The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Thursday, November 10, 2005

White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 'political enemies'


Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies.

The “enemies list” dates back to Bush’s days as governor of Texas and can be accessed by senior administration officials in an instant for use in campaigns to discredit those who speak out against administration policies or acts of the President.

The computerized files include intimate personal details on members of Congress; high-ranking local, state and federal officials; prominent media figures and ordinary citizens who may, at one time or another, have spoken out against the President or Administration.

Read more at this link

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

1300 cars burned in one night!

The following was sent to me by my friend Dale Williams, who is a radio talk show host. I have posted it here with permission.

Okay. Anybody who can't manage to see the N.W.O., plain as day, through the lens of this incident in France, and the attendant mass media coverage (not), might be uneducable.

N.W.O. operatives (I'll be nice and not call them by their real names), who had infiltrated the political systems of the European countries and the U.S. prior to WWII, began to push "reform" of immigration policy in those countries after the conclusion of the war. For the U.S., this meant a virtual sealing-off of legal immigration from the Northern European countries. What a coincidence.

By 1958, these "reformers" had hit pay dirt in Europe. The flood gates of African immigration were opened. The deracination and de-identific-ation of the hated, inherently nationalistic, White european nations had begun. Down with the last vestiges of the old order, up with the N.W.O.

By 1965 the same crew had accomplished the same results in the U.S. And those results, while being hewn more by a Mestizo (not African) axe, were just as inevitable: the disappearance of humane, civil, advancing, cohesive America as we knew it. Balkanization in the beginning. Likely race war in the final stages.

Now, in France, where things have been brewing longer than in the U.S., open fighting has broken out. At first the unified, one-owner, Western Press tried to ignore the situation. They did'nt even start reporting the mayhem in France until the nightly burned-car-count was up around 200!

And when they were finally forced, by the sheer scale of this thing, to start normal reporting on it, how did they frame the issue? As a MUSLIM JIHAD!

Funny. I don't seem to remember seeing one Turk or North African Mus-lim burning cars in the news photos I've viewed. Every photo features sub-Saharan Blacks as the perpetrators. Duh. I wonder if race, as opposed to religion, might have something to do with the frictions over there?

But to report such an obvious fact would be to undermine the concept of the *multi-racial* society -- a, perhaps THE, keystone tenet of the N.W.O.'s stratagem for erasing the nation-states of the earth.

So, why not blame Islam? You kill two birds with one stone that way. One, you further incite the West against the one, great stumbling block to the ascendancy of the Godless One World Government: Islam. Thus, you hasten the day when our armies (the West, i.e. the White Man) will be used to destroy Islam.

And two, you perpetuate the myth that the burning of cities and the bars-on-the-windows existence of many urban-dwelling Western peoples has nothing to do with nature (inherent racial antagonism) and every-thing to do with unequal opportunity (nasty Western capitalism, crypto-slavery, etc.).

I've got to hand it to these people. Trying to fool us can't be much of a challenge anymore. -D.W.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, November 07, 2005

Liberals and Faux Conservatives

Liberals and Faux Conservatives: Two Sides of the Same Authoritarian Coin
by Kurt Nimmo (Read original here)

As it turns out, Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock. Joseph Farah’s website expects us to be surprised and angered by such hypocrisy. However, this “revelation,” one of many featured in a book by Peter Schweizer, is not surprising, nor are other insights into the disingenuous behavior of Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky, Barbra Streisand, Ralph Nader, and other so-called liberals and Democrats.

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together who is capable of reading a newspaper realizes Mikey is a hypocrite—or more accurately, a conflicted liberal.

For instance:

Moore’s popular documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, blames the Saudis for nine eleven, the same way Islamophobic neocons blame the Saudis for not only nine eleven but most of the Islamic terrorism in the world. Of course, it is true the Saudi royals are to blame for creating the Islamic Terror Network, commonly called “al-Qaeda” in the corporate press, but only partially to blame—most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the CIA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Jimmy Carter. In order to understand how Carter, Brzezinski, and the CIA created and nourished what is now called “al-Qaeda,” read Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 on the Digital National Security Archive site. “Saudi Arabia managed to stimulate some rebel unity [in Afghanistan] by withholding aid from the various mujahidin parties until they agreed to coalesce and form a united opposition front [or a terrorist organization]…. The Saudi government, which deposited many of its contributions into a CIA Swiss bank account, also gave direct support to several fundamentalist groups.” In short, the Saudis (along with Pakistani intelligence) were partners (and bankrollers) with the CIA. Instead of providing his viewers with this salient history lesson, Mikey blames the Saudis and perpetuates the fairy tale Osama bin Laden, the Saudi eccentric suffering from kidney disease and living in a cave in Afghanistan, was solely responsible for nine eleven. Liberals, just like so-called conservatives, buy the absurd and nonsensical official nine eleven story without question.

Mikey supported the mad bomber of Serbia, Wesley Clark, for president in the lead-up to the 2004 election—or rather non-election, thanks to dirty tricks and Diebold voting machines. Many liberals have no problem bombing kids and grandmothers with cluster bombs and shooting up their hospitals and schools with depleted uranium bullets if it is for a “humanitarian” cause (or excuse). It is downright disgusting to realize many liberals and Democrats supported Clinton’s criminal attack of the former Yugoslavia. Now most oppose Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq—because Bush is a Republican. It’s not the killing and violation of national sovereignty that bugs Democrats. It’s simply the fact a Republican is in the White House and everything he does must be opposed. Of course, there are more than a few antiwar Democrats, and most of them voted for the warmonger John Forbes Kerry, who said he would out-Bush Bush in killing Iraqis. In other words, ending the “war” was less important than making sure a Democrat won, even if he would have continued and even escalated the criminal “war” in Iraq.

Democrats and liberals seem incapable of understanding it does not matter if a Democrat or Republican is in office—there will be invasions, mass murder, corporate thievery, neolib foreign and economic policy, encroachments on the Constitution and liberty, and an ever-growing police state and police state outrages (the Democrat Clinton, after all, oversaw the incineration of babies at Waco). Moreover, as history demonstrates, more Democrats have started wars than Republicans. Of course, since many Republicans are now neocons (and many founding neocons are former Trotskyites), this has become a moot point.

Finally, Mikey is a gun-grabber who hates the Bill of Rights. Many liberals want to pick and choose their amendments to the Constitution (they love the First Amendment, but not the part about freedom of religion). Moore’s documentary on Columbine did more to confuse people about the Second Amendment than any other bit of propaganda in recent history. But fact of the matter is the founders realized the Bill of Rights would be useless if citizens didn’t have the right to bear arms.

I can do without Peter Schweizer’s book. Both liberals and so-called conservatives (or the reactionary Rush Limbaugh conservatives, for lack of a better term) are two sides of one coin—they both believe in the necessity of centralized government and support authoritarian exercise of government coercion and violence against citizens. If not for a number of social issues, Democrats and Republicans would be identical—both believe they have the right to employ state violence to make other people dance to their tune as they steal their money and property.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

History Repeats Itself...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: