-Caveat Lector-
From
May, 1999:
American Foreign Policy At The Crossroads
Synopsis
Reaffirmation of Kosovo article; point by point refutation of Clinton/Blair/NATO
rationalizations; motivations for NATO aggression; Serbian references to "Adolph"
Clinton; the Tyrants' Four Step; traditional Washington/Je
fferson foreign policy based upon mutual respect and unentangled freedom not
isolationism; applicability of same to Twenty-First Century; American Sovereignty, the
real issue.
**************
Usually, when a writer publishes an initial assessment of a fast breaking world
development involving multiple players within three or four days of its outset, he has
many reasons to wish that he could recall and revise l
ong before five weeks have passed. But with regard to the Clinton-Blair-NATO
aggression in the Balkans, the subject of our April essay posted March 28th, we find
no need for revision. It remains on our current page. This
update but builds on what we say there.
The most common rationalization for the five plus weeks of horror, which the
Clinton-Blair-NATO axis have been able to perpetrate in Serbia--however stretched by
the reality--has remained that of saving the Albanian eleme
nt in Kosovo from Serbian atrocities. The problem, as pointed out earlier, is that the
Serbian reaction to the NATO bombing was literally programed by the self-anointed
"altruists." Being pounded from the skies by nations
with populations outnumbering them 70 or more times over--nations armed with
technically superior weapons;--it was totally predictable that the Serbs would lash
out in a frenzy at those with whom their attackers publicly
identified. Thus where hundreds might have been the victims of cruelty before; within
days of the assault, hundreds of thousands became victims. It is asinine for those who
planned this war to deny culpability in what ha
s happened.
Bear in mind that those planners are well educated men, who knew the Serbian tradition
for defying ultimatums; knew that until we started this aggression, we--even as the
Serbs--had classified the K.L.A. as a terrorist bo
dy; knew that the ultimate ultimatum being defied (allowing an army of occupation on
their soil), was one that no freedom loving person in the world could find acceptable.
It is not the claimed despotism of the socialists
in Belgrade, but the intemperance of the socialists in Washington and London, which
keeps this War going.
The secondary argument was that the Serbs, unrestrained by an army of occupation, were
going to "destabalize" the Balkans. We leave it to any fair minded person, whether the
Balkans seem more stable today than before the
bombs began to fall!
When assailed at home by Conservative forces within their several populations, for the
poor planning as well as the despicable nature of this War, the perpetrators of
deliberate internationalized aggression--including the
draft evader in the White House--fell back upon appeals to the National pride of the
respective NATO members. We are "in this now," we were told; we have to "see it
through to a successful conclusion." But nothing could
be more fatuous! That such an argument could even be used by men who had insisted on
our humiliating retreat from Viet Nam--a just war, fought to stem the tide of
international Communism in Asia--has more than a few outra
geous aspects.
Yet the most outrageous aspect lies in the fact that there is no possible honor to be
had in subduing a nation more than 70 times out-numbered by nations with superior
weaponry and no legitimate interest in the nation bei
ng subdued! The NATO attack on Yugoslavia, thus far, demonstrates the same type of
heroism as the Italian air attacks on the primatively armed warriors of Emperor Haile
Silassie in Ethiopia in 1935. (Mussolini, like Clint
on and Blair was interested in a new World Order! He sought his in an alliance with
another European Socialist, Adolph Hitler.)
One of the most far fetched arguments to justify NATO aggression in the Balkans was
offered by French President Chirac (whom one would have thought would know better than
to get in bed with the Social Democrats on this on
e), when he sought to justify the aggression as France's way to avoid another Munich!
Of course, he has it backwards. It was the German--not the Allied position--at Munich,
that German intervention in Czechoslovakia was r
equired to protect an ethnic minority!
