's home and office to operate a male bordello
with Frank's knowledge if not his permission. Now,
all my nice liberal readers are no doubt saying to themselves:
"Oh, come on now, Justin! How is any of this relevant
to the matter at hand?" I'll tell you how: because Frank
has now poses as a moralist. There is no case for US intervention
in East Timor, only a "moral case," as Frank puts
it. Is it wrong to question the bona fides of this self-proclaimed
WILL IT END?
that's not all: What is the basis of this moral claim on the
US military, anyhow? Well, it seems they had an election
in East Timor, and they voted on it, and so you see
it's all settled: we have to go in. One can only wonder
where it will all end. Will province after province the world
over vote to secede from the "oppressive" (i.e.
poor) motherland, and place themselves under the protection
of the US and the UN?
have another question: Much moral weight is given to the fact
that the East Timorese voted for independence in a referendum,
but how come only they get to vote on the matter? Since
the United States is going to wind up sending the troops and
paying the bills, how come we don't get to vote
and I don't mean in Congress, but in a popular referendum,
just like the East Timorese? Well then, let's hear it: All
those in favor of setting up another US protectorate, this
time in South Asia, yet another mini-quagmire from which there
is no escape, say "Aye!"
SAY IT AIN'T SO!
such a vote were ever taken, the nays would be deafening
which is why it will never happen, short of a second
American revolution. In the meantime, the elites in government
and the media (or do I repeat myself?) determine what is best
for the world in our name. And as their policies become more
bizarre, more disconnected from any genuine American interest,
so the spokesmen for the War Party take a turn for the worst.
An even better example than the "moralist" Barney
Frank, the nation's leading sodomite on Capitol Hill, is the
nation's leading leftist curmudgeon, none other than the ferociously
antiestablishment Professor Noam Chomsky, who has made a career
out of blaming "Western imperialism" for all the
world's problems. Now, without acknowledging any change in
his position, Chomsky
has made a complete turnabout, and openly calls on the
evil Western imperialists to send in the Marines, to wit:
SELLOUT IN HIS OWN WORDS
changing the former green light to a new red light does not
suffice, Washington and its allies have ample means at their
disposal: termination of arms sales to the killers; initiation
of war crimes trials against the army leadership not
an insignificant threat; cutting the economic support funds
that are, incidentally, not without their ambiguities; putting
a hold on Western energy corporations and multinationals,
along with other investment and commercial activities. There
is also no reason to shy away from peacekeeping forces to
replace the occupying terrorist army, if that proves necessary.
Indonesia has no authority to 'invite' foreign intervention,
as President Clinton urged, any more than Saddam Hussein had
authority to invite foreign intervention in Kuwait, or Nazi
Germany in France in 1944 for that matter. If dispatch of
peacekeeping forces is disguised by such prettified terminology,
it is of no great importance, as long as we do not succumb
to illusions that prevent us from understanding what has happened,
and what it portends."
being the leading critic of US interventionism on the Left
and, by the way, a leading apologist for the crimes
of leftist regimes in Southeast Asia Chomsky now urges
the former "colonialists" to use their power, economic
and military, to secure East Timorese independence. Not only
that, but he denies that there is any parallel to Kosovo
on the grounds that the Indonesian invasion was never legitimate
and went unrecognized by the UN. But the UN recognizes the
old colonial power, Portugal, as the legal suzerain of East
Timor is that what Chomsky supports, a return
to Portuguese rule? There is indeed an East Timorese faction
that advocates reunion with Portugal, but it is somewhat startling
to imagine that the world's leading opponent of Western colonialism
has become a publicist for this position.
