• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      New upgrade with simpler interface   05/13/2016

      Once again, the fine folks at IPB made a new upgrade and things might not be where you started to learn they were. However, this is one time where I think they actually improved things for navigation. There are only a few big buttons: When you click on one of those buttons, some other stuff opens up, depending on which button you click. (Later Note: These only appear when zoomed in or in the mode for smartphones/tablets.) I'm learning this as you are, so I suggest you do what I am doing: click on these big buttons, see what they open and fiddle with the software some. Ironically, you will find there is a lot that is intuitive. That's what I'm discovering. (Later note: I just discovered that I was viewing the site zoomed in too far to see the normal view. The menus are still there with the old buttons, but when I zoom in too much, they disappear and the new buttons appear. I believe this zoomed in way is what the site looks like on mobile devices. I'm going to mess with it some more, then maybe make some explanations.) Sorry for the inconvenience. Still, over time, I hope you end up liking these changes. Michael
Mike Renzulli

The Antiwar.com Money Trail?

64 posts in this topic

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.

Then I got to thinking. Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism.

Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.

If you think I am off my rocker, consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.

Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.

Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.

Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

Edited by Mike Renzulli
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.

Then I got to thinking. Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism.

Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.

If you think I am off my rocker, consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.

Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.

Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.

Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

That's nothing. Groups like War.com have caused trillions of dollars of damage and millions of deaths already! Tyranny too! And that's just the U S of A!

--Brant

stop 'em, please, STOP 'EM!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing a well-known libertarian website to actual communists seems to be overdoing it.

Also, you should be well-aware that "anti-government extremist groups" have been targeted by certain "anti-terrorist" and law enforcement divisions. This definition of "anti-government" is flexible enough to include Tea Partiers, Ron Paul fans, etc.

Reason Magazine has done plenty of coverage on this.

I'm not surprised antiwar.com would get targeted merely for being a bunch of free-market anarchists. The Voluntaryist got raided by Federal agents too, at one point... and they swear oaths against initiating force for political purposes.

Also, Mike, I'd suggest that you shouldn't assume that the government is necessarily being well-intentioned with respect to its definition/s of "anti-government extremism" or that its only interest in this endeavour is to protect Americans from terrorism.

An unfortunate tendency I've seen amongst many Objectivists (and let me hasten to add, I do consider myself an Objectivist, albiet an open-system/heterodox one) is to treat the United States government in a symbolic fashion, i.e. as the embodiment of the principles of the Declaration of Independence (and thus see a refusal to enthusiastically endorse bombing Baghdad and/or Tehran as an attack on the Declaration's ideas)). This extends into seeing EVERY real-world conflict as the embodiment of debates of philosophical principles (romanticizing all wars like they were World War 2). The real world US government, on the other hand, clearly isn't embodying the principles it was founded upon, and most real-world conflicts aren't ripped out of Dostoyevsky novels.

"Ideas govern the course of history" isn't meant to be a form of top-down philosophical determinism. Only individuals can hold philosophical beliefs; the Objectivist theory of history must be interpreted and applied in a methodologically individualist fashion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.

Then I got to thinking.

No you didn't. In evidence, I submit the rest of your post.

Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism.

Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.

If you think I am off my rocker . . .

Relax. I don't think you're off your rocker, just a bit stupid. Stupid enough to believe that the FBI doesn't investigate anybody who isn't "guilty" of something. Stupid enough to believe that the U.S. government never tries to silence anybody. That kind of stupid.

. . . consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.

Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.

Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.

Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I protect myself by being bad. That way the haters of the good for being good pass me by.

--Brant

please, no ass slaps!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened upon a thread made by Antiwar.com staff member Angela Keaton on Facebook about how her group was the subject of an federal investigation as revealed by recently declassified F.B.I. documents. What is disgusting about the commentary written by Justin Raimondo Keaton linked to not only was it being used to raise money for the website but also attempted to make Antiwar.com out to be victims of a government conspiracy against them. Raimondo claims such actions on the part of federal agents are geared to silence dissent on the part of antiwar/peace groups and activists.

Then I got to thinking. Last year some antiwar groups (so called) were the subject of a federal investigation in which one Minnesota activist named Mick Kelly had his house raided resulting from the F.B.I. having evidence that he was willing to help train members of Columbia's communist rebel group (FARC). It was also discovered by federal agents that Kelly had a relationship with Hatem Abudayyeh who also had his home raided the same time as Kelly's. Abudayyeh is the director of the Arab American Action Network is alleged to have ties to Islamist groups and is also under investigation for potentially laundering half a million dollars in government grants.