The Internationalists & The NATO Bureaucracy
Since the beginning of this century, British intellectuals, of one stripe or another,
have been trying to entangle America in their interests-- to ensnare us in some form
of new world order. For example, in the first deca
de of the century, the Will of the famous empire builder Cecil Rhodes established a
program of scholarships for bright young British, American, German & South Africans to
study at Oxford--the avowed intention to provide a
n intellectual basis for a Nordic hegemony that would dominate Man's future. (William
J. Clinton was such a scholar. So too, a half century earlier, was Clarence K. Streit,
who founded the Atlantic Union Movement before W
orld War II, proposing our Federal union with those nations who are now our principal
NATO allies!)
We do not suggest that from a British perspective--the British people have survived
and prospered for centuries by a combination of courage, foresight and intrigue--there
was something inherently wrong with all such endea
vors. But from an American perspective, any attempted entanglement--other than a
temporary alliance to meet an "extraordinary emergency"-- is clearly a retreat from
our battle won heritage; from those policies which we wi
ll hereinafter delineate in the words of the framers: Policies that best reflect the
nature of our institutions; policies that have served us well in the past and, given
the predictable realities of the 21st Century, will
serve us even better in the future.
Nor do we suggest that Clinton was studying or imbibing Rhodes' views of Nordic
domination while in England. His ideological associates--picketing our embassy,
burning our flag--would have been much further left than thos
e of the empire building diamond magnate. But then, everything about the
Arkansan--slick and deceptive to the core of his being--shouts out the Fabian
orientation he came home with. [For those unfamiliar with the term: Th
e British Fabian Society were the original modern exponents of the concept of
promoting socialist revolution in the parlance of polite middle-class debate; calling
radical proposals by moderate names; in short, revolution
by subterfuge, accomplished by skilled manipulators (the wolves in sheep's clothing
in the favorite Fabian metaphor), before the bemused bourgeoisie would ever know what
hit them.]
Of course, there have been many approaches to the idea of creating a New World
Order--an idea which has appealed to empire builders, dreamers, mystics and fools, as
well as tyrants, since the fall of Rome. When President
Wilson came back from Europe in November, 1918 with a proposed "League of Nations,"
the idea was overwhelmingly accepted. It was only little by little that an articulate,
organized opposition emerged. The first shot was f
ired on November 21, 1918, when Senator James A. Reed of Missouri--a conservative
Democrat familiar to regular visitors to this web site--rose on the floor of the
United States Senate in open and total opposition. He was
soon joined by a small band of Republicans, and the great debate began. There is no
question but that the exponents of the traditional American foreign policy--explained
below--won that debate; and America rejected the Le
ague of Nations.
That defeat was a bitter one for the exponents of the new Internationalism. Yet they
bided their time, continuing to extend their influence in academic circles and in the
media; and when, 27 years later, a similar "United
Nations" was proposed, they were more than ready. Every effort was made to force
ratification before there could be an equivalent debate. The tactics--the standard
mainstays of the academic left, the sneer and the raised
eyebrow--still worked in those days; the result, a quick ratification, with only a
couple of dissenting votes.
But the exponents of the new foreign policy did not pause long to celebrate. Almost
immediately, they began to maneuver to push America yet further along the path to
"World Government"; to reverse by subterfuge, the victo
ry of the Revolution, without ever acknowledging that that indeed was the ultimate
issue. Groups such as the United World Federalists and the proponents of Streit's
Atlantic Union sprang up on College campuses across Amer
ica, rallied by speakers such as the late Norman Cousins--men who specialized in
terrorizing coeds with tales of a nuclear holocaust, before they introduced their
proposals. What little debate there was usually devolved u
pon questions of what form the new World Government should take, or when it would be
practical to take the next step.
The bottom line is that not only when President Clinton was in school, at home and in
Britain, but when most of his instructors were in school, the dominant academic ethos
was that World Government was both idealistic and
inevitable; while the men who had rallied to the concepts of Washington and Jefferson
to reject the League of Nations, were pictured as fearful and benighted, stupid
"isolationists" who lacked any vision of the future. T
he actual Senate debate, where Reed and his cohorts took the internationalists apart
intellectually point by point, were never read at all. It was all done by the raised
eyebrow and the sneer--and above all with fear; fea
r of war, fear of the "bomb," the fear of having to defend what better men had won.
