-Caveat Lector-
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Howard R. Davis III wrote:
Mr. Davis writes:
> Why don't you understand why the "far right" is opposed to Clinton? Are you
> in favor of "the evil nataional security state"? If not, why are you
> surprized that others might be fearful of a president who has "sold out" to
> it?
In answer your question:
I've been in opposition to the national security state since the time of
the Viet Nam War. It represents a threat to the civil liberties of all
Americans. But from the outset, the Republican party and members of the
Far Right wing have sponsored and supported its continued growth and
development out of fear of communism.
When the FBI and the CIA were systematically violating the rights of
Americans at home, the
far right wing of the Republican party remained silent. Why? Because the
Republican party was not interested in protecting the civil liberties of
progressives. They applauded the Federal government when it carried out a
no-holds barred program of persecution of American citizens.
Many civil rights workers and war protestors were thrown in jail or they
lost their means of earning a livelihood were taken away from them through
the Federal government's program of blackmail and intimidation.
All of this well-documented, I don't think it needs any further comment.
But where was the far right? Well, they were supporting these repressive
measures. All of it was justified in the name of the war against
communism. Corporate America, the largest contributor to the Republican
party, saw the cold war as a golden opportunity to increase its profits by
selling the American people on the need to create a national security
state. By keeping the economy on a wartime footing, the security state
has grown into the behemoth it is today. It hasn't been handouts to the
poor that has bankrupted the system. The federal government exists as a
tool, a servant of PRIVATE interests. And those interests represent less
than one percent of the total population.
It has been the liberal wing of the Democratic party that has defended the
civil liberties of minorities and political dissenters over the years.
In contrast, the far right of the Republican party has argued for the
implementation of a police state in America, presumably, to fight
communism and "crime." Please look at Colonel Oliver North's statements
in support of martial law during the Reagan years.
>
> > He might have been a "liberal" (however you want to define the term) years
> > ago, but it's pretty obvious he has done nothing to challenge the
> > corporate control of the American political apparatus.
> >
Mr. Davis wrote:
> The post to which you have made the above answer does not, in fact, accuse
> Clinton of being a "liberal". It accuses him of being a Marxist or a
> Communist. Its only mention of "liberals" was in questioning their support
> of him. Further, if (as has been suggested by many on this list) communism
> was created by the elite as a method of control, then why would they want
> him to "challenge the corporate control of the American political
> apparatus". That would get him killed like at least one Kennedy, if not
> more.
>
William Tunstall responds:
Perhaps Bill Clinton and Hilary were Marxists in your youth during the
nineteen sixties. If you lived back in that period, you might have more
of an understanding of WHY people were interested in revolution. I
remember standing in the front yard of my house in Orange, California
watching the smoke of Los Angeles rising into the sky during the LA riots.
At that time, racism was embedded in the laws of the land, and many
Americans were very doubtful that the nation would ever live up to the
shining ideals encoded in its public documents. That's why some young
people WERE attracted to a variety of different leftist creeds.
Eventually, in response to enormous public pressure, the American system
did have to accomodate people who had been shut out of the system.
Americans of a variety of political persuasions did have the courage to
stand up to the government during that period. Of course, there were
others who gleefully persecuted them in a variety of different ways.
If Bill and Hillary were Marxists in their early years, it wouldn't
surprise me.
But Bill has always been a political opportunist. Whatever sympathy he
might have for the poor and marginalized has been tempered by political
ambition. In order to rise to the top of the political establishment, you
must serve the economic and political interests of the people the own this
place. And when I refer to "owners," I don't mean the moms and dads who
might own small businesses, farms or homes... I'm referring to the
REAL owners. ...our korporate masters.
If you will go back and look at what Clinton has done during the past few
years, you will see that he has helped Wall Street increase its wealth; he
has fought hard for NAFTA...he's supported the technology transfer to
China...you must keep in mind that the China Card has always been a
favorite card of the Republican party (George Bush was amb to China..Nixon
opened the gate..etc.). He supported the Mexican bail out.... He has not
enforced Taft Hartley.... Corporate America and Wall Street has done VERY
well during the past few years. That also is well established and not
subject to debate.
But as a "progressive," his performance has been laughable. I will admit
that he has given lip service to liberal ideals... that
pleases his constituents...but I think that Tricky Dick Nixon was actually
a far more progressive politician in some respects than Bill Clinton.
