portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

This antiwar movement brought to you by...

We believe that a society in turmoil cannot be saved through mere legislation. Our efforts are devoted not to ephemeral political fashions but to the defense of the fundamental institutions of our civilization. In the broadest sense, we strive to contribute to the renewal of Christendom in this time and place...
ANTIWAR.COM's MISSION
...Antiwar.com is one project of our parent foundation the "Randolph Bourne Institute" ( http://randolphbourne.org/) It is a program that provides a sounding board of interest to all who are concerned about US foreign policy and its implications.

In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well: "Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."...

...Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation...

 http://www.antiwar.com/who.html


Q: WHO IS JUSTIN RAIMONDO?
A: Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and its principle columnist. He is also the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement ( http://antiwar.com/raimondo/book1.html) (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute (www.mises.org), in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Libertarian Studies ( http://www.libertarianstudies.org/), and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture ( http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/). He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard ( http://antiwar.com/raimondo/book1.html) (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute (www.mises.org), in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Libertarian Studies ( http://www.libertarianstudies.org/), and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture ( http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/). He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard ( link to www.amazon.com)
 http://www.antiwar.com/faq.html


LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE
It is the mission of the Mises Institute to restore a high place for theory in economics and the social sciences, encourage a revival of critical historical research, and draw attention to neglected traditions in Western philosophy. In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.
 http://www.mises.org/about.asp


CENTER FORE LIBERTARIAN STUDIES
CLS is dedicated to the work and vision of Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), philosopher of liberty, dean of the Austrian School of economics, historian of American freedom, and enemy of the welfare-warfare state. Founded in 1976, CLS administers and Lewrockwell.com ( http://www.lewrockwell.com).

The Journal of Libertarian Studies is now published by the Mises Institute which maintains an archive of all back and present issues of the Journal.

 http://www.libertarianstudies.org/about.asp


CHRONICLES: A MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN CULTURE
"Chronicles has become the toughest, best-written, and most profoundly insightful journal in America." -- Patrick Buchanan

Each month Chronicles, edited by THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE president Thomas Fleming, takes a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of American culture and politics. As original as they are independent, Chronicles' editors have been years ahead in predicting the major conflicts and crises of our time: the end of the Cold War and the rise of "isolationism," the immigration crisis, the worldwide resurgence of ethnic conflict, the collapse of American higher education, and the multiculturalism debate. Some of the best writers in the world have appeared in the pages of Chronicles, Wendell Berry, Jorge Borges, Patrick Buchanan, Samuel Francis, George Garrett, George Gilder, Russell Kirk, John Lukacs, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jacob Neusner, Robert Nisbet, Murray Rothbard, E.O. Wilson. No cant, no propaganda, only honest and entertaining articles, reviews, and essays for readers looking for the truth.


ABOUT THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE
Founded in 1976, The Rockford Institute stands alone among "think tanks" as the authentic voice of the American Heartland. The Institute, informed by the distinctive accents of the Midwest, the South, and the West, defines and shapes national and international debates. We believe that a society in turmoil cannot be saved through mere legislation. Our efforts are devoted not to ephemeral political fashions but to the defense of the fundamental institutions of our civilization. In the broadest sense, we strive to contribute to the renewal of Christendom in this time and place through:

* The defense of the family
* The promotion of liberty
* The decentralization of political and economic life
* The celebration of the literary and artistic inheritance of our civilization
* The adherence to Truth, revealed through Scripture and tradition

 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/TRI/About.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Indymedia has been USED by a bunch of Conservatives who are directly opposed to the very principles of Indymedia!

and your point is??? 22.Apr.2003 13:42

republic of cascadia citizen

the above poster wrote: "Indymedia has been USED by a bunch of Conservatives who are directly opposed to the very principles of Indymedia!"


