Updated 18 February 2003
15 February 2003
Responses welcome; send to: jya@pipeline.com
Names and e-mail addresses omitted except for the Cypherpunks public forum. Tim May co-founded Cypherpunks in 1992. Its archive: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:54:33 -0800
Subject: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
I've been watching the Security Council session this morning. Positions
are established.
It's clear the U.S. is preparing to start a war. Nothing Blix or the
other inspectors could say would stop the massive U.S. mobilization
from continuing.
Before going further, let me say I am no friend of Iraq. But "no
foreign entanglements" was and is good advice, and the U.S. mostly
followed it for its first 130 years of existence. As it became a
statist power around 1915 it began to form various alliances. The huge
increase in entangling alliances and Big Brotherism happened a bit
later.
I don't think the 1991 war was justified, either. The invasion of
Kuwait is the sort of thing nations do to other smaller and vastly
weaker nations--the Kuwaiti oil princes had plenty of time to have
built Swiss-type defenses, but chose not to. (Part of counting on Big
Brother to protect one is the "moral hazard" which results.)
And whatever the 1991 justifications were (*), the justifications today
are far, far weaker.
(* Note that in 1990-91 there were vigorous debates in Congress,
including a razor-thin margin approving a quasi-war declaration. No
such debate is happening now. Likewise, the "Alliance" was unified,
with several Arab countries participating with troops and supplies. No
such alliance today.)
Further, the costs to U.S. taxpayers to occupy and "rebuild" (say
what?!) Iraq are now estimated to be about $45 billion per year. That's
a lot of money.
* The reason is clear: the juggernauts of the military buildup are
rolling: 5 carrier battle groups now either in the region or arriving
within the next 10 days. More than 100,000 U.S. and British troops
massing in Kuwait, Qatar, and other staging areas.
* The new moon, when moonlight is minimal, is happening around 1 March.
This is the standard military time to attack, and fits with the
cresting of the military buildup. (Carriers and aircraft and troops
should be in place by 25 February, and so the war could start any time
after that.)
* If there is any delay, the optimum time for an attack is lost. And if
the delay extends to early May, the ground temperatures in Iraq make
wearing of chemical gear very problematic. (So say the experts I have
seen interviewed: the rubber suits don't do well in 35 C ambient
temperatures, let alone in 45 C summer temperatures.)
* So the U.S. has effectively already launched the war by expending so
much money ("treasure" in the bullshit-talk of political pundits) in
massing troops and ships in the area. To pull back, as must happen if
no war starts, would make the next mobilization harder to justify.
* Where's Congress? Where's the debate, the declaration of war? Answer:
They're sitting this one out, avoiding the cameras, debating minor
bills. (The debate on USA Patriot II, aka The Reich Protectorate and
Modification of the Bill of Rights Act of 2003, is happening behind
closed doors...to the extend the pork-gobbling Congresscritters are
even getting involved at all.)
All of these issues point to what a clusterfuck this is turning into,
exposing the hypocrisy of the U.S. position that it doesn't start wars
(a claim that can never be made again with a straight face if this war
starts...though some would say this claim has been bogus for the past
40 years). And exposing the hypocrisy of the notion that Congress
debates important issues. And of course the U.N. suffers.
Not all of these things are bad. Which is why I am hoping for a war. A
war that goes badly, a war that results in world opinion turning
sharply against the American aggressor state. A war that causes Iran to
decide to seize some disputed territory (what we gonna do then, homey?).
A war that returns the United States to blissful isolationism.
A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a
suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two
million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be
wished.
--Tim May
"Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little
bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now
racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events
following 9/11/2001
From: V
To: jya@pipeline.com
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500
Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable
Tim May writes..
"A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a
suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two
million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be
wished."
The terminology "inner city welfare mutants" demonstrates that this abstract is
intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found
your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources.
Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read
your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me
due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned.
I'm not asking for censorship, however, everything that you may be sent doesn't
need to be published. It's your credibility that's at stake.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:06:55 -0800
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
> From: V
> To: jya@pipeline.com
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500
> Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable
>
> Tim May writes..
>
> "A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a
> suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two
> million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be
> wished."
[Snip V's message.]
This is good, as I don't need "credibility" with this "V" entity.
Besides, what's "racist" about "inner city welfare mutants"? I didn't
say they are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. Any perceived racism is
because we all _know_ they are Negroid. The negro in America is still
living on the white man's plantation, still waiting for Massah in Da
Big White House to make decisions for him, to give him favors and
handouts, to be his pappy.