In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means? Despite what Angela Keaton, Justin Raimondo, and Eric Garris may tell you the investigation (if any) is not being done to silence dissidents on the war on terrorism.

Admittedly I do not have any evidence to prove it and can only hypothesize. But I would not be surprised if it is later revealed that websites such as Antiwar.com along with groups that further conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having or have had money funneled to them via direct or indirect means from political Islamists as part of an effort on their part to undermine U.S. military and clandestine efforts in the middle east to stop terrorism. This being done in order to disseminate false or misleading information hoping to create doubt in the public's minds about U.S. foreign policy in the court of public opinion.

If you think I am off my rocker, consider that dictatorships will send money or support like-minded groups or efforts that match the philosophy the people who make up such regimes subscribe to up to and including disseminating propaganda. The Soviet Union was notorious for funneling money to violent and non-violent communistic efforts. Similar activities go on today with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia sending generous amounts of money to groups that match their version of Islam. Saudi Arabia supports the Salafi/Wahhabi movement while Iran supports groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood yet in addition to their theological outlook contributing to the radicalization of Muslims their efforts also include disseminating misleading information geared to further their purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations has a comprehensive report up at their website on how terrorists and groups that support them use the internet as part of their efforts to disseminate misinformation in addition to coordinate activities involving violence too.

In many ways I am not surprised that Justin Raimondo and other Antiwar.com staff members would make themselves out to be victims of a conspiracy to silence them. However, if the example of antiwar group raids that occured last year are any indication, the F.B.I. will not subject people to scrutiny unless they had or have some concrete evidence to go on and their agents will investigate potential leads if it matches a particular case that was or is open under the organization's jurisdiction.

Because of the possibility that the F.B.I. has evidence that the group behind Antiwar.com might be the recipient of funds from sources with ties to terrorist organizations that's why they were (and possibly still are) under investigation. That's why the F.B.I. raided (so called) antiwar organization's headquarters last year since there was hard evidence of contact or potential ties with terrorists. If it is determined that Antiwar.com is receiving money from Islamist groups the group could end up in the same boat as the communist organizations and individuals who were the subject of F.B.I. raids in 2010.

To her credit and in fairness, after I raised this issue Angela Keaton stated my point(s) were baseless. But we have yet to hear from Justin Raimondo or Eric Garris if they also deny their operation could be supported by Islamists as part of a misinformation effort and if the group will now screen out who their contributors are and refuse donations from questionable sources. It would be interesting to see if Garris, Raimondo and other antiwar libertarians are open evidence that contradict their conclusion that U.S. foreign policy was the reason for terrorism in the U.S. and abroad and (if proven wrong) they are willing to change their minds.

Time will tell if Antiwar.com and other like-minded individuals such as Alex Jones, and groups like Iraq Vets Against the War as well as even candidates who have run and are running for office are supported by Islamist money or not.

Regardless if Antiwar.com is the direct or indirect recipient of funds from groups with ties to terrorists, in the end, all they should be remembered for is how they were one of many means to the end of Political Islamist's efforts to undermine (if not outright destroy) Western Civilization. If the United States collapses from within as a result of the Stealth Jihad on the part of Islamist groups the people to thank for helping to make it a reality it will be the result of groups, like Antiwar.com, that helped make it happen.

For the record, antiwar.com has four fund raising appeals per year, one every three months. For each fund raising appeal, antiwar.com raises a total of $100,000. Raising this $100,000 normally takes between two and three weeks, so apparently, there are no rich donors, Islamic or otherwise, who are throwing money at antiwar.com, which is supported almost exclusively by many small donations from readers. Doing the math, the total annual budget should be about $400,000, since this is roughly the amount of money being raised. It might be slightly higher than this, based on matching donations that they receive.

