Posted March 26, 2002

Threats

Mike Achenbach ["Move," March 20], in referring to "the freedoms bought with our troops' blood," reaffirms one of the central tenets of the official state ideology: all wars engaged in by the American state, by definition, are "to defend our freedom."

On closer inspection, all the foreign "threats" faced by the U.S. over the last fifty years involved what some country on the other side of the world wanted to do within 100 miles of its own borders. It kind of reminds me of the old Roman logic by which any country resisting incorporation into the Empire was an "aggressor."

But what foreign enemy, including the Cold War USSR, was even remotely as much of a threat to our freedoms as the extra-constitutional national security state created by Truman? As incredible as it now seems, there was actually a time when "conservatives" considered standing armies a threat to liberty, and believed imperial adventure was inconsistent with the survival of our constitutional tradition.

The real people who risked their lives for our freedom were the anti-authoritarian hell-raisers right here at home, who resisted the centers of political and economic power. Our liberty is not something given to us by a benevolent state. It is something that the threat of popular resistance forces the state to recognize.

~ Kevin Carson

Possible Explanation

Thank you so very much for the great articles you have been writing. I will be sending in another contribution this weekend.

As for . . . [Justin Raimondo's] column today [March 22], you say that there are two possible explanations:

"The Israelis knew, but didn't tell us, [...] or: The Israelis knew and did tell us, but the incompetence of the US government got in the way of effective preventive action."

The conspiracy theorist in me says that there is one more possible explanation:

The Israelis knew and told a specific individual or handful of individuals. Those individuals then consciously chose to ignore the information as a calculated first step in a larger plan to do exactly what is being done to this country today, and what is about to be done to the world in the near future.

No one would have thought that FDR would actively provoke the Japanese into killing a couple of thousand men just to get us into WWII. No one would have thought that Wilson would have endangered the lives of hundreds of innocent ship passengers by shipping munitions to England and provoking Germany. Both (or something very close) are true as we now know.

Anyway, only time will tell as to which is right. For the sake of America, I hope that the complacent sheep are at least stirred a little bit by whatever proves to be the case.

Keep up the great work.

~ David S.

Zionism

Justin says that he is not hostile to Zionism per se because it is not inherently racist ("The Truth, at Last," March 22). True enough, but Zionism is inherently statist, so libertarians should oppose Zionism per se. The morality of the American government's role in the founding of the Zionist state is well discussed in John W. Mulhall, America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role (Los Angeles: Deshon Press, 1995).

~ Bill Stepp, Anarchist Antidefamation League

Another Question

There's another question begging -- screaming -- in the wake of Justin Raimondo's analysis ("The Truth At Last"), to wit: If these Israeli kids had even an inkling that the WTC attack was coming, how is it that the investigative services of the United States (for which we pay a fortune) did not?

~ Jon C., New York

Good Politics

Ron Paul should run for President of The United States.

Maybe he could teach those fools in Washington what good Politics are. Seems he is the only one who has enough sense to think things out and speak the truth. The rest hide behind each other with no public comments such as this.

~ Ida H.

Bridge Blair

Tony Blair is one of the very few British Premiers who has favoured both Europe and America in almost equal measure. Margaret Thatcher was very much pro-American and anti-European whilst Ted Heath was, of course, very much the other way. As a simple member of the opposition Labour party in 1983, Blair was identified by the new forces within the movement as being the ultimate conciliator -- a unifying agent around which old and new elements (socialist versus liberal) could rally.

Blair was groomed quietly whilst Neil Kinnock took the role of cannon fodder, attacking the old elements of the party that would not yield to the new centralist tendency. Kinnock was rewarded by being made a European commissioner, nominated by his supposed arch-rival the Conservative Prime Minister John Major, and despite a hiccup in the plans when the traditional element voted in the wrong man (John Smith -- who died of a heart attack a year later) Blair was made leader of the opposition.

Tony Blair has another unique feather in his cap. He is the only Labour leader in history who in opposition gained the support of the British media en mass, especially our virulent tabloid press. They have a track record for backing the government (don't insult the boss!) even when Labour of course, but they are Conservative to the core. Why did they suddenly switch sides when Blair became the PM in waiting?

Blair is the bridge between the United States and Europe -- two of the 3 Orwellian power blocks needed to form the NWO. The Euro has now made over 12 countries act as one economically and Europe will, within a decade, rival the United States in terms of economic power. The third block, that of Africa/Asia will come as the natural "free-market" response to the other two.

Never overlook Blair as the tool of common usage. He is too well connected to be anything but the gunpowder of any future plot.

~ Dean Rogers, Manchester, UK

Special Task Force

Just look what had happened since the Bush administration came to power on a difference of few votes. I wonder where are we going and I wonder if this is the right way to solve the world's problems. The money being spent on the war effort could have built Afghanistan twice over. Where is the money coming from? Surely higher taxes....

Wars never solved anything; the terrorists could have been hunted one-by-one by having a special task force that deals with it, like Israel did in hunting the Nazi war criminals, without going to war with the country that provided shelter for them.

~ George D., UK