Does anyone have any doubt at all, where Bill Clinton stood on this issue?
The then growing threat of International Communism provided both a complication and an
advantage to those endeavoring to promote World Government. Even most of the Fabian
Socialists of the Anglo-American world rebelled at
the idea of being part of a common government with the likes of Stalin. On the other
hand, the threat or danger forced conservative Americans, ordinarily skeptical of
foreign alliances, to openly embrace what Washington
had dubbed "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." NATO and other
strategic groupings grew not only out of an alliance between Nations but out of one at
home, among all major non-Communist factions, to deal w
ith a long term crisis. The idea made great sense at the time.
Over the decades, NATO developed its own bureaucracy; an army of uniformed paper
pushers, discharging the day to day necessities of an ever ready structure. That was
unavoidable. The planning for any modern War, defensive
or offensive, intended or merely possible, involves incredible attention to detail.
The collapse of Communism--welcomed as a joyous event by all Conservatives--changed
the prospects for a number of key players in the present drama. It obviously
threatened both the jobs and sense of importance of the NATO
bureaucracy. It also removed the major reason for Conservatives to work with
"Liberals" for a common Foreign Policy. That this, coupled with the new stronger more
independent America, which emerged from the Reagan years,
was seen as a crisis by the Fabian Socialist Internationalists is a given. President
Clinton's initial personal response was to go to Brussels in January, 1994, and try to
change the very nature of NATO; persuading the a
lliance to launch a new "Partnership for Peace" outreach to Eastern Europe. We hate to
be so crass, but killing for "peace" in the Balkans, today, serves a definite
functional purpose for some of these players. Is it only
a coincidence?
"Adolph" Clinton
Early in the War, it was reported on the internet that the Serbs had given our
out-of-control American President, the appellation of "Adolph" Clinton; apparently
hoping to thereby call attention to an obvious comparison b
etween their reaction to the present aggression and their reaction to the earlier
bully who had also given them deadly ultimatums, followed by unwarranted cruelty and
disproportionate violence. Predictably, the pro-Clinto
n U.S. media have thus far declined to explore the aptness of the comparison. But it
may indeed be more apt than even the spokesmen for Clinton's victims have thus far
suggested. Consider if you will the little dance of u
surpation, which we have dubbed:
The Tyrant's Four Step!
STEP ONE. Create a Crisis: Select or create an incident with the emotional potential
to become the focal point of popular attention.
First Example: Hitler's friends and a Communist dupe manage to burn the Reichstag.
Hitler claims Communist plot threatening nation.
Second Example: Clinton and the European Social Democrats claim to discover Nazi style
genocide in Serbian civil war. Claim need to involve NATO to preserve Balkan stability
and prevent escalation of savagery.
STEP TWO. Take dramatic action--with as much self-righteous fanfare as possible--not
to meet a real problem, if any, but to overturn norms of conduct inconvenient to the
usurper.
First Example: Force a suspension of the civil law. Begin rule by decree, appealing to
the patriotism of the German people to help suppress any protest. Take over all
communications to propagandize self and demonize other
s.
Second Example: Threaten to bomb Serbia, unless the Serbs submit to an impossible
demand to allow foreign occupation of their soil. Unleash propaganda war to turn
defensive alliance against Communism into new Internationa
l vehicle to promote Fabian Socialist version of European unity and "Democracy" via
armed intervention (war).
STEP THREE. Press on, using the propaganda technique we now know as "the Big Lie," to
turn all protests and all bits of inconvenient reality into a further justification
for ever more extreme action. Use the diversion of
public attention to further consolidate your position and avoid public scrutiny of
other forms of your misconduct.
First example: Viciously suppress all dissent--always claiming it to be proof of the
original crisis, while disarming potential dissidents and destroying the rights of the
once sovereign German States. (At the same time,
the usurper makes his private piece with the armed forces; talking of the glory of the
German nation, even as he destroys their ancient culture.)