It's nice that you're so concerned about the possible corrupt influences associated with this money. Perhaps, then, you might want to consider that the annual U.S. military budget, including all supplementary expenses for unbudgeted wars, as well as miscellaneous military expenses, is at least $1,000,000,000,000. The cost of the Iraq war alone is now approaching $1,000,000,000,000 dollars and may end up costing the nation up to $3,000,000,000,000. Billions and billions of dollars have been embezzeled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other areas of U.S. military involvement. The money has simply disappeared, and the Pentagon claims to have no knowledge of just what happened to it. Then there are all of those thousand dollar coffee pots and five thousand dollar toilets. All of those "defense" contractors whose only customer is the U.S. government naturally have a rather strong interest in convincing the U.S. government to funnel as much money to them as possible, so naturally, they have a rather large army of lobbyists whose sole purpose is to lobby the government to do just that. Their annual budget for lobbying most assuredly exceeds the antiwar.com annual budget of $400,000. So, maybe, you just ought to worry a little about the corrupting influence of all of that money. It's at least as dangerous as antiwar.com, which is only a web site that prints and links to articles suggesting that eternal, perpetual, endless war may not be the solution to the world's problems. In all of its years in operation, no people have ever been killed by antiwar.com. Whereas the defense contractors sell to the U.S. government bombs, missiles, drones, and banned chemical weapons, all of which have been used to kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners. Well, we each have our own demons to slay. I'm glad that you've discovered antiwar.com. Some day, you might even discover some actual demons that have caused massive amounts of actual death and destruction.

Martin

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all of its years in operation, no people have ever been killed by antiwar.com.

About once every couple of years, I spend a morning and part of an afternoon with (**Full Disclosure**) my old friend Eric Garris at the offices of AntiWar.com in San Francisco. And I'm here to tell you that, every time, his hospitality almost kills me. It usually takes me a couple of years to recover and do it again.

Seriously, Martin. if you weren't here, I sometimes don't know what I would do. Thanks for being here.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful, there, Martin. I think the toilet seat was only $700.

--Brant

we let out competitive bids for hospital construction rehab work in Vietnam--all three came back within several dollars of the other--it was obvious they got together and agreed to split considerable profits with each regardless of who got the contract--we countered by reducing the amount of work to be done by two-thirds--my hard-learned expertise was not, of course, passed on for money talks and truth walks, when it comes to government--and that, dear folks, is why George Bush the Younger didn't understand war and it's consequences and demands because HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN ONE!--wasted money, wasted lives; humanity grinds on and up while human beings are ground down

Edited by Brant Gaede
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all of its years in operation, no people have ever been killed by antiwar.com.

About once every couple of years, I spend a morning and part of an afternoon with (**Full Disclosure**) my old friend Eric Garris at the offices of AntiWar.com in San Francisco. And I'm here to tell you that, every time, his hospitality almost kills me. It usually takes me a couple of years to recover and do it again.

Seriously, Martin. if you weren't here, I sometimes don't know what I would do. Thanks for being here.

JR

Wah! What about me? What about me?

--Brant

wah, wah

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a friend of antiwar.com, but I'm not an enemy, either. From what I've seen of the site, it's basically a content curation and opinion site that reminds me a bit of the Huffington Post in the way it does its slanting (but with a different overall point of view, obviously).

I think it is valuable to have sites like that--just like I think other opinion-and-curation sites like Jihad Watch are valuable (despite not liking that one at all)--because they present material you might not see anywhere else. Freedom of the press and all that...

My problem with these kinds of sites is the constant hype and preaching--both explicit and implicit (through rather obvious selective focus and omissions). I find the noise-to-signal ratio too high for my own comfort, so I simply don't go to these places. Hell, I'm irritated with The Blaze for this reason, and it's pretty obvious that I'm a fan of Glenn Beck.

But let's look at some actual facts on the reach of antiwar.com. Here is the quantcast page for traffic and demographics: antiwar.com on quantcast.

It gets 175,765 unique visitors a month in the USA, with a total estimated 2,823,852 page views.

Demographics of majority of visitors: Male, older, African American, less affluent, graduate and post graduate.

Affinity

Politics & Commentary - lewrockwell.com, rawstory.com, Salon, prisonplanet.com

Regional/Local News - Al Jazeera, spiegel.de, washingtontimes.com, jpost.com

Magazines - New Yorker, The Economist, Forbes, Vanity Fair

"Affinity" means other places on the Internet the visitors of antiwar.com generally go to.

Traffic-wise, 48% are addicts, 41% are regulars and 11% are passers-by.

Sounds dangerous, huh? (Gimmee a break...)

Sorry, but I just don't see this having any major cultural impact on the mainstream.

As to the finances of anitwar.com, I don't know enough about this organization to make an opinion. Does it get money from George Soros? I tend to doubt it. Is it a front for an Islamist takeover of the world? I seriously doubt it--but I do find the constant anti-Israel preaching a definite turn-off. If I were to guess, I would probably look at the money people involved with lewrockwell.com in addition to its normal fund-raising. Frankly, though, I'm not all that interested.

To me, antiwar.com falls into the culture of political sites with a core following that serve up links to pre-selected news stories and offer a slant according to their particular point of view in an "us-against-them" frame. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it is important for readers to see these things for what they are to the best of their discernment, not according to some romanticized demonization version that distorts facts, nor according to romanticized all-heroic version that distorts facts.