No. Mr. Clinton is in no danger of getting assassinated by the right
wing. Why would they murder him when he's helping to carry out their
repressive agenda?
Now, President Kennedy was another matter. He started off as an insider,
a supporter
of the national security state, but once in power, he decided to use his
office to pass a number of measures in opposition to the far right. He
wanted to keep American involvement in Viet Nam to a minimum (that angered
the military industrial establishment which saw the war as a profit making
opportunity), and he was interested in curbing in the power of the Federal
Reserve by having the Treasury Department issue debt free notes (that
angered the Fed)....AND he was sincere in his efforts to end Jim Crow in
the south..(his civil rights policies angered a lot of rich southerners
in the oil business). He was warned not to go to Texas.
When we learned of his murder, many of us were not surprised.
> > The fact that he makes overtures to groups that the Republican
> > party has demonized during the past thirty years is just a matter of
> > vote-getting.
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Nicky Molloy wrote:
> >
> >> -Caveat Lector-
> >>
> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_nyquist/19990722_xcjny_why_some_u.shtml
> >>
> >> Why some of us
> >> fear Clinton?
> >> By JR Nyquist
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >>
> >> � 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
> >>
> >> The Bible teaches us to love our enemies and to hate no one. This is a very
> >> noble way to live, though few of us attain such grace. Perhaps the reason so
> >> few of us can love our enemies has to do with the link between hate and
> >> fear. If someone makes us afraid, we eventually come to hate that person.
> >> And, however brave some of us are, fear sometimes gets the better of us.
> >> It has sometimes been remarked that the so-called "far right" is irrational
> >> in its hatred of Bill Clinton. Many liberal media types think the
> >> impeachment of President Clinton was a mean-spirited, hate-inspired attack
> >> on a poor sick guy who suffers from a sexual addiction. Some leftists are
> >> especially baffled, because they don't see anything special about Clinton
> >> that is particularly threatening or dangerous.
> >>
> >> Well, it is time someone explained the right's fear of Bill Clinton. For if
> >> any of us hate Bill Clinton -- and certainly we shouldn't hate anyone, as
> >> the Bible says -- it is fear, at bottom, that inspires us. This is not a
> >> proud acknowledgement, but an honest one. Some of us really do fear Clinton.
> >> We experience his term in office as a dangerous time, as a time in which
> >> American institutions are exposed to corruption and degradation. It is a
> >> time when freedom is imperiled at home and national security is weakened
> >> abroad.
> >>
> >> I can hear my friends on the left chuckling at all this. Such nonsense, they
> >> say to themselves. Such right wing paranoia. But wait. Stop. Let me explain,
> >> by way of comparison, where the so-called "extreme right" is coming from.
> >>
> >> What if you were Jewish. Imagine how you would feel if America elected a
> >> president who, as a college student, had worked for a Nazi front
> >> organization, then made a trip to Hitler's Berlin (about which he is not
> >> very forthcoming). Imagine, also, that he married someone with ties to
> >> numerous anti-Semitic organizations, someone who idolizes Mussolini and
> >> Franco.
> >>
> >> How would you feel?
> >>
> >> I first heard of Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Here is how it happened. I was
> >> getting a teaching credential, and one of my classes was on adolescent
> >> psychology. The professor in this course, who was a very admirable teacher,
> >> seemed to favor me. One day, after class, she invited me to a 7 p.m. meeting
> >> at the Science Lecture Hall. At the time I didn't know she was a Marxist,
> >> and I didn't know the meeting would be political. She said that if I cared
> >> about education in the state of California I would attend. Having the night
> >> off from work I decided on going, partly owing to curiosity. Well, I
> >> couldn't have been more surprised if it had been a coven of witches.
> >> Arriving early at the Science Lecture Hall, I found communist literature --
> >> books and pamphlets -- stacked on tables in the lobby.
> >>
> >> A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing
> >> the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be
> >> accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The
> >> speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who
> >> would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great
> >> economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The
> >> people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be
> >> nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist
> >> president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The
> >> only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn
> >> hit?