Every year that passes the negro in America falls further behind in
science, technology, and business. He is now so far behind the
immigrants from Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and
elsewhere that one has to wonder if there really is a genetic component
at work.
The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race. Sad, but true.
Think of it as evolution in action.
--Tim May
From: Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net>
To: cypherpunks@minder.net
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young posts:
[Snip V's message]
Exactly when were people living in the inner city or people recieving
welfare benefits upgraded to a "race." Clearly, I've missed an
announcement somewhere. Darn.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:22:30 -0800 (PST)
From: E
Subject: Questions
To: jya@pipeline.com
I'm wondering why Cryptome decided to place this particular piece of opinion.
It is not inkeeping w/ the type of stuff I've read here before, in terms of
it being a straight opinion piece, not a document, federal register entry,
etc.. Why did "you" (who is that exactly, anyway?) choose to include it? I
am not aware how things are chosen for Cryptome. Please inform me. Am I
ignorant of the context, as in: Is the purpose of placing it to reveal the
author (whom I've never heard of) as a racist calling to mass-murder? Or was
it placed because you read it, agreed with it's essence, and thought it
worthy of being read by others. If not, why print this piece especially
considering all the other (better) analysis out there? C'mon - ending with
praising the bombing of D.C. and all it's inhabitants, "2 million welfare
mutants"? What is this stuff? I am eager to know if this placement/choice
reflects the "editorial" views of Cryptome? I am seriously disturbed and
am thinking twice about continuing to refer most types of people (quite a
few since I discovered you) to what I thought was a valuable resource that
wouldn't be a discredit to truth. I would like to thank you in advance for
responding to my questions in an e-mail. Signed, Confused about "You".
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:55:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>, cypherpunks@lne.com
> I'm wondering why Cryptome decided to place thisB particular piece of
> opinion.
> It is not inkeeping w/ the type of stuff I've read here before, in terms of
> it being a straightB opinion piece, not a document,B federal register entry,
> etc.. Why did "you" (who is that exactly, anyway?) choose to includeB it? I
On a purely theoretical plane, there is no straight opinion. When one mentiones
word "France", for example, it assumes a lot - that the french state is a
legitimate state, that "state" is a valid entity in the first place, and that
term France is a legitimate name for that particular territory.
Language is a distillate of past propaganda. The newcomers and dissenters have
no advantage of "legitimate" words to support their case. They must use
elaborate descriptions or define new macros. That you see nothing wrong with
word "federal" but see something wrong with word "mutant" is a display of your
own bias.
And the mere notion that "valid" stuff ("facts") can be smeared by "racist"
stuff illustrates that you are not looking for facts, but for granfallooning
with something, with a group or idea.
(Along those lines, *anything* a politician thug ever mentioned would become
smeared and invalid. OK, bad example.)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:02:15 +0000
From: B
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: The REAL reason?
What on earth is going on, John? Have you been 'got at'?
That 'Tim May' piece was utter crap, certainly not the high standard I
had come to expect from cryp. Much more of that sort of racist
clap-trap and you'll have lost another reader.
Try this:
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
by W. Clark
summary
Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq
enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The real
reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing
further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard.
However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic
control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This
lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and
the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro
as an alternative oil transaction currency.
Full article: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:07:07 -0600
From: "Kevin S. Van Horn" <kvanhorn@ksvanhorn.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Tim May wrote:
> The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race.
Which ones? I see a very different pattern of behavior in some other
parts of the world.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:09:42 -0800
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
>
>> The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race.
>
> Which ones? I see a very different pattern of behavior in some other
> parts of the world.
The negro in America, of course, which is where I live. As I have said
I seldom travel anymore, and may have said that I have only left the
U.S. for a few days in the past 20 years, my meaning was quite clear.
I am happy that you find negroes in other countries show a "different
pattern of behavior." From this I assume you see the same behavior I
see here in America, otherwise, you living in America, you wouldn't
have said "different pattern ... in some other parts of the world."
I doubt the negro is any less smart than the mongolian or caucasian
races, but he acts as if he is. He acts as if he's a dumbass pimp
selling his hoe sistuh on the street.
It's time that house niggers like Jesse Jackson stop saying that more
handouts are needed and start telling "his peeples" to start studying
math and science and business the way the other races are.
--Tim May
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin of the New
York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:53:36 -0800 (PST)
From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on
terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged
by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its
bastard clone, capitalism.