I hold that you cannot correctly evaluate anything if you refuse to correctly identify it. It's important to use your own mind and not turn it off because of all the yelling.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, Jeff. No need to get defensive. I would hope you and the others who reel against my essay can appreciate someone like myself having the integrity to raise questions that provoke controversy and new thought outside the libertarian/Objectivist monestary. Furthermore, the conclusions I have drawn with regards not only to terrorism but also operations like AWC are the result of lots of observation on my part having gone from antiwar to pro-self defense.

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions that such a response from people such as yourself would be grounded in a defensive posture rather than taking the time to ask why people like myself came to the conclusions I did and now take a different view.

Therein lies the problem in many libertarian circles I frequent(ed) and your response is an indication of this. They are so wrapped up in their own mantras they tend to refuse to consider if the conclusions they drew with regards to issues (like war and foreign policy) are wrong and instead of trying to understand the point of view of the dissenter they, instead, resort to ad-hominem attacks.

As to the points I raise in the essay is that the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and I divulged my reasons for why I came to my conclusions. But are Antiwar.com and other libertarian organizations receiving Stealth Jihad funding? That I am not sure.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic Frequency

Global and US

grrr...this time I get "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this board."

Michael:

Am I somehow misreading or not understanding the global and US comparisons above?

Why would the percentages of the global and US traffic be exactly the same in both bar graphs/charts?

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we let out competitive bids for hospital construction rehab work in Vietnam--all three came back within several dollars of the other--it was obvious they got together and agreed to split considerable profits with each regardless of who got the contract--we countered by reducing the amount of work to be done by two-thirds--my hard-learned expertise was not, of course, passed on for money talks and truth walks, when it comes to government--

Brant:

Interesting. I found the same pattern with the "competitive bidding" roadway/sewer capital projects when I was an administrator in NY City government.

We would publicly bid, for example, 1) Francis Lewis Blvd.; 2) Utopia Parkway and 3) Springfield Blvd., which are all major FAUS [Federal Arterial Urban System] funded roadways* in Queens County, NY City. Strangely, the three major Italian construction companies won the contracts. More strangely, each one got one of the contracts. And, most strange of all, their bids were all with one [1 or 2 %], or two per cent of each other. So Tully and DiNapoli, Edenwald Construction and Tony Grace, miraculously each got one of the major projects. What a coincidence.

One time, when we bid the demolition of the 3rd Avenue El in the Bronx, the pattern was broken and all sorts of alarm bells went off. A minority contractor from Ohio bid plus one dollar [$1.00] and won the bid. All the others had the city paying 1 million to take the El down. I had to call the Ohio firm to find out why they mis bid the contract. They had assumed that they could make enough money selling the scrap metal like in pre WWII when the city took down the 2nd Avenue El in Manhattan and sold the scrap to the Japanese, who kindly gave it back to us in WWII shrapnel in bombs.

I explained that their company would have gone bankrupt because of the costs of doing business in NY City and we had to re-bid the contract.

*National Highway System (NHS) - Funds were developed to provide an interconnected system of Principal Arterial routes that serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities and other intermodal transportation facilities and serve interstate and interregional travel. Highways included in the NHS (pdf 124 kb) include the Interstate System and other urban and rural principal arterials and highways. This system replaced the Federal Aid primary, secondary and urban systems. The following projects are eligible for NHS funding:

  1. Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation of the system.
  2. Operational improvements.
  3. Construction and/or operational improvements to a Federal-Aid Highway not on the NHS if:
    • the proposed project is in the same corridor and in proximity to a fully access controlled highway designated for the NHS.
    • the improvement will improve the level of service on the fully access controlled highways and regional travel.
    • the improvement is more cost-effective than an improvement to the fully access controlled highway.

[*] Highway safety improvements.[*] Transportation planning.[*] Highway research and planning.[*] Highway-related technology transfer activities.[*] Startup costs for traffic management and control.[*] Fringe and corridor parking facilities.[*] Carpool and vanpool projects.[*] Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.

Development and establishment of management systems.

    • Bridge
    • Pavement
    • Traffic Congestion
    • Highway Safety
    • Public Transportation Facilities and Equipment
    • Intermodal Transportation Facilities and Systems

[*] Wetlands mitigation efforts and wetlands mitigation.

