Where current attitudes meet the traditions of our heritage
There is so much good in the worst of us, And
so much bad in the best of us, That it hardly becomes any of us To talk about the rest of us. Edward Wallis Hoch
Eric Hoffer on collectivism:
"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more
ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."
and Mass Manipulation
The threat of terrorism and the theatrics of bloodshed
are powerful tools in the psychological warfare that is leading up to a final conflagration. Watching Paris is Burningis a sober spectacular for the mass media brainwashed,
but for geopolitical observers in the know, the time proven and trusted strategy of using fear over security breaches works
every time. Missing in the scores of all the manipulated “situations” is a full appreciation of the grand view
of who really benefits from a high anxiety society that always succumbs into a greater level of a police state.
All Americans share
the shame of the charade that pretends to be the Federal Government. The governance class operates in a manner that thinks
the voice of the people is irrelevant. The current shutdown of public services is a selected con game run by "Federalies"
thugs. This latest extortion racket intends to break the spirit of reform and sensible opposition. The crony capitalist takeover
of the health care system only benefits the corporatists. The insurance companies stand to reap tribute from the masses, while
the special interest friends of the Obama syndicate get exemptions. Make no mistake, the den of thieves that defend Obamacare,
as the "law of the land" is a herd of habitual liars.
I am honored that you can make the time to reply to an article that was published in EtherZone. The original work appeared
in BREAKING ALL THE RULES and was written to bring attention to a concern that many traditional conservatives have; namely,
First off, I totally support your right to set whatever rules you wish for Free Republic. I also find in your response
several aspects of agreement, when applied to principles, upon which any geniune American should accept. Since we have never
corresponded before, it is all too possible that you may be reading into my comments more than you should.
Our concern is that the American people have embraced a hysteria of blind support for a foreign policy that actively
promotes an Empire and will lead to the total destruction of our Republic. Since you acknowledge that you wish to protect
the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, why are you supporting a war policy that guarantees perpetual intervention when the
real enemies of our nation reside in the forces that are creating this New World Order?
We all share the horror and sadness for those who perished, and wish to bring all criminals to justice, but do you
really believe that another bombing war will accomplish the goals that we both seek? The fundamental reasons that the U.S.
is hated throughout much of the world, rests upon a specious Internationalist Foreign Policy that has existed for over a hundred
years. If this is really wartime, have Congress declare war. That is exactly what the Constitution demands.
I trust you will agree that we can differ on this aspect of policy and conduct ourselves as gentlemen. You certainly
have established your conduct along those lines, and you can be assured that SARTRE will gladly post any replies on BREAKING
ALL THE RULES. Glad that Free Republic is willing to present these views.
The attackers were not "criminals" who can be brought to justice. They are barbaric terrorists who know and respect no
country and no law. They chose to go to war with America. They had no mercy for our countrymen and they deserve exactly what
they receive. Yes, the bombing was effective. Don't think much of the threat of a New World Order.
131 posted on 1/17/02 5:21 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
(emphasis added by editor)
Well, sir, in response to your article, I feel I should inform you that I am not a NAZI. Nor am I a book burner. Nor am
I a great philosopher such as yourself. I am not an Ayn Rand fan. Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian. I'm not much of a party
man regardless of current party affiliation. I'm simply an average guy and a Vietnam era USN veteran who happens to love his
I love America, but that does not mean I love our current government. In fact, I started this website to try to do something
about the rampant government corruption and abuse. Like most conservatives, I am alarmed at the continuing expansion of government
power and erosion of our individual liberty.
To let you know where I stand politically, I believe completely in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government should
be strictly limited to the the dozen and a half powers granted it by We the People and enumerated in Article I of the U.S
Constitution. The congress and the courts should not be eroding away the Bill of Rights. Most of the ABC agencies set up by
the federal government are unconstitutional and should be abolished. The federal government was not intended by our founders
to be involved in crime or social issues. These were reserved for the states and the people and should be under local control.
The founders did not intend for a huge and powerful central government. And they did not intend for the people to be taxed
on their income. The 16th amendment should be repealed and the Income Tax and the IRS abolished. The war on drugs should be
ended. Federal meddling into our personal affairs and businesses should be stopped. The 17th amendment should be repealed
and the balance between federal and state powers should be restored.
I am no fan of expanding federal power. I am not in favor of "compassionate" conservatism. Nor am I in favor of federal
involvement in education or any other social issue. I am not in favor of expanded security at the cost of lost liberty. I
want no part of a national ID card. I support the 2nd amendment as I do the 1st and the 3rd through 10th.
But, getting back to your article, you seem to be bothered by something I wrote and posted to Free Republic. I wrote the
paragraph you quoted sometime after our country was brutally attacked by a foreign power. I feel that one of the few valid
duties of our federal government is to defend the nation when attacked. I not only support our President in his military response
against this attack, but I demand and expect these actions. As a nation, we cannot allow attacks such as this to go unanswered.