Demonizing the enemy, whether by skin color, by class, by income, by
intelligence (the finest idiocy of all) is precursor to savage aggression
against challengers of privilege, of elitist prejudice, of braggardy of
superiority.
Bush has executed hundreds in Texas due to his Connecticut-cultivated racism
inherited from the Bush family poisoned tree of privilege. He will war-fry
more in thrall to smart-asses in his administration willing to wage war in
the Middle East, even around the world, to enlarge their inferior-fearing
stature, their yearning for ever-receding moral superiority -- fearing to
displease higher authority up the disdain tree.
Cheney, the root-chewing Mole, could care less about the harm his lust for
wealth has caused, in the exculpatory capitalist tradition -- as from the
earliest pig-rootings of American moneyed-aristocracy, itself founded upon
imitating the long-snooted wideworld class ranking of humans by intelligence
(bias), blood purity, stolen loot, number of servants, proper accent,
rhetorical escapism, aversion to labor and addiction to brutality.
Jefferson, Franklin, waltzing among a fools' parade of alleged proponents
of freedom, all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues
of liberty and independence from corruptive power. Read my musings, they
yarped, artful rhetoricians, fat-ass lazy, mind-fuckers.
Sure, Jesse Jackson, one among many clusterfucking whites and coloreds,
is in that mold, of preaching one way and living corruptly another.
Perquisites of power and wealth and rhetoric and aint-I-bad controversy
are irresistable -- no matter the Rummys, Saddams, Sharons.
All celebrity-narcissist would-be leaders -- constitutional yellers,
well-fed defenders of the national and civil liberties, crankyankers of
safe-as-hell causes -- contemn the populace, their emotionally abused
customers, without whom there would be no tax-bled yokel applauders of
pixie-dusters.
Black and white racism is not only about race, never was. What it is about
is color-blinded-faith of believing that the enemy, the challenger to privilege
-- the right to be police-protected home alone except for sucking the bank's
bloodstream -- is contemptible and needs killing now and then to affirm the
supreme rights of auto-narcotizing bandits to order their lawmen to criminalize
the innocent, even though outlaw privilege is supported by deprivations of
the un-privileged -- or more indelicately forked-lying to the bug-eyed, the
econo-comically-named under-privileged.
"A religious fundamentalist, armed and dangerous," said a terrorist-wanted
poster. Put another way, an American racist supremacist believing in one
god of spymastering super-racism, Panopticon.
Perceptive citizen units can panopt who's scared witless about the threat of
losing it all and being a nobody, totally transparent venalitists calling for
sacrifice while fostering suspicion and fear of the homeland's weapons of
mass destruction being turned inward. Don't censor us, we'll do ourselves,
say truth-is-dangerous scientists:
Science Journals Change Editing Methods
February 15, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:47 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- Editors of the world's leading scientific
journals announced Saturday they would delete details from
published studies that might help terrorists make
biological weapons.
The editors, joined by several prominent scientists, said
they would not censor scientific data or adopt a top-secret
classification system similar to that used by the military
and government intelligence agencies.
But they said scientists working in the post-Sept. 11 world
must face the dismaying paradox that many of their
impressive breakthroughs can be used for sinister purposes.
The new editing methods will be voluntary and will differ
among the 32 publications and scientific associations that
agreed to the effort. Those include the journals Science,
Nature, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science,
the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.
Most major advancements -- from decoding the human genome
to the cloning of Dolly the sheep -- are revealed to the
world through those journals.
The new policy emerged from a Jan. 9 meeting at the
National Academy of Sciences, where researchers and journal
editors reviewed potentially sensitive studies. They
unveiled their agreement at the national meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Proponents acknowledged they are walking a "very fine
line" in trying to protect the public without chilling
research. Few, if any, of the thousands of research papers
reviewed annually for publication would be rejected
outright, they said. Papers would still contain sufficient
details to allow other scientists to independently
duplicate experiments -- a vital step in validating
discoveries.
"We do live in different times now," said Ronald Atlas,
president of the American Society of Microbiology and a
leader of the biosecurity review movement. "The
information we possess has the potential for misuse. We
will take the appropriate steps to protect the public."
Indeed, it has never been easier to tweak a microbe's genes
to create a deadlier, drug-resistant superbug for a germ
bomb or hijack aerosol technology meant for convenient
spray vaccines to make anthrax spores float through the
air.
Journal editors said they were establishing their own
expert panels to review papers that contain alarming
information, and would work with the authors to make
specific changes and "tone them down."
Most journals rarely face such questions. Atlas said
journals published by the microbiololgy association found
only two research papers in that past year that raised
eyebrows, and both were published after the authors agreed
to changes.
One of the excised details demonstrated how a microbe could
be modified so it could kill 1 million people instead of
10,000. "It was something that was best not told," Atlas
said. He declined to identify the microbe.
Atlas said spotting risky research is not black and white.
"You know it when you see it," he said.
It's a daunting task. Not only does the review cover
obvious subjects such as smallpox and toxic chemicals, but
it also includes a wide array of related scientific
disciplines that could affect their diagnosis and
containment.
"There could be a paper on the rate of speed of a
particular infection," said Science editor Donald Kennedy,
formerly president of Stanford University. "It could be of
tremendous value in immunization and quarantine strategies.
But it could also be of tremendous value to someone trying
to evade those strategies."
Others worry that security measures could hamper
breakthroughs in basic science and engineering. Even
humanitarian research projects, such as eradicating
tuberculosis, might have to pass a security litmus test.
"Someone working with virulence factors might make a more
virulent microbe," said Karl Simpson, a French
biotechnology consultant. "But working with those same
virulence factors might go a long way toward saving some of
the 50 million people who die of infectious diseases each
year."
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:33:08 -0600
From: "Kevin S. Van Horn" <kvanhorn@ksvanhorn.com>
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>, cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote:
>Jefferson, Franklin, a fools' parade of alleged proponents of freedom,
>all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues of liberty
>and independence from entrenched power.
Idiot. Franklin was the 13th child or so of a poor family. He started
with zip, materially. His most important assets were a nimble mind and
a strong ethic of self-reliance. He had no "old-boy" network to help
him, no inherited wealth to rely on.
As to the rest of your "fools' parade", many if not most of the signers
of the Declaration of Independence suffered greatly for taking a stand
against British tyranny; poverty or death was their reward. The obvious
course for anyone who wanted to "enoy the good life" was to side firmly
with the crown.
From: J
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: Comments etc
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:42:03 -0600
I enjoy coming to your website and appreciate the need for citizens to be
vigilant in protecting their liberties. I enjoy seeing the contrast in the
different sources of information available to the public from the official,
big media, and more independent sources like your site. I think everyone
has the right to an opinion so I don't mind anything put on the site. I
also think everyone has a right to reject an opinion and that is why I am
writing you today. I read the posting "war-reason.htm" and felt a need to
comment on its contents.
The quality of the arguments in this article does not seem to be well
thought out and frivolous in nature. The idea that the United States is
more of a danger to the world then terrorists and dictators is one I find
offensive. I do not think the government should be trusted because people
cannot be trusted. That being said only people who benefit from the
freedoms of a free country and have never walked the streets of Baghdad or
Tehran or Kabul can make such a ridiculous argument. When the forces of the
United States went into Afghanistan the people in that country rejoiced.
They cheered and played music and hoped for a brighter future. I expect
that things will be the same in Iraq.
The United States has gotten into trouble in the past when democratic
principles are compromised. Supporting Pinochet and other dictators was
wrong even though the Soviet Union was seen as a danger and such support a
policy of containment. Communism did not fall because these dictators or
any policy of containment it was defeated by the weight of its own
corruption and inefficiency. I believe that this action in Iraq is
consistent with the idea of spreading democracy. Lets face it greed for oil
has gotten us in this current situation. In every other region in the world
democracy is supported as an ideal by the United States and its European
allies. Only in the Middle East where oil rich despotic allies can be found
do the United States and Europe forget about freedom and the rights of man.
This action in Iraq will eventually create a democracy in the heart of the
oil producing countries.
Usama Bin Laden and others like him have power because the people of these
nations suffer real oppression. What is happening right now is that our
“allies” like the Saudis use their government controlled media to point the
finger at the United States and say, “That is your enemy. They are your
oppressors. You are poor and have no rights because of them.” Like a cheap
con man they direct attention away from the local despots and divert it
toward their media creation, “Great Satan.” This is the fight that must be
fought. Killing the terrorists is not enough to ensure that other attacks
do not happen with regularity in the future. War in Iraq is necessary
because it will create the circumstances to free the people in that region.
Then the rebels of those societies will become cyber nerds who write
articles about how terrible their government is while they go to school on
government loans and live comfortable middle class lives without gunfire and
bloodshed.