These projects are funded 80% federal, 20% state, unless the work is for an HOV lane. The percentage is then 90-10.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, Jeff. No need to get defensive. I would hope you and the others who reel against my essay can appreciate someone like myself having the integrity to raise questions that provoke controversy and new thought outside the libertarian/Objectivist monestary. Furthermore, the conclusions I have drawn with regards not only to terrorism but also operations like AWC are the result of lots of observation on my part having gone from antiwar to pro-self defense.

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions that such a response from people such as yourself would be grounded in a defensive posture rather than taking the time to ask why people like myself came to the conclusions I did and now take a different view.

Therein lies the problem in many libertarian circles I frequent(ed) and your response is an indication of this. They are so wrapped up in their own mantras they tend to refuse to consider if the conclusions they drew with regards to issues (like war and foreign policy) are wrong and instead of trying to understand the point of view of the dissenter they, instead, resort to ad-hominem attacks.

As to the points I raise in the essay is that the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and I divulged my reasons for why I came to my conclusions. But are Antiwar.com and other libertarian organizations receiving Stealth Jihad funding? That I am not sure.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

Your point of view is implicitly held by most Americans and provides the human fuel and other supportive material for unnecessary war after war after war. Your essay assumes the validity of this foundation and to deal with it on its level is to concede to you its general overall context. I am actually much more of your camp than I am of Jeff's. I'm always wondering where the righteous war is so I can go and righteously fight it. The problem is after many years if not decades I finally figured out most American wars have been imperialist bullshit or just out and out unnecessary and stupid and--oh, yes--frequently involve evil people at the highest levels, both visible and invisible.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is after many years if not decades I finally figured out most American wars have been imperialist bullshit or just out and out unnecessary and stupid and--oh, yes--frequently involve evil people at the highest levels, both visible and invisible.

Brant,

I have a problem with the designations "imperialist," "empire" and so on. I think this grants a romantic aura to the bullshit that it does not deserve.

How about business people in collusion with government people and wallowing in Oceans of Greed and Delusions of Grandeur without even thinking about who gets killed? That sounds a lot more like it to me.

I'm even beginning to think the term "crony capitalism" is too good a phrase for this crap.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, Jeff. No need to get defensive. I would hope you and the others who reel against my essay can appreciate someone like myself having the integrity to raise questions that provoke controversy and new thought outside the libertarian/Objectivist monestary. Furthermore, the conclusions I have drawn with regards not only to terrorism but also operations like AWC are the result of lots of observation on my part having gone from antiwar to pro-self defense.

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions that such a response from people such as yourself would be grounded in a defensive posture rather than taking the time to ask why people like myself came to the conclusions I did and now take a different view.

Therein lies the problem in many libertarian circles I frequent(ed) and your response is an indication of this. They are so wrapped up in their own mantras they tend to refuse to consider if the conclusions they drew with regards to issues (like war and foreign policy) are wrong and instead of trying to understand the point of view of the dissenter they, instead, resort to ad-hominem attacks.

As to the points I raise in the essay is that the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and I divulged my reasons for why I came to my conclusions. But are Antiwar.com and other libertarian organizations receiving Stealth Jihad funding? That I am not sure.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

I understand your point of view just fine, Mike - with perhaps one big exception:

Some people associated with no State, but instead with an independent, international criminal organization, launch an attack on New York and Washington. They bring down a couple of huge buildings, and kill a few thousand people. The U.S. military then proceeds to bomb a bunch of people who had nothing whatever to do with these attacks.

Explain to me how this constitutes "self defense."

Hearing a coherent explanation of this point (though I doubt one is possible) might cause me to learn something I don't already know about your warped viewpoint.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Unless a site specifically requests having its traffic quantified by Quantcast and puts the appropriate permission code on its site, the results will come from a lower grade of crawling. This is not to say that it will be wrong. But it will be a "rough estimate" (their term) and less nuanced.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, Jeff. No need to get defensive. I would hope you and the others who reel against my essay can appreciate someone like myself having the integrity to raise questions that provoke controversy and new thought outside the libertarian/Objectivist monestary. Furthermore, the conclusions I have drawn with regards not only to terrorism but also operations like AWC are the result of lots of observation on my part having gone from antiwar to pro-self defense.

It is unfortunate that when one raises questions that such a response from people such as yourself would be grounded in a defensive posture rather than taking the time to ask why people like myself came to the conclusions I did and now take a different view.

Therein lies the problem in many libertarian circles I frequent(ed) and your response is an indication of this. They are so wrapped up in their own mantras they tend to refuse to consider if the conclusions they drew with regards to issues (like war and foreign policy) are wrong and instead of trying to understand the point of view of the dissenter they, instead, resort to ad-hominem attacks.