please explain your theory, because i do not make the connection at all. the creators of the site "antiwar.com" have their own views and agenda. i personally sometimes agree with their views, and sometimes i do not. i am against all wars and recognize the strong connection between hyper-capitalism and modern warfare. i will admit that during this corporate whore spectacle of the neo-conservatives in iraq, pat buchannan has begun to sound pretty damn level-headed compared to the bush/cheney/rumsfeld/perle/wolfowitz junta. and that is merely my own damn conclusion as a free-thinking human. i was heavily involved in the anti-war actions in relation to iraq, and sometimes helped organize. and i can not speak for anyone else, but i wasn't "used" by anyone, left-right-center or otherwise. i answer to no one but myself and the god[dess], and am proud to be involved with indymedia where autonomous individuals can proudly make up their own minds.

antiwar.com is anti-Multiculturalism 22.Apr.2003 14:04

seek their true agendas

INDYMEDIA'S Principles Of Unity

10. All IMC's shall be committed to the principle of human equality, and shall not discriminate, including discrimination based upon race, gender, age, class or sexual orientation. Recognizing the vast cultural traditions within the network, we are committed to building [diversity] within our localities.

 http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity


1. From the January 2003 issue of Chronicles:
---------------------------------------------------------
Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy
by Paul Edward Gottfried

...In Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, Gottfried examines "the turning of the administrative state . . . away from purely material programs, such as expanded entitlements, toward behavior control." This turning, he emphasizes, has not been preceded by any abandonment or shrinking of the welfare state. The triumphant managerial regime simply assumed an additional mission: the revolutionary transformation of society. There was no turn to freedom, much less to the right, after the Cold War. "What actually occurred was that the Left turned in a multicultural direction, toward the 'Marxist vulgate' of political correctness"--in other words, cultural Marxism.


2. From the April 2003 issue of The American Conservative
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bum Frum
By Taki

...We had all embarked on a great crusade against liberalism, the Evil Empire, the omnipotent state, and other threats to our freedoms. (Multiculturalism and PC had not as yet been invented, but some wise people were predicting them already.)

So you can imagine my surprise when in NR's last issue I found myself and my colleagues Pat and Scott listed as "unpatriotic conservatives" in "a war against America." Mind you, I was in excellent company. Others accused were people like Tom Fleming, Llewellyn Rockwell, Robert Novak, Sam Francis, JUSTIN RAIMONDO, Joe Sobran, and Eric Margolis. I was flattered until I saw the writer's name. One David Frum.


3. From LewRockwell.com, November 2002
---------------------------------------------------------
The Two Antiwar Movements
by Steven Yates

...I want nothing to do with this antiwar movement. It seems clear that these people oppose warring with Iraq not because of sincere concern about this country's best interests and certainly not out of any Constitutionalist sentiment but because they hate this country and all it stands for. They hate Bush the Younger's administration not because of anything Bush has or hasn't done, but because he's Bush: a Republican, a mouthpiece for the rich who was "selected, not elected," and all that.

With these people, it's the same old cultural (and sometimes unreconstructed) Marxist claptrap. Their West Coast gig, which JUSTIN RAIMONDO recently reported, was filled with speeches that had nothing to do with Iraq or our international situation and more to do with such things as "transgendered people's" rights. In our capital we saw the usual parade of far-left nutballs (Al Sharpton, etc.). The aim was not trying to find constructive ways to diffuse the terrorist threat - that takes thinking, after all - but to rant against "capitalism." As I said at the outset, we're looking at two opposed political philosophies here. The first would liberate the individual from government; the second would use government to enslave the individual in the name of the collective.

left, right, etc. 22.Apr.2003 16:03

heimdallr

Not to necessarily contravene the words of caution in the original article, but perhaps it's relevant to the comment about diversity that a few sources writing about about Justin Raimondo suggest that he is quite openly homosexual, so perhaps his stance on diversity is a bit more complicated than this author implied. His admiration for Pat Buchanan puzzles me, but perhaps his criticism of the leftist antiwar movement is oriented more toward a perceived lack of focus than an opposition to gay rights, etc.