To: cypherpunks@minder.net
Date: 16 Feb 2003 09:42:36 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Tom Veil)
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote on February 16, 2003 at 00:54:
> What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that
> the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about
> racism, although camouflaged by political and economic
> drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone,
> capitalism.
I never read anything like that in his post.
[A whole bunch of stuff read, and snipped]
What the hell are you talking about?
--
Tom Veil
Subject: war-reason
From: M
To: jya@pipeline.com
Date: 16 Feb 2003 02:55:22 -0800
Hi John,
I'm sure you're getting many emails about this, so I won't expect a
reply. One would be welcome though.
>What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on
>terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged
>by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its
>bastard clone, capitalism.
Tim's message doesn't intend to imply this - it just implies it by
existing. But we already know that there are racists on most sides of
every issue, so what is new here?
>Jefferson, Franklin, waltzing among a fools' parade of alleged proponents
>of freedom, all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues
>of liberty and independence from corruptive power. Read my musings, they
>yarped, artful rhetoricians, fat-ass lazy, mind-fuckers.
This is just one example of a paragraph that makes little or no sense. I
suppose you cater to a specific group of people who are used to this
style of writing, but they also probably share your mindset on many of
these issues. That leaves you preaching to the choir in a language that
the unconvinced cannot even understand.
I think your site is extremely valuable, and represents an alternative
vision of what the internet can offer us: protection from an elite group
that wishes to not only influence how we think, but control what we can
possibly consider. The article about science journals self-censoring
themselves is very good, and deserves to be read much more than Tim
May's rant. It is unfortunate that in order to read it, we have to wade
through so many mumblings.
This site deserves a wide readership. Postings like this will not appeal
to, or inform, the average web surfer (unless they are racist
isolationists...). The average person is exactly who you need to appeal
to, because the rest of us are already on side.
Thanks for your time.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:45:37 -0800 (PST)
From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
America's founding crackers set up a slave-owning nation, after 300 years
of murdering natives, following the still alive and well European/Asiatic/African
tradition of stealing from others while being doped by witchdoctors and
astrologists (today's intelligence industry).
Politics and economics and "higher" education, and their tools of dissimulation,
the pantheon of heroes and enemies, were invented to camouflage this brutal
depradation, in the nation's beginning as now mimicking the civilized
practitioners of mayhem (no pun on May, Tim).
The depradation's beneficiaries see nothing wrong with it, even argue that's
the way of predestination, god's will for spoils to belong to the victor,
sloganeering "Might makes right."
When victims adopt the means and methods of the righteous victors, they are
called terrorists, enemies of the state, uncivilized, inferior, kill-worthy by
weapons of mass destruction, collateral damage of "hidden hand" market forces
and bare-faced moralism in service to privilege.
Yeah, yeah, all ideological tripe is the same: mine is right, yours is wrong.
However, ideologues are a tribe on the prowl for victims, so beware
media-addiction. Like this distortion mirror before you. What you fail to see
incoming can splatter your guts.
Tim calls what he sees. His horror movie, gun-shooting galore, made in the USA.
Here are excerpts from a NY times book review today of an American history of
weapons of mass seduction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/books/review/16BROOKHT.html
'To Begin the World Anew': The Founding Yokels
By RICHARD BROOKHISER
Of the storms of fashion that have pounded the humanities during the last 30
years have spared the study of early American history, one of the scholars we
have most to thank is Bernard Bailyn. Bailyn's 1967 classic, "The Ideological
Origins of the American Revolution," kept the eyes of a generation of
historians on the subjects that early Americans themselves eyed so obsessively:
the ideas and the politics of a highly intellectual and political time. There
were battles to be fought and money to be made during the American Revolution,
and without victory in the first, or the lure of the second, the Revolution
would never have been won. But the thoughts of even soldiers and speculators
kept returning to politics, and to the ideals that they believed politicians
lived to defend, or to threaten. Bailyn made the founders comprehensible, and
lively -- for their ideas still march through our minds.
The essay on Jefferson is the slightest. Bailyn draws attention to the
ambiguities in his thought -- his glimpse of "what a wholly enlightened world
might be" versus the compromises he made as a politician and an administrator
to advance his agenda of the day. Basically, though, the essay is hero worship
-- Ken Burns, one more time. This will no longer do. Jefferson's reputation
has been taking on water at an alarming rate, from the twin leaks of Sally
Hemings and the larger question of slavery. Federalist sympathizers, disgusted
with his coldness, his cant and his many deceptions, may be tempted to view
Jefferson's posthumous troubles with glee. But if Americans commit parricide
on him, they commit suicide. Jefferson must be defended by those who love him
toughly -- who know him well enough to dislike him, but who know themselves
well enough to know what they owe him.