PIPSQUEAKS FOR WAR
course, what Chomsky and his leftist pals over at Z Magazine
really want is for the leftist Fretilin guerrilla insurgency
to come to power, and they are perfectly willing to throw
the "principle" of non-interventionism overboard
in order to achieve "socialism" even if it
is socialism on one-half of a tiny impoverished island. Note
the militant tone of the above quote: If we must "prettify"
intervention, then so be it but let's get on with it,
he bellows. Who does this pipsqueak pinko college professor
think he is General Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay?
and don't worry about any "illusions" we might have,
Noam especially when it comes to "humanitarians"
such as yourself, whose blindness to the crimes of the Khmer
Rouge is well-known. That a similar case of moral astigmatism
afflicts you when it comes to the crimes of the leftist Fretilin
is not all that surprising. And, oh yes, we know all too well
"what has happened," Noam, as well as what it "portends"
for the future. What has happened is that you have sold out
the cause of peace and nonintervention assuming you
ever embraced it and will spend the rest of your career
as a leftist "curmudgeon" calling for the US to
intervene on behalf of your favorite leftist rebels. Naturally,
Noam's preferred instrument is the United Nations, but in
an emergency situation and in a radio interview, referring
to the situation in East Timor, Chomsky declared that "there
isn't much time to do anything about it" the new
interventionists of the Left are willing to take what they
HYSTERIA IN AUSTRALIA
isn't just Chomsky, and his tiny band of crunchy-granola leftists,
who have sold out the cause of peace and opposition to US
intervention. At least in Australia, a mass leftist warmongering
movement has frighteningly enough taken to the
streets. On September 11, the
Agence France Presse reports that more than 20,000 protesters
poured into the streets of Sydney, Australia, in support of
"urgent action" in East Timor. Leftist speakers
representing the unions and the left-wing of the opposition
Labor Party denounced the "gutless" Australian government
for not intervening forcefully fast enough. Screaming belligerent
slogans such as "Howard You Coward" and "East
Timor Blood on Howard's Hands," the warlike socialists
broke into Prime Minister John Howard's Sydney office.
"UN in, Indonesia out," the assorted leftists smashed
the sliding glass doors until they gave way and occupied the
office for all of five minutes. Instead of being arrested,
they were allowed to leave voluntarily, and did so without
incident. Boy, how times have changed: yesterday, the radical
left was getting busted for defying the war machine, but now
that they have taken up the cause of war as their own they
get treated quite differently by the cops, escorted in and
out of their various "protests" by a cordon of ever-so-helpful
and kindly officers. How cozy!
more disgusting was the hyperventilated rhetoric coming from
the speakers' platform, where a whole bevy of leftist politicos,
union thugs, and "solidarity activists" held forth
for a solid five hours. One by one they called for Howard
to bring out the troops, bomb Jakarta to a smoking ruin, and
boycott all Indonesian products a slogan particularly
popular with the unions, who would ban all South Asian exports
to Australia if they could. The head of the largest trade
union in the country threatened Australian retailers with
picket lines and worse if they dared stock Indonesian goods.
The unions were there in force, and effectively shut the whole
city down while their leaders whipped the crowd into a war
frenzy fraught with racist overtones and permeated with protectionist
poison. Never mind all this nonsense about waiting for the
UN, the US, or least of all Indonesian permission, speaker
after speaker declared: in short, why not start a war with
Indonesia, and be done with it?
the real character of the Left as authoritarian and naturally
glorying in war comes out in all its ugliness. Here is the
real face of the socialist movement. That the adherents of
class war changed so readily and easily into advocates of
plain old ordinary nation-to-nation war is shocking only to
those whose historical memory doesn't extend much further
back than the Vietnam war.
wasn't all that long ago from the perspective of history,
that is that the Left was agitating for US entry into
World War II with the same vehemence that Chomsky & Co.
now call for US entry into the South Asian quagmire. The Commies
of yesteryear wanted American troops to open up what they
called a "second front," in order to take the pressure
off the great socialist fatherland, the Soviet Union, which
was fighting desperately for its survival. If the Soviets
and the Nazis had been allowed to destroy each other, Communism
would not have emerged from the war as a viable movement,
never mind triumphant over all of Eastern Europe. In alliance
with American Anglophiles, and certain business interests,
the Communists in the US and their army of fellow travelers
were the biggest warmongers on the block. And as it was then,
so it shall be again ...
SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
this time, there is no Soviet Union to save, no Kremlin whose
orders are taken without question or dissent. There is just
the World's Only Superpower, the one-and-only United States
of America, and the essentially hollow shell of the UN. "Idealists"
like Chomsky want to fill the UN shell with substance, and
dream of an international army consisting of American
troops serving under foreign commanders, in obedience to the
principles of multiculturalism and internationalism
enforcing the will of the UN in every corner of the globe.
Others dream of a US empire, unilaterally imposing its will
on a resentful world. The ends are the same: left and right-internationalists
differ only in the means, the instrument, to accomplish their
common goal. That is what international politics and the foreign
policy debate in this country has come down to.
THE SECESSIONIST CARD
here is where the secessionist angle comes into play. For
secession is not exactly a principle that one would expect
statists of any persuasion to embrace, and indeed as a principle
it is popular on the anti-statist Right. But worshippers at
the altar of the UN, such as Chomsky and his ilk, are for
secession on the grounds that breaking down the nation-state
is in itself a good thing. Nationalism has long been the enemy
of socialist movements everywhere: if a one-world socialist
government is your goal, then nationalists are your natural
enemies, and will fight you every step of the way. Internationalists
can support secession on the strategic grounds of "divide
and conquer": if the nations of the world are reduced
to tiny statelets, then who will stand against their New World
pattern could not be clearer: from the Caucasus to the Balkans
to the sprawling archipelago of South Asia, the internationalists
are supporting the atomization of the existing nation-states.
A world splintered into thousands of principalities, "autonomous
regions," and city-states is far easier for a single
superpower to dominate than a collection of relatively larger
and potentially unruly rivals.
OUR TURN COMES
wonder, though, when it comes the turn of the US, whether
Americans will take kindly to the prospect of national dissolution
in favor of some purportedly higher international authority.
This principle of internationalism, applied consistently,
leads logically to the concept of a referendum held by the
citizens of, say, California or Texas on the question of whether
they prefer autonomy, independence, or continued "oppression"
at the hands of the US government which after all conquered
both territories from Mexico in an act of imperialist aggression
no less blatant than that committed by Indonesia against East
Timor in 1975. Of course we can count on Noam Chomsky, and
probably Barney Frank, to come down on the side of the rebels
who by that time will be able to claim the insurgents
represent the "will of the majority" due to the
demographic consequences of uncontrolled immigration, both
legal and illegal. But what about the rest of the country?
Are they ready for the Disunited States of America?
THE NATION-STATE "FINISHED"?
of immigration, Peter Brimelow reveals in his excellent book,
Nation, a conversation he had with Wall Street
Journal editor Robert L. Bartley, in which the latter
declared that nothing can be done about illegal immigration
because "the destiny of Europe has already been decided
in North Africa [because of the population explosion there]."
Brimelow replied: "'That's a poor look-out for the nation-state.'"
"'Oh yes,' he said calmly, 'I think the nation-state
is finished.'" [p. 292.]
internationalism triumphant, from the Wall Street Journal
to Z Magazine, will anyone mourn the loss of our national
sovereignty, when the time to surrender it comes? Wake up,
Americans: It isn't just loony lefties like Chomsky, and the
pathetic lisping Barney Frank, who would willingly switch
their allegiance to some supranational authority in the brave
new world of the internationalist future. When the time comes
to sell the heritage of the Founders down the river
in the name of multiculturalism, "human rights,"
and the "right" of self-determination, of course
the business elites along with the socialist college
professors and their student spawn, will do it without regrets
and without looking back. United, at last, in a common project,
globalists of the left and the right will merge into a mighty
coalition and we can see, in the present "crisis,"
how and why it is already beginning to take shape.