Author: Anthony Gregory

So all the left-liberals who thought that the nomination of Bolton to the UN would mean the death of that organization — that it would unleash the U.S. to dominate the world — should consider Bolton’s latest move: opposing a bill to withhold funds to the UN.

Hmmm. When will left-liberals learn that the United Nations is a fig leaf and puppet for U.S. imperialism, and that, while conservative politicians sometimes attack the UN’s superficial check on U.S. militarism, most of them are perfectly fine using the organization as an instrument of, and excuse for, U.S. global hegemony?

The UN is a threat not just to American sovereignty, but world peace, and has been since it was conceived by the U.S. working with the Soviet Union. When the UN tells the U.S. it can’t bomb, it does so anyway. When it sanctions U.S. aggression, the empire proceeds with the façade of international diplomacy. What a sham the whole thing is. Bolton is right at home with the UN.

Today on Scott Horton’s Weekend Interview Show (6-8 Eastern), Scott will be talking with Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and hardcore opponent of the warfare state, and then with Rick Blum of OpentheGovernment.org.

Listen live.

Hat Tip: The Libertarian Enterprise.

As is common with such revolutions, the democratic free-market Orange revolution in Ukraine continues to show signs of having turned sour before it began. Anders Aslund writes, “Last year Ukraine enjoyed economic growth of 12 percent; in the first four months of this year, the growth rate plunged to 5 percent, while inflation has surged to 15 percent….”

Furthermore, “the property rights of thousands of enterprises are in limbo. In Kiev, rumors abound that oligarchs connected to the old regime are trying to sell their enterprises to Russian business executives and are preparing to escape the country. Naturally, executives are cutting off investment, and economic growth is screeching to a halt. To make matters worse, a new socialist minister of privatization has been appointed who opposes privatization in principle. She asked recently: ‘What is so bad about re-nationalization?’ Tymoshenko concurred in a recent newspaper interview: ‘The biggest enterprises, which can easily be efficiently managed, must not be privatized, and they can give the state as an owner wonderful profits.’ This sounds like state capitalism.”

State capitalism. Hmmm. Well what should we have expected? As Justin Raimondo said more than three months ago:

“The Ukrainians believe they can balance their budget by revisiting suspicious privatizations, seizing assets, and re-selling them to the highest bidder. Yushchenko was sold to Western journalists as well as his own electorate as a ‘free-market reformer,’ but this is hardly a ‘free market’ approach. Aside from destroying the sort of stability that business requires, it assumes the good will of government regulators – not a wise course, in any country – and encourages yet more corruption by making political pull, rather than entrepreneurial skill, the coin of the realm. Who will be ‘re-privatized,’ and who will be spared? It’s all up to the gang currently in power.” Continue reading “Orange Revolution Comes Full Circle”

Tom Woods brings to attention an organization callled The Antiwar League, whose mission “is to promote the creation of a new Antiwar League that unites the left and the right in principled opposition to the plans of the Republicrat Warmonger Party for perpetual war.” Their “goal would be not to capture the highly centralized warmaking power of the federal government but to dismantle that power.”

This is just what is needed right now. Antiwar.com has been serving such a purpose since its existence, bringing together antiwar forces left and right, linking to The American Conservative as well as Counterpunch, publishing liberals, conservatives and libertarians with a common opposition to the warfare state.

War is liberty’s most dreaded enemy, to paraphrase James Madison, and the authoritarian State’s best friend. To defeat the perpetual war and imperialism that comprise the worst threat to American peace, civility and freedom, we must put our differences aside somewhat, and work with people across the spectrum on the central issue at hand. I urge you to check out the Antiwar League, and read some of the articles they link to –– in particular, “The Antiwar Movement Takes Shape” by Justin Raimondo, and “Recalling the Anti-Imperialist League” by Stephen Bender.

There are warmongers on both left and right, and both major political parties are simply factions of a single War Party, dominating America. To stop this madness we need a political realignment, with war, empire and the national-security state together constituting the principal line of demarcation.

Thanks a million for the plug, Matt! I just blogged at LRC a little more about the parallels between the scapegoating of the right after OKC and the scapegoating of the left after 9/11. And I agree about the parallels you mention about the demonization of the enemy at Waco and Iraq. Koresh was said to have dangerous weapons, to be abusing his people, to be threatening his neighbors—just like with Saddam. The press was incredibly manipulated in both Waco and Iraq. The justifications for the federal attack were ever changing. In Waco, the feds first accused the Davidians of housing a meth lab. Then it was illegal guns. Then it was abuse of children. In Iraq, the feds first accused Saddam of a link to al Qaeda. Then it was WMD. Then the war was defended on grounds of liberating and democratizing the country. In both cases, they wanted to validate the attack and the pretext was secondary. The violence of Oklahoma retroactively justified Waco in some people’s minds; the violence of 9/11 retroactively justified the first Gulf War in the minds of others. In the nineties, the threat was people like McVeigh, Koresh, all “separatists” and the right-wing talk radio hosts that gave them aid and comfort. Nowadays, it is people like Osama, Saddam, all “Islamists” and left-wing protestors that give them aid and comfort.

If Iraq had happened under a Democratic president, many who went along with it would have protested, and some who protested would have went along with it. If Waco had happened unded a Republican president, many who defended the atrocity would have been appalled, and some who were outraged would have defended it.

For those interested, I still think Carol Moore probably has the best book on Waco. You can read it online.