Second Example: Begin the bombing of Serbia. When the Serbs react as you knew they
would--as you have to have known they would, if you are not an idiot--by escalating
the campaign against those you claim to be trying to p
rotect; claim vindication for your aggression, and begin a studied escalation of the
conflict; always calling for "stability" while blaming others for the destabalization
that you produce. Meanwhile, find excuses to gradu
ally disarm the American people and to further erode their ancient institutions; now
appealing to the pride in and among the Armed Forces to support your despicable
aggression in an international cause completely outside
America's interest.
STEP FOUR. Proceed now to your true purpose: In our parallel examples, to impose your
version of a New World Order on as much of humanity as possible--whatever the cost to
your nation and those around it.
First Example: Seize Austria in the name of a united Germany; seize Czechoslovakia to
protect the rights of the German minority; invade Poland on similar rationalizations,
promising a new European unity. You know the rest
!
Second Example: Use the chaos you have created in the Balkans to necessitate a
permanent NATO presence, together with enormous expenditures for rebuilding the
damaged communities. Use the weakening of America, via the exp
enditure of weapon stocks and the undermining of morale, to reverse the greater pride
and strength of the Reagan years, in order to make the idea of dependence upon an
international body more acceptable. Finally, convert
the new aggressive NATO into the Atlantic Union, which has been a Fabian dream (as an
essential step towards World Government) since the 1930s.
Note that both Hitler and Clinton have been true masters of subliminal mind control.
While the German Socialist Dictator was destroying the traditional monarchial culture
of the German States--and imposing a Socialist soc
iety, which (like some of its American and British Fabian counterparts) remained
nominally capitalistic--he staged magnificent pageants that suggested a celebration of
the very heritage he was destroying. (Many academics
on the non-Nazi left have never really understood this technique. To this day they
will seriously contend that Hitler was on the "Far Right!")
Clinton uses words of moderation when he proposes that which would change the whole
warp and woof of our American heritage; making it very difficult for those unfamiliar
with Constitutional Law and historic issues to beli
eve him anything but a mainstream American:
The ultimate Fabian, he proposes an increasing Federal role in the exercise of local
police power--traditionally the most important function of State and local
Government--and makes it sound like support for a middle-clas
s concern with "law and order." He proposes an increasing Federal involvement with
local public Education--again something completely outside the Constitutional purview
of the Federal Government--and makes it sound so mod
erate that even some of the most conservative Republicans are afraid to answer. In the
midst of a war, which he started; he uses the excuse of a high school tragedy, clearly
attributable not to guns but to policies that h
e endorses (see article on "Something of Value", below), to propose disarming every
American under the age of 21! [A direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and tantamount
to a repudiation of the Washington/Jefferson polic
y, which recommended arming boys 16 and over with military grade weapons, as America's
first line of defense (against enemies abroad and usurpers at home).] And given the
sheep like quality of America's "Liberal" media, h
e is able to make it sound like the most reasonable thing in all the world.
Or reflect on what the Clinton health care proposals could really mean for the
American future.
Was it merely coincidence that both Hitler and Clinton first gained office with the
support of militant and aggressive homosexual activists? (We are not talking about
people with a problem in orientation, for whom one may
feel some compassion; but in each case, with aggressive and very angry perverts.) And
there are other parallels. [Given the total cynicism of the pair, one must even wonder
whether the loss of atomic secrets to Red China
--now enabling the internationalists to again raise the spectre of a holocaust with
which to promote their "idealism"--was really the result of incompetent security?]
Hypocrisy & Ethnic Cleansing
While the concept of driving any people from their homes--even without other
injury--is offensive to this correspondent, the idea of NATO lecturing the World on
"ethnic cleansing," comes with a very strange grace, indeed.
Bear with us, while we allude to a few of the relevant events from the past 507 years:
The Spanish NATO ally expelled the Moors and Jews from Spain in 1492. In the next
Century, her empire builders brutalized many of the Indian Cultures in what is now
Latin America in ways far exceeding anything done in Kos
ovo before the bombing.