As to the points I raise in the essay is that the enemy within speaks through Antiwar.com and I divulged my reasons for why I came to my conclusions. But are Antiwar.com and other libertarian organizations receiving Stealth Jihad funding? That I am not sure.

What's it like living in your world, Mike? All those swarthy foreigners endlessly scheming to destroy Western Civilization - and for no reason at all, other than their savagery and their unreasoning hatred of the good for being the good! And you don't even see the comedy in this perspective on things. What a pity.

JR

I understand your point of view just fine, Mike - with perhaps one big exception:

Some people associated with no State, but instead with an independent, international criminal organization, launch an attack on New York and Washington. They bring down a couple of huge buildings, and kill a few thousand people. The U.S. military then proceeds to bomb a bunch of people who had nothing whatever to do with these attacks.

Explain to me how this constitutes "self defense."

Hearing a coherent explanation of this point (though I doubt one is possible) might cause me to learn something I don't already know about your warped viewpoint.

JR

The attack was bear baiting, and it worked, in spades. Future historians will be amazed how much the United States then went on to damage itself. George Bush kept asking what Halliburton thought. Bush did other bad things to this country, like Medicare Part D, but nothing else came near this perpetual warfare.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of Antiwar.com, the group posted a publicly available terrorist watch list on their website and commentaries by Antiwar.com authors were passed out at anti war protests. This, in turn, prompted the F.B.I. to initiate an investigation to determine if the employees or owners of the website were spies or terrorist sympathizers. I think the fact that the F.B.I. has investigated Antiwar.com raises questions about the website itself.

The above makes two points:

1. Because an anti-war group:

... A. Publicized the U.S. government’s terrorist watch list (the point being that practically all the people listed were innocent), and

... B. Other groups passed out their writings at anti-war protests,

the federal government is therefore justified in investigating the group for criminal activity.

2. The fact that the FBI investigates a group is grounds for you to suspect the group of criminal activity.

1 is the hallmark of a police-state. 2 assumes the honesty of the FBI despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Look into the FBI behavior in the following:

  • The frame-up of Edgar Steele (the fact that he was once the free-speech defense lawyer for some nut spouting nonsense is irrelevant).
  • Oklahoma City bombing.
  • Frame-up and attempted murder of Randy Weaver and murder of his wife at Ruby Ridge.
  • Waco, Branch Davidian massacre.
  • Vince Foster murder.
  • Downing of TWA flight 800.
  • Anthrax hoax.
  • “Sue” dinosaur theft.
  • Underwear bomber, especially with regard to Kurt Haskell.

See Government Corruption on ARI Watch.

For more see the work of Rodney Stich.

By the way, Rodney Stich is 88 (89?) and became deathly ill a few months ago. He discontinued his blog a few days ago.

Edited by Mark
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UA Students of Objectivism that I formed during the late 1960s was under regular surveillance by the F.B.I.

This was obvious enough, even if it had not been for an article in the Daily Wildcat, according to which we came in second only to S.D.S. on the F.B.I.'s list of "subversive" campus organizations. Those guys who showed up at our meetings sporting short hair, black suits, and narrow ties, and who always sat in the back without saying a word, didn't exactly blend in. And then there were the similarly attired agents who came by our table at the beginning of each semester and took copies of the free literature that we distributed.

I assume we called attention to ourselves after participating in the nation-wide moratorium for peace in October, 1969 (which I helped to organize locally). But I like to think that it was our stress on reason and individual freedom that made a student O'ist group such a threat to the U.S. government. :rolleyes:

Two F.B.I. agents actually came to my home in late 1974, after I had finished writing ATCAG and returned to Tucson to rest up. But they wanted to know about S.L.A.M. -- the Student Libertarian Action Movement, which I had helped to organize years earlier with Conrad Goeringer.

I told the agents that I didn't know anything (which was basically true, since I hadn't even been a student for over three years), but Conrad was still holding meetings and organizing protests. But I had spent a lot of time on campus (at the library), and it was difficult to miss the S.L.A.M. meeting notifications that seemed to be posted everywhere. I therefore had to chuckle when the one of the intrepid agents asked if I knew when and where S.L.A.M. held its meetings. I replied, "Have you guys bothered to walk around the campus?"

Our tax dollars at work. <_<

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With such words posted on Antiwar.com does Justin Raimondo really think his website's supporters are such simpletons that they do not think or know the implications of what an F.B.I. investigation really means?