In the misleadingly titled "Realism and Idealism in American Diplomacy,"
Bailyn hits top form. The real subject is the protean genius of Benjamin
Franklin at recreating himself and his image. We meet the shape-shifter in his
first portrait, painted when he was 40, as a middle-class man. As Franklin
becomes a famous scientist, he poses with experimental paraphernalia. By the
time he is 60, he sits beside a bust of Newton, in a blue velvet suit with
gold trim -- a picture of intellectual and worldly success. Ten years later,
in 1776, his newborn country sends him as its minister to France, where
Franklin adopts a new look -- a plain dark suit, a cap of marten fur and long
straight hair.
The French went wild. Franklin seemed like a 70-year-old child of nature, or
of Rousseau (Rousseau, Bailyn notes, had worn a similar fur cap in a famous
portrait). Franklin's face appeared on prints, medallions, busts and teacups.
The apotheosis came in a 1778 portrait by Joseph Siffred Duplessis. Bailyn
writes that "this face -- hatless now -- is worn, the skin pouched, the eyes
somewhat puffed and tired." Yet it "radiates experience, wisdom, patience,
tolerance . . . unconstrained by nationality, occupation or rank." Franklin
had become identified "with humanity itself, its achievements, hopes and
possibilities." All these images were propaganda -- by boosting himself,
Franklin boosted the United States. But he hit his grandest note when he
employed the fewest artifices.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:03:29 -0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@lne.com
From: Steve Schear <schear@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
At 09:54 AM 2/14/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: [Snip]
For an independent view on the underlying causes that I think Tim will salute to, see http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php
"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
-----
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:04:08 -0600
From: t
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: Qar
Most of the resposes to "The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war" are typical left wing, snot bubble rants Let them return to Salon before it goes down for the third time.
-----
From: J
To: <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject:
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:43:39 -0600
You stupid fucking schmuck. No oil for war my ass. You fail to understand the only reason the french are against the aggression against iraq, is so they can again export nuclear technology to these16th century cave dwelling fucks. As for germany, i'm sure they wouldn't mind trying to boost their economy by selling more arms, Heckler and Koch anyone. You should try drinking a couple of gallons of oil and do everyone a favor and die.
-----
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:01:46 -0800 (PST)
From: M
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: tim war-reason
You have discredited yourself not simply because of the racism but because you obviously feel so strongly about thinking another group of people is stupid. Haven't you got anything better to do than complain about niggers? You also obviously don't understand how the economy works. Another inaccuracy that I'm not sure if you just meant to exagerate or not is that everybody knows a suitcase nuke could take out 100,000 people tops, more would be possible but less is far more likely. You obviously don't understand a lot that is related to your claims and your obviously a very anger, unhappy individual.
-----
From: G
To: <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Agree with Tim May
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:58:32 -0600
Years of careful thought and thousands of moments of reality, I agree with Tim.
It's growing nature that it takes a horrible catastrophy to stimulate a repair response, and events inevitable will lead to a near-total devastating implosion. I can hardly contain myself with glee and expectation.
Blood and death, oh how awful!! Yet it comes and it always has. The dirty nuke that will crumble not just infrastructure but human life is no different that a mandate from God (reported by the election coup d'etat) and it's consequences. I look forward to it as it's what's needed to stem the flow of oppression, re-building goes from there depending on who survives and incentive's philosophical differences.
Devices have been set, ready to roll. This we've detected yet the scramble and butt-fuckedness of the bureaucratic bullshit runs amok. Intel told us where and when but omitted specifics, oh gosh darn. Any and all of the cowboys who retained a sense of thought and purpose - you've noticed we've asked for and secured transfers away from the suspected epicenters. We'll survive, but requisites dictate we use some sort of skill and employ all our resources upstairs to continue being simply human, no more as fodder to the swollen heads at Langley.
Goddamn good observations Tim, you have would made a great agent, but glad you're on the outside looking in, instead of here waiting for what we set in motion.
Hopefully, we'll meet for a few beers and some good Columbian brown somewhere in the Rockies a couple years from now.
Si.