Posted June 4, 2002

European Immigration

[Regarding Christopher Montgomery's reply to Richard O.'s letter, posted May 27:]

You are incredibly naive. No European nation has had serious, open debate about immigration in which the average citizen can participate. And no European citizen has voted directly on the issue in his/her own country. You said that Brussels doesn't set immigration rules, that these are set by individual countries themselves. Maybe officially, but not in reality. If any EU member country dares to hold such a vote (everyone knows what the results would be), this country and its citizens will be called racists, fascists, haters, xenophobes , and much worse. This country will be an impediment to globalization and will suffer sanctions, boycotts, and perhaps even military action. The leaders know this, the population knows this. That is why they are afraid to make waves, except for the few individuals that dare speak out. Don't you understand that the PC position is the only one that's acceptable today?

~ Richard O.

Christopher Montgomery replies:

It's a bad habit when the debate doesn't go your way to suggest that there hasn't been one. Every European country has parties, from the respectable (whether British Labour or French RPR) who will advocate precious little new immigration, to the repulsive (the BNP, Sinn Fein), who would entertain notions of 'sending home' [sic] fellow countrymen of the wrong colour. The people have seen them, heard them, and, rightly, opted not to vote for the latter. I'm not saying that you think such things, but what is your gripe? Every single governing party in the 1st world stands on a platform of restricting new primary immigration - the only beef any of you who agree with them on that can have is, are they implementing this policy efficiently? I don't think they should have the policy, so I'm bit left out of this fight. But to repeat one more time: being against immigration, and indeed, sceptical of that which has already happened, does not make one a racist. Likewise, being well disposed to immigration does not make one Pol Pot in a tweed jacket.

Stock Prices

Re: your reprinting Newsday.com's article on the FBI agent and the shortseller under the banner that they "manipulated" stock prices:

My dictionary defines "manipulation" as "the artful management or control, as by shrewd use of influence, especially in an unfair or fraudulent way." Even granting that the shortseller shrewdly used fraudulently gained information to his advantage, it's a real stretch to say that he either "managed" or "controlled" the markets for the shocks he shorted. After all, there is no report that he forced anyone else to buy the stocks that he figured might fall based on his ill-gotten information. The buyers on the long side of the market probably had no knowledge of the problems besetting their companies, but that is their fault, not the fault of the shortseller for failing to disclose his superior knowledge.

Of course, the FBI has a justifiable legal grievance against the agent who illegally divulged the information; and the companies probably have a legal complaint against the FBI for allowing its agent to give away the information. The companies also have valid legal complaints against the shortseller, who would have to disgorge his gains in favor of the companies if their complaints were upheld. However, neither the SEC nor other investors can bring an action against him, at least in libertarian law. If there's no victim, there's no crime; and other investors were not victimized, unlike the companies, none of which have been proven guilty of any crimes yet.

(Of course, American taxpayers have a criminal complaint against the government for stealing from them, but that's another issue. They also have legal gripes against the FBI and SEC, two alpha-crime agencies.)

~ Bill Stepp, Anarchist Antidefamation League

Webmaster Eric Garris replies:

Point taken, I changed the headline. The key part of the story is that the agent is being accused of having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Thank you for your attention to this.

A 'Melting Pot' is Unnatural

[Regarding M. Cerritelli's letter of May 30:]

I don't understand exactly what you are refuting in my letter [of May 27]. You urge me to consider reading, yet, in all the reading I've done on historical matters, race is an extremely important issue, primarily in 1st person documents.

In my humble view, there are clear differences in the races whether it be facial structure, skeletal configuration, hormone levels, obviously skin color, and so on. Understand that I am merely pointing out differences, not inferiorities. Many studies have also shown that racial characteristics have been gradually defined by environments, such as ebony skin reacting favorably to harsh ultraviolet rays in the tropics.

To expand briefly, cultures living in isolated, varied environments also develop different customs and beliefs. I believe history has shown that combining various races, forcefully or peacefully, is detrimental to the previously homogeneous nation.

And again, to reiterate, I don't believe any race is inferior to any other. I simply believe that a "melting pot," such as we have in America, just won't work in the long run. People as a whole feel more comfortable with there own kind, and the point that is so often missed is this, in my opinion: Prejudice and overt hatred isn't the motivation to racial separation. Bluebirds flock with bluebirds and not robins or geese, the reason being it's just their instinctive natures. Robins don't hate bluebirds (to my knowledge!), they simply coexist separately. I believe people tend to generally react the same way, and current immigration actions in this country have not only eschewed that tendency, but reversed it completely. It's unnatural, and I believe, will fail, as it has failed in the past.

~ Kevin G.

Puerto Rico

[Regarding "Puerto Rico Libre -- and Good Riddance," by George Szamuely's column of September 14, 1999:]

I do not feel as a fellow Puerto Rican that the article written was fair. Many Puerto Ricans feel that we are misjudged. Never did we ask to be a part of the U.S.

~ Avian D.

Credit the Simpsons

What a bummer that Paul Gottfried "A Neocon Sneer Campaign Against Europe" failed to credit the Simpsons for the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." That the intellectually challenged Jonah Goldberg gets the attention for using this phrase is even more disconcerting. In spite of this, Gottfried's piece kicks ass. How can any thinking individual not see through the highly transparent imperial rhetoric of the neo-cons? Barnes quote about America being "nationalist, religious and martial" was breathtaking. Aren't these the qualities attributed to what Barnes would view as our current enemies? Oh, I forgot, they don't matter because they're not Americans and we must conquer them and show them the way. If they struggle against us, then they are terrorists and must be eliminated if America is going to rid the world of evil. For America in all her splendid militaristic glory can do no wrong. Maybe someday, after our warring Presidents stop ramming that concept down the throats of weaker nations, America might understand the value of peacetime, and stop creating vicious enemies which inevitably erupt along the body strewn road to empire.

~ Jennifer Gritt, TheNewAmerican.com

Specific Warnings

It seems to me that no-one outside of a few of the "conspiracy theorists" have yet asked the proper questions concerning the "warnings" which were floating around prior to September 11. It seems to me that the most important questions do not concern who knew what and what did they do about it before 9/11, but rather, knowing just the little bit we know now about what was known and who knew it, why is someone not asking about what was done during the more than one hour in which it was known that four airliners had been hijacked, during which their paths were being tracked by agents of the FAA and others, especially after the first had slammed into the WTC. After the notification of the first plane crashing into the WTC, it is a hideous lie to suggest that the "warnings" were "not specific" enough to take some sort of action. I suggest that if one examines the actions which were taken after 8:30am on September 11, including those of the president, the FAA, the Pentagon and others, one would discover the real story about the "warnings."

~ Rocky E.

Not a Small Matter

In an interview by Kandea Mosley of the Ithaca Journal ... published May 25, Army Private Matt Guckenheimer told of orders to deliberately target women and children. He said,"If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them."

This clearly contradicts the many statements coming from the Pentagon about the conduct of the war ... the deliberate killing of women and children ... is a war crime.

This news did not receive much attention anywhere? Why is there not much coverage of and commentaries about this?

I think Antiwar.com should devote more to raise this issue. This issue should not be allowed to pass as if it were a small matter.

~ Salem S.