It means nothing, that's what it means. There is no legitimate reason why posting a publicly available list or writing articles critical of the government should prompt an F.B.I. investigation. It you think that such investigations do not have a "chilling effect" on dissent, at least in the long run, then you are fooling yourself.

And so what if a group receives "Islamist money"? Should a group check the religious affiliations of its donors before accepting their contributions? Should it accept money only from Christians and Jews? Is atheist money okay?

I have never been a fan of Justin Raimondo, though I like him personally. I think that he sometimes slants stories to support his preconceived conclusions. But the same is true of many pro-government advocacy groups. The last time I checked, this is called free speech and the marketplace of ideas. Why should the F.B.I. concern itself, in any manner whatsoever, with the dissemination of ideas?

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UA Students of Objectivism that I formed during the late 1960s was under regular surveillance by the F.B.I.

This was obvious enough, even if it had not been for an article in the Daily Wildcat, according to which we came in second only to S.D.S. on the F.B.I.'s list of "subversive" campus organizations. Those guys who showed up at our meetings sporting short hair, black suits, and narrow ties, and who always sat in the back without saying a word, didn't exactly blend in. And then there were the similarly attired agents who came by our table at the beginning of each semester and took copies of the free literature that we distributed.

I assume we called attention to ourselves after participating in the nation-wide moratorium for peace in October, 1969 (which I helped to organize locally). But I like to think that it was our stress on reason and individual freedom that made a student O'ist group such a threat to the U.S. government. :rolleyes:

Two F.B.I. agents actually came to my home in late 1974, after I had finished writing ATCAG and returned to Tucson to rest up. But they wanted to know about S.L.A.M. -- the Student Libertarian Action Movement, which I had helped to organize years earlier with Conrad Goeringer.

I told the agents that I didn't know anything (which was basically true, since I hadn't even been a student for over three years), but Conrad was still holding meetings and organizing protests. But I had spent a lot of time on campus (at the library), and it was difficult to miss the S.L.A.M. meeting notifications that seemed to be posted everywhere. I therefore had to chuckle when the one of the intrepid agents asked if I knew when and where S.L.A.M. held its meetings. I replied, "Have you guys bothered to walk around the campus?"

Our tax dollars at work. <_<

Ghs

Thanks, George. This little bit of objectivist history that you have presented here should be read by every single objectivist who has ever entertained the notion, even for a moment, that the FBI is their friend, or that FBI investigation of a group is any kind of evidence that the group has any kind of ties to terrorism. It's kind of comical, in a sick, twisted way, that a student objectivist group was under regular FBI surveillance, and that you of all people, a student and future libertarian freelance philosopher, was approached by FBI agents to obtain information that they could easily have obtained by walking around campus. But, of course, this time, it's all different. This time, we should really believe that FBI investigation of antiwar.com proves their ties to terrorism.

I would not be at all surprised if Objectivist Living and, by extension, every registered member of Objectivist Living, is under FBI surveillance and part of a potential terrorist watch list right now. Why not? If they were surveilling your student group years ago, long before 9/11 provided a justification for every act of government spying, why wouldn't the FBI be keeping tabs on Objectivist Living and its members, now that we are living in the age of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. I would, of course, consider this to be a moral abomination, with one or two exceptions. For example, it would be kind of funny if Mike Renzulli found himself on an FBI terrorist watch list and subject to an FBI terrorism investigation. To which I could only say, "Brother, you asked for it!".

Martin

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, George. This little bit of objectivist history that you have presented here should be read by every single objectivist who has ever entertained the notion, even for a moment, that the FBI is their friend, or that FBI investigation of a group is any kind of evidence that the group has any kind of ties to terrorism. It's kind of comical, in a sick, twisted way, that a student objectivist group was under regular FBI surveillance, and that you of all people, a student and future libertarian freelance philosopher, was approached by FBI agents to obtain information that they could easily have obtained by walking around campus. But, of course, this time, it's all different. This time, we should really believe that FBI investigation of antiwar.com proves their ties to terrorism.

I would not be at all surprised if Objectivist Living and, by extension, every registered member of Objectivist Living, is under FBI surveillance and part of a potential terrorist watch list right now. Why not? If they were surveilling your student group years ago, long before 9/11 provided a justification for every act of government spying, why wouldn't the FBI be keeping tabs on Objectivist Living and its members, now that we are living in the age of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. I would, of course, consider this to be a moral abomination, with one or two exceptions. For example, it would be kind of funny if Mike Renzulli found himself on an FBI terrorist watch list and subject to an FBI terrorism investigation. To which I could only say, "Brother, you asked for it!".