And I fully support our military and our intelligence agencies during wartime. I am not going to allow Free Republic to
be used to undermine these efforts. There were several blame America first people who were posting all sorts of conspiracy
theories about our own government being involved in a plot to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon. Sorry, but that does not pass
the smell test. They got banned and their posts deleted. And I then posted my desire (the paragraph you quoted) NOT to have
that sort of garbage posted to FR. Those of you who believe that President Bush or the CIA blew up the twin towers to expand
his or their federal powers are more than welcome to spew your nonsense somewhere else. It will not be allowed to stand on
Otherwise, thank you for your interest in FR.
124 posted on 1/17/02 4:21 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
It can not even be said that the State
has ever shown any disposition to suppress crime, but only to safeguard its own monopoly of crime. - Albert Jay Nock
Yesterday's anti-Semitic screed against billionaire George Soros was nauseating -- but it won't be the last coming from
the "old" far right.
Nov. 19, 2003 | That old-time "conservatism" Whoever decided to post a nauseating anti-Semitic screed about
George Soros on the GOPUSA Web site has apparently reconsidered, after embarrassing exposure in Eschaton and other blogs.
As of this morning, the essay titled "Satan Lives in George Soros" had disappeared. A commercial Republican site that features
fourth-rate columnists and flashing ads, GOPUSA's "issues and action" conference in Washington a few weeks ago attracted the
likes of Grover Norquist, Bob Barr, Kellyanne Conway, Reps. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Steve King (R-Iowa), and Sen. John
None of those individuals is responsible for the Soros-bashing essay, of course, but the proprietors of GOPUSA have some
explaining to do. The only reasonable assumption is that they endorsed the vile gutter bigotry that suffuses this piece from
the first paragraph, in which the liberal philanthropist is described as a "Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock" and "the
embodiment of the Merchant from [sic] Venice." It goes on to quote accusations against Soros by former Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamed and other notorious anti- Semites on the Russian far right. (The semiliterate author, identified by Josh
Marshall today as James Hall, uses the pen name "Sartre" -- perhaps unaware that the French philosopher had much to say about
this particular form of mental illness in "Anti-Semite and Jew.")
Hall's essay can still be found on his own site, which offers such interesting clues to his ideological disposition as
the links on this page (scroll down) to the works of the late Francis ParkerYockey, an American fascist activist and author.
Although GOPUSA has no official connection with the Republican Party, the occasion for spewing this filth was the recent
announcement by Soros that he will commit his financial and intellectual power to defeating George W. Bush. Republican National
Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who honed his propaganda skills on behalf of Enron, has commenced a bitter campaign against
Soros. Gillespie evidently believes that wealth can only be used legitimately to support Republicans.
More such filth will no doubt emanate from the precincts of the "old" far right. Soros is simply too tempting a target
for the paleo-cons -- and he obviously isn't alone among prominent Jews in opposing Bush. But just as black leaders are expected
to denounce Louis Farrakhan, will anyone demand that Gillespie publicly reject such anti-Semitic attacks on his new nemesis?
[11 a.m. PST, Nov. 19, 2003]
Writing in something called www.intellectualconservative.com, James Hall (who writes openly under the pen name of “Sarte,”) declares that, “For those who think that
the American Enterprise Institute is really a right wing think tank, examine the influence of the likes of Richard Perle,
Michael Fumento and Michael Ledeen. These renegades are counterfeit conservatives, and form the backbone of Bush advisors.”
I’m hardly counterfeit, but neither have I been associated in any way, shape or form with AEI in over five years. Even
then, it was only for one year. And I doubt if George Bush even knows my name. Far from being a backbone of his advisors,
I hardly constitute a bone in his pinkie. Hall’s article was originally published on another website, one with myriad
links to anti-semitic webpages as well as a host of UFO abduction ones. Methinks a change of name is called for here, like
(second email message from Mr Fumento:)
"I get it; I'm a counterfeit conservative because I've worked at a number of conservative think thanks. Oh, and I'm responsible
for positions Hudson took in the 1960s. I guess that always makes me responsible for Jim Crow, because I was five in 1965
and I was and am white. Interesting you didn't mention a single non-conservative position I ever took. You only got as far
as saying I "defended" tobacco, which is a falsehood. I have criticized people who have played politics with so-called "passive
smoking." Other than that, my only mentions on tobacco have been that's it's a terrible killer. None of which has anything
to do with conservativism anyway. All of which is to say the only reason you attacked me is that I have been successful while
you publish alongside people who write about UFO abductions and fabricated "Protocals of the Elders of Zion." In other words,
you're a failure in life and you try to make up for it by going after successful people. Tough luck."