I've read a fair amount of Raimondo's work over the last few months, and he's quite solidly in alignment with the politics of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians are really the ultimate proof that this imaginary left-right spectrum (these terms originally referred to seating arrangements in the French houses of parliament) is not an entirely effective means of classifying a person's political beliefs. Raimondo, like most Libertarians currently do, (in 19th-century Europe the word 'libertarian' was effectively a synonym for 'anarchist') tends to align himself more with the 'Right Wing' of this spectrum due to the traditional association of this faction with opposition to social-welfare policies, but obviously has bones of contention with them on such questions as defense policy (the LP platform calls for massive cuts in military spending and the closure of all U.S. military bases on foreign soil) and, presumably, gay rights. The Libertarians are also famous for advocating drug legalization and an open-border policy, positions traditionally associated with the extreme 'Left'. I do find the general tone of material on Antiwar.com to be something less than incoherent, and their writings about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel occasionally approach the point of antisemitic paranoia, (not really surprising that Pat Buchanan's name keeps turning up as a respected figure) though it functions well as a news site and a source of 'outside-the-box' analytical views so long as one takes them with the appropriate grains of salt.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that one way of achieving the goals of the anarchist movement would be to organize around elections to put Libertarians into office, as their platform essentially calls for the removal of all the institutions that keep capitalism from collapsing of its own accord (that's not how they would put it, I suspect), but our society's tendency to place anarchists on the "Left Wing" and libertarians on the "Right" tends to discourage this by evoking traditional factional loyalties and throwing up artificial barriers between groups whose goals are not necessarily as conflicting as this traditional dichotomy might lead one to believe.

Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf 22.Apr.2003 16:19

Justin Raimondo

Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf
by Justin Raimondo

A Note from the Author: What follows are the first few pages of a book-length manuscript on the gay rights movement, and the whole Gay Question, provisionally entitled: The Ideology of Desire: The Tyranny and Absurdity of Gay Identity Politics. Although I don't get into such issues as the nature-nurture debate, the search for the so-called "gay gene," the Boy Scouts, etc. - all issues covered in the book -- I think this fragment can stand by itself.

...The gay activists of yesteryear demanded that government get out of the bedroom. Today a new generation of gay leaders is inviting government back in. The political program of the first activists centered around a campaign to legalize homosexual relations between consenting adults. Their message to all governments everywhere was unequivocal: leave us alone. The gay movement of the new millennium has a different message: far from advocating "hands off!" they want government to actively intervene on behalf of the homosexual minority.

At a time when homosexual acts are still illegal in several states, the official gay rights movement is fixated on passing laws that would somehow protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination in housing and employment. From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over nearly every aspect of our lives. This reversal is all the more remarkable because it took place in a relatively short period of time, less than a decade...

...What could be clearer than this clarion call for state-subsidized gay propaganda aimed at children? As a parent put it at a meeting of the Queens (New York) School Board Distict 28, in reference to the imposition of New York City's infamous "Rainbow Curriculum": "Remember that the Children of the Rainbow [teacher's manual] specifically tells teachers that in all subjects they are to mention the gay and lesbian lifestyle. This means that in math, reading, and writing, our children will have to hear about this. And remember, this is the first grade." The whole process, he correctly concluded, amounts to "indoctrination."

These parents want to know why homosexuality must be discussed in the schools at all. Gay activists answer: because we are victims. Violence against homosexuals is endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to prevent this by promoting "tolerance."

Christian fundamentalists and other advocates of traditional morality, in opposing social engineering projects such as New York City's "Rainbow Curriculum," declared that homosexuals were trying to recruit innocent young children into their ranks. But they needn't have worried. For the insipid and defensive propaganda of the tolerance brigade would only serve to repulse the very students who might be inclined toward homosexual behavior.

What budding young homosexual would not sneer in derision upon being told he has to do a book report on Daddy's Roommate or Gloria Goes to Gay Pride? Such drivel would not recruit anyone, not even the likeliest candidates, and instead would have the opposite effect. Deprived of the aura of rebellion and the forbidden, the allure of homosexuality would practically vanish. Stripped of its otherness, homophilia would soon lose a good deal of its erotic charge, at least for a great many potential practitioners.

The irony of the gay activist agenda in the schools is that its full implementation would eventually result in considerably fewer homosexuals. Perhaps GLAAD and the fundamentalists - who have more in common than is at first apparent - can get together on this one.

May 19, 2001