Martin

S.L.A.M. was really Conrad's baby, and I never cared for the name, which I viewed as hyper-dramatic. As the first president of the Arizona chapter (all four original board members were O'ists), it was my responsibility to write the charter that we needed to gain official recognition by the University of Arizona. My charter, which sailed through, explicitly repudiated any and all uses of violence. I felt this emphasis was necessary to counteract the "radical chic" of our name.

I also edited and published (on my personal mimeograph machine) the first several issues of The Match!-- which, so far as I know, is still being published by Fred Woodworth out of Tucson. I also wrote the lead articles for the first two or three issues. I haven't seen copies of these deservedly obscure articles in many years, but I published a ponderous two-part article that addressed the problems involved in holding anti-war protests on "public" property, especially university campuses. I think the title was something like "Protests and the Initiation of Force." Hence my focus was in determining what did and did not constitute the "initiation of force" in the context of a public university -- a theme with obvious Randian implications.

I can't recall exactly what my conclusions were, but I think they were fairly conservative, especially for an anarchist periodical. :rolleyes:

In any case, that two-parter was my first effort to deal with the issue of civil disobedience, if in a clunky, inchoate manner. After that unpleasant experience, I decided it was best to read something about a subject before offering one's own grand theory to the world. <_<

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UA Students of Objectivism that I formed during the late 1960s was under regular surveillance by the F.B.I.

This was obvious enough, even if it had not been for an article in the Daily Wildcat, according to which we came in second only to S.D.S. on the F.B.I.'s list of "subversive" campus organizations. Those guys who showed up at our meetings sporting short hair, black suits, and narrow ties, and who always sat in the back without saying a word, didn't exactly blend in. And then there were the similarly attired agents who came by our table at the beginning of each semester and took copies of the free literature that we distributed.

I assume we called attention to ourselves after participating in the nation-wide moratorium for peace in October, 1969 (which I helped to organize locally). But I like to think that it was our stress on reason and individual freedom that made a student O'ist group such a threat to the U.S. government. :rolleyes:

Two F.B.I. agents actually came to my home in late 1974, after I had finished writing ATCAG and returned to Tucson to rest up. But they wanted to know about S.L.A.M. -- the Student Libertarian Action Movement, which I had helped to organize years earlier with Conrad Goeringer.

I told the agents that I didn't know anything (which was basically true, since I hadn't even been a student for over three years), but Conrad was still holding meetings and organizing protests. But I had spent a lot of time on campus (at the library), and it was difficult to miss the S.L.A.M. meeting notifications that seemed to be posted everywhere. I therefore had to chuckle when the one of the intrepid agents asked if I knew when and where S.L.A.M. held its meetings. I replied, "Have you guys bothered to walk around the campus?"

Our tax dollars at work. <_<

Ghs

George:

Interesting. I got the same type of "visit" from a duet of FBI agents on a Sunday night in the mid sixties.

We had formed SFS [students for a Free Society] as a philosophical and political counter weight to SDS [student for a Democratic Society] on the Queens College campus of the City University.

We had a newsletter publication. We were about 90% Randian/Objectivist with a "YAFer" or two in the organization.

The "visit," unsurprisingly was in the semester after The Vigilant Torch, our publication had been distributed. I had written an extremely aggressive article "The Draft: Anti Life, which supported resistance without any statement about non-initiation of force. My position, which was not fully endorsed by the organization was that violent resistance to the war and the draft was justified.

Therefore, I was not completely surprised by the "visit." I just was surprised at the waste of resources on a little mimeographed newsletter put out by a group that numbered about a hundred at that time.

Granted we were a very loud and visible 100, but it still seemed to me to be an excessive and over reaching use of resources.

Later on in the sixties, we also noticed the watchers at our meetings, demonstrations and parties.

Adam

Post Script: I agree with Martin. It would not surprise me that tabs are not kept on this site. I assume everything can be tracked today. There is no privacy.

Edited by Selene
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With statements like this the term Gas Chamber Mentality seems to come to mind.

I understand your point of view just fine, Mike - with perhaps one big exception:

Some people associated with no State, but instead with an independent, international criminal organization, launch an attack on New York and Washington. They bring down a couple of huge buildings, and kill a few thousand people. The U.S. military then proceeds to bomb a bunch of people who had nothing whatever to do with these attacks.

Explain to me how this constitutes "self defense."

Hearing a coherent explanation of this point (though I doubt one is possible) might cause me to learn something I don't already know about your warped viewpoint.

JR

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now