> >>
> >> Some days later I went to visit my professor at her office hours. We talked
> >> about the speaker and the book he had written. We talked about Marxism and
> >> the idea of changing the system. Then, suddenly, my professor said: "We have
> >> such high hopes for this young Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton."
> >>
> >> That was the first time I heard Bill Clinton's name.
> >>
> >> But it wasn't the first time I'd heard this idea of taking over the left
> >> wing of the Democratic Party and electing a stealth socialist president. I'd
> >> first heard that idea in 1981, when I was a senior at the University of
> >> California. The left wing activist, Derek Shearer, came to speak on the
> >> subject of "economic democracy." Two radical friends of mine dragged me to
> >> hear him, though I had my heart set on a game of chess that day. So I went
> >> to listen to Shearer's talk, and I sat there in the front row, concentrating
> >> on his theory of "economic democracy," thinking to myself: This is just like
> >> Marxism.
> >>
> >> After Shearer finished speaking I went up and asked him, point blank. "Mr.
> >> Shearer, what is the difference between Marxism and "economic democracy"? He
> >> looked at me a bit suspiciously for a second, then he said, "I probably
> >> shouldn't say this, but there is no difference."
> >>
> >> I had a long discussion with Shearer about why he wasn't a forthright
> >> Marxist. He said that Marxism was unpopular with the American people, who
> >> have a knee-jerk negative reaction to words like "socialism" and
> >> "communism," even though -- according to Shearer -- these are perfectly good
> >> words. Therefore, in order to win Americans over to socialist ways of
> >> thinking, you need to create a new, euphemistic language -- a kind of
> >> linguistic deception. Shearer also talked about taking over the Democratic
> >> Party through its left wing and electing a stealth socialist president.
> >>
> >> As it happens, Derek Shearer is a friend of Bill Clinton.
> >>
> >> Again, think if you were Jewish, and the American president and first lady
> >> flirted with Nazism and had friends who were anti-Semites.
> >>
> >> But the Nazis were mass murderers. It is wrong to compare them with
> >> Marxists.
> >>
> >> Our leftist friends forget that tens of millions of conservatives,
> >> traditionalists, nationalists, Christians, and others have been persecuted,
> >> murdered, and driven into concentration camps by Marxists. Nearly a third of
> >> the nation of Cambodia was killed by Marxists. The killing continues today,
> >> in Angola, Mozambique, Colombia and the Congo. Let us be perfectly honest.
> >> The historical record is indisputable. Marxism means the persecution of
> >> Christians, the execution of right wing dissidents, massive slave labor
> >> camps, and grinding poverty for countless millions of terrified, muzzled
> >> human beings. So when it happens that we compare Marxism to Nazism we are
> >> not being unfair in our comparison. We are being historically accurate. We
> >> are describing what has happened to conservatives and Christians in country
> >> after country. We are talking about mass murder.
> >>
> >> What the left has to finally acknowledge, is that the ideas of Marx and
> >> Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, are as threatening and evil to some of us as the
> >> anti-Semitic ideas of Hitler are to Jewish people. If you look in the
> >> Guinness Book of World Records you will not find Hitler listed as the
> >> world's number one mass murderer. No, that distinction belongs to Chairman
> >> Mao. And after Mao, the next greatest mass murderer happens to be Josef
> >> Stalin. Marxist ideologues have killed over 100 million innocent people in
> >> the twentieth century. The Nazis killed only a fraction of this.
> >>
> >> Nobody on the right in this country is going to defend Nazi associations. If
> >> a Republican candidate for president was involved with anti-Semites,
> >> racists, or worked for Nazi front organizations he would be denounced --
> >> first and foremost -- by other Republicans and conservatives. Why is it,
> >> then, that the Democratic Party is soft on Marxism? Why does it tolerate so
> >> many fellow-travelers and disciples of the hard left? Come now, let us
> >> confront this double standard in American politics.
> >>
> >> It is doubly ironic, therefore, that the left constantly refers to the
> >> "extreme right wing." But this is unfair, because the conservatives in this
> >> country do not tolerate the totalitarian right. On the other hand, the
> >> liberals in this country have always been soft on the totalitarian left. And
> >> that's why many of us fear Bill and Hillary Clinton. Many of us see through
> >> the phony centrism of President Clinton. We know what his ideological
> >> commitments have been, and we know who his wife is.