Also, in the late 1500s, the British NATO ally, uprooted the Catholic landowners in
six counties of Ulster, and replaced them with transplanted Scots. (People are still
killing each other, over that one. So don't dismiss
it as ancient history.) We will pass over some incidents in other areas in the
interim, but return to Britain shortly.
The American NATO ally--we can't lie about it--engaged in frequent "ethnic cleansing"
with respect to many of the Indian tribes, in the last Century. (One wonders how we
might have reacted, had the British and French deci
ded to blockade and bombard our ports to stop General Jackson from driving the Indians
out of North Florida, Georgia and Western Carolina? Will anyone suggest that that
would have helped the lot of the Creeks or Seminoles
? Would it have kept the General off the $20 bill?) In 1864, our fellow Ohioan--a
great soldier, but a terrible humanitarian--General Sherman, fought in a domestic War
against intended secession by burning a 60 mile wide
strip across Georgia and South Carolina. Even Clinton has not claimed that the Serbs
did anything like that in fighting secession in Kosovo.
In 1915, the Turkish NATO ally eliminated most of her Armenian population by a
massacre, which also still precipitates periodic acts of vengeance.
In the early 1920s, the Greek and Turkish NATO allies fought a little war in which
both sides engaged in various adventures in ethnic cleansing, before the Turks finally
succeeded in driving the Greeks from Anatolia.
In World War II, the German NATO ally engaged in one ethnic outrage after another;
indeed giving "genocide" its modern definition. And these outrages triggered, in turn,
a whole raft of more recent "ethnic cleansings:"
Immediately after World War II, the American, British and French NATO allies, all
acquiesced in sending members of various Eastern European minorities, who had fought
with the Germans against the Communists in Russia, bac
k to Stalin to face certain torture and death. Almost immediately thereafter, the same
NATO allies acquiesced in the "ethnic cleansing" of Germans from Eastern Europe--the
new Polish NATO allies participating in that purg
e. (These actions had no relationship, whatsoever, to any specific conduct by the men,
women and children, being purged.)
Shortly after that, the British, American and French Nato allies acquiesced again,
when the Israelis, using the justification of repelling an attack by their Arab
neighbors, drove hundreds of thousands of indigenous Arabs
from the new State of Israel; thus creating the Palestinian refugee problem that is
still with us.
During the 1960s, the British NATO ally, under Fabian control, deliberately betrayed
the interests and vested rights of conservative British ethnic minorities in several
African nations; and, with the American NATO ally,
sat on their hands when the mixed racial Moslem power structure in their former colony
of Nigeria crushed the ethnic aspirations of the Negro Christian Ibo tribesmen in
Biafra.
One could go on and on. What was the slaughter at Waco, but an "ethnic cleansing" of a
religious sect that the Clinton Administration considered an embarrassment?
The Real Target In Serbia--Traditional American Foreign Policy
In a letter to the Earl of Buchan (Scotland), dated April 22, 1793, our First
President, whose personal integrity was all that the present President's is not, wrote:
I believe it is the sincere wish of United America to have nothing to do with the
political intrigues, or the squabbles of European Nations; but on the contrary, to
exchange commodities and live in peace and amity with al
l the inhabitants of the Earth. And this I am persuaded they will do, if rightfully it
can be done. To administer justice to, and receive it from every power with whom they
are connected will I hope, be always found the m
ost prominent feature in the Administration of this Country; and I flatter myself that
nothing short of imperious necessity can occasion a breach with any of them.
Under such a system, if we are allowed to pursue it; the agriculture and Mechanical
Arts; the wealth and population of these States will increase with that degree of
rapidity as to baffle all calculation.
In his famed Farewell Address, President Washington--after first discussing many of
the considerations that go into the formulation of a foreign policy--put it thus:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,... the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Gove
rnment. But the jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the
instrument of the very influence to be avoided ...Excessive partiality for one foreign
nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those who
m they actuate to see danger only on one side... Real Patriots, who may resist the
intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools
and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the p
eople, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little POLITICAL connection as possible. So
far as we have already formed engagements let them b
e fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence... it must b
e unwise in us to implicate ourselves ...in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics,
or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships, or enmities:
...'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances with any portion of the
foreign world.... Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on
a respectably defensive posture, we may safely t
rust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Washington's Secretary of State, the first five years, was his fellow Virginian Thomas
Jefferson. In a Memo requested by our First President in 1793, two hundred years
before William Clinton began to misuse the same Offic
e to pass judgment on the internal affairs of other Nations, our first Secretary of
State stated the essential law of sovereignty, "Nations are to be judges for
themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgme
nt over another." That Jefferson's aversion to intervention was, like General
Washington's, based upon strength, justice and respect, never a desire for isolation,
is amply demonstrated by his August 23rd, 1785, letter fr
om Paris to John Jay, discussing the coming involvement of the newly independent
Americans with commerce and transportation on the seas:
We should in every instance preserve an equality of right to them in the
transportation of commodities, in the right of fishing, & in the other uses of the
sea. But what will be the consequence? Frequent wars without a do
ubt. Their property will be violated... their persons will be insulted, imprisoned
etc. for pretended debts, contracts, crimes, contraband, etc. ... These insults must
be resented... yet to prevent their eternal repetitio
n ... our commerce on the ocean & in other countries must be paid for by frequent
war....
Justice indeed on our part will save us from those wars which would have been produced
by a contrary disposition. But to prevent those produced by the wrongs of other
nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish
them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish it often
prevents it. This reasoning leads to the necessity of some naval force, that being the
only weapon with which we can reach an enemy. I think
it to our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the
parent of many others.
The ultimate danger of the trap which Clinton has set for America, then, is a
permanent repudiation of the wise, sound policy, which made us the envy of the
ages--the one people on this earth respected by all just men. It
was no accident that we prospered, even as Washington predicted. By avoiding the
expensive confrontations of the old world, we did not periodically wipe out the fruits
of generations of labor. We also avoided the destruc
tive enmity of those victimized by old intrigues. What Clinton and the
Internationalists ask us to give up, then, is the basis for our present strength. At
the same time, the Administration has been expending weapons, the
y have no plan or authorization to replace: In brief, disarming America by subterfuge;
even as they surrender our sovereignty by indirection; leaving us increasingly
dependent upon International bodies, which will suck at
our substance even as they destroy all the values that have made us unique.
The issue in the American Revolution was the sovereignty of our peoples--our freedom
to go our own path, unfettered by the whims or theories of any other nation. The issue
when Jefferson sent the frigates and Marines to d
eal with the Barbary Pirates at Tripoli in 1801 was the freedom of Americans to
navigate the High Seas, unfettered by the avarice of others. (We gave them a whipping,
and returned their ship. We did not go in and reform t
heir culture!) The issue in the War of 1812 was something of a composite of those
first two conflicts.
The issues in the innumerable Indian Wars, and those with Mexico and Spain may not
have been so straight forward; but at least we fought in our own interest--the result
a stronger America. Most of the wars in this century
were to deal with one or the other of two world-wide threats: The Axis powers or the
Communist conspiracy; what George Washington called "extraordinary emergencies," which
necessitated "temporary alliances."
With improved communications and a logistical shortening of distances, the importance
of keeping free of permanent entanglements will be far more important in the
Twenty-First Century than it ever was in the Eighteenth or
Nineteenth. The issue then as now is American sovereignty and the American way of
life; but the danger now of foreign interference is many times what it was in the
beginning. This then--here at home--is the one fight, we
have to win!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must Reading For Those Who Want To Fight Back:
<<Links at site after the '>>>' >>
Information on Novel, which demonstrates respect for rather
than concern over the ways of other peoples--an engrossing
tale of the present era>>>
Return Of The Gods
Current Materials including April Kosovo article & Menu>>>
Conservative Resource Center
March Essay on the Abuse Of Power>>>
Abuse of Power
Compulsion For Uniformity>>>
Compulsion
The real reason for the growing epidemic of suicidal rage
among American adolescents>>>
School Killings vs. "Something of Value"
The right and duty to keep & bear arms>>>
Chapter Two--Debate Handbook
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