> >>
> >> Does anyone remember that Hillary Clinton arranged to give $15,000 to the
> >> National Lawyer's Guild -- an organization founded in the 1930s as a branch
> >> of the Communist Party USA -- when she chaired the New World Foundation?
> >> Does anybody deny her assistance to various Marxist-inspired causes, from
> >> the Black Panthers to the Christic Institute and CISPES (a front for Central
> >> American Marxist terrorists)?
> >>
> >> Bill Clinton was not merely a draft evader during the Vietnam War. The truth
> >> is, he was for the Viet Cong terrorists. And that is why he went to Moscow
> >> and Prague almost 30 years ago. That is why he married the young radical,
> >> Hillary Clinton. And that is why he was friends with Derek Shearer. It also
> >> explains why my professor of 16 years ago, who was a Marxist, had such high
> >> hopes for that young governor, Bill Clinton.
> >>
> >> Seven months ago an intelligence professional, whose credentials are
> >> impeccable, told me something quite alarming. He told of a taped conversion
> >> between two Czech Communist officials. They were discussing a young American
> >> college student -- Bill Clinton -- who was then visiting Prague. They
> >> mentioned that he was expected to attend a meeting at a certain place which
> >> was reserved for the recruitment of Communist bloc agents.
> >>
> >> "Where is this tape now," I asked.
> >>
> >> "Nobody seems to know," he answered.
> >>
> >> In February there was another curious incident involving a retired CIA
> >> official. This particular fellow was genuinely alarmed at information he had
> >> on President Clinton's ties to the Russian security services. When pressed
> >> by a famous journalist to provide details, the CIA man shrank away.
> >> Publicity is death to people involved in secret intelligence work.
> >>
> >> And now, more recently, I have received information from a third source
> >> inside U.S. intelligence. His story is even more fantastic. It is so
> >> fantastic that I dare not repeat what he reported. Naturally, everyone on
> >> the political left and in the center will denounce the very idea that the
> >> president has secret Marxist sympathies that have compromised him.
> >>
> >> Some would say that repeating such rumors is irresponsible. But there comes
> >> a point in time when it becomes irresponsible and dishonest NOT to say what
> >> we are feeling and thinking -- and to withhold the reasons that we fear a
> >> certain world leader.
> >>
> >> I did not invent the rumors which are circulating within the intelligence
> >> community. Anyone connected with the intelligence community has probably
> >> heard these rumors. People will either dismiss them or take them seriously,
> >> depending on their political point of view. What I want to say to the
> >> moderates who are shocked at these rumors, and to the leftists who fear a
> >> vast right-wing conspiracy, is simple: try to put yourselves in our shoes.
> >> Be a little sympathetic. Try to understand why we fear Bill and Hillary
> >> Clinton. These fears are not irrational, but entirely understandable. And
> >> when we discover that the White House has used the IRS to persecute those of
> >> us who disagree with him and fear his vague Marxist background, then we are
> >> confirmed in our fears. The unscrupulous use of power to suppress dissent is
> >> the beginning of dictatorship. It is this sort of behavior that we all found
> >> intolerable in the presidency of Richard Nixon. And we did not defend him
> >> when the facts became clear. In that event, the Republican Party itself
> >> turned against Nixon.
> >>
> >> But the Democrats do not follow the Republican example. No matter what abuse
> >> of power or malfeasance of office, the Democrats support the president. It
> >> makes us afraid of the Democratic Party itself. What has happened to it? Is
> >> it becoming like one of those totalitarian political parties that supports
> >> the leader, the boss, no matter what law he breaks?
> >>
> >> Certainly it is wrong to hate the president. But it is nonetheless correct
> >> to demand an accounting for his Marxist past, his corrupt administration,
> >> and his abuse of power. Suspecting Bill Clinton of Marxist sympathies should
> >> not be a crime. It is not a crazy speculation, but only natural for those of
> >> us who have studied his career and his associations. If the country
> >> continues to evade the issue of the president's Marxist connections because
> >> any such inquiry is somehow "McCarthyist," then the country might as well
> >> admit to an area of defacto censorship.
> >>
> >> We have reasons to fear the Clintons, and these reasons deserve
> >> consideration.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >>
> >> J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins
> >> of the Fourth World War.'
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> 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
>
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
