Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

May 14, 2008

Lew Rockwell, Burma, and Trutherism.

I am not sure who these guys are, possibly if you listen to the left and the truthers they may be Santa's little helpers.

I was tipped off a couple of days go that Lew Rockwell was a supporter of the Burmese military, in the following message; “Did you see where Lew Rockwell is now defending the Communist Military Junta in Burma??? Thank you Eric.

Obviously there had to be some misunderstanding but owing to time constraints, and a couple of things on I didn’t get onto it until tonight. First I went to the LRC blog. and found: -

Why the Campaign Against the Burmese Junta?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at May 11, 2008 11:31 AM
So the US empire can once again use a humanitarian crisis to take over another country, of course. (Thanks to Sean Corrigan.)

The link led me to The World Socialist Web Site Published by none other than the International Committee of the Fourth international, wow these guys have not one but two ‘internationals’ in their name, they must really know their shit, or at least the international stuff anyway. Regrettably its typical paranoid leftist tripe: -
The catastrophe wrought by Cyclone Nargis on the Burmese people has provoked an extraordinary campaign by the US and allied powers, and in the international media, demanding that the military junta open its borders to aid and aid officials as well as to American military aircraft, troops and warships. Once again an attempt is being made to stampede public opinion with heartrending images of desperate survivors and devastated towns, accompanied by an incessant drumbeat condemning the Burmese regime for its inadequate aid efforts, its insularity, and its failure to accept international, especially American, aid.

One should immediately pause and recall the outcome of similar “humanitarian” exercises. In 1999, the plight of Kosovan refugees was exploited by the US and its allies to wage war against Serbia and transform the province into a NATO protectorate largely “cleansed” of its Serbian minority.
Those bloody reffos, apart from being housed in brand new concentration camps, they were getting raped massacred and ethnically cleansed in the traditional manner and the bastards have the nerve to bitch about it. And then those warmongering Yanks, just looking for any little excuse …… but wait there’s more: -
In the same year, Australia, with the backing of the US, used the violence of Indonesian-backed militias to justify a military intervention into East Timor to install a regime sympathetic to Canberra’s economic and strategic interests.
That bloody Howard he always did have imperial ambitions. But after a long diatribe we get to the crunch, the meat of the issue: -
The Bush administration has made little secret of the fact that it favours “regime change” in Burma—the removal of the military regime and its replacement by a government, headed by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, more amenable to Washington’s interests and to opening up the country to foreign investors.
The rest is the sort of infill crap you find in these circles. Lew had to have been in a cynical mood, right. But no, on we come to “Hypocrisy Rules the West.
“Shame has vanished from Western "civilization." Hypocrisy has taken its place.” Psssst George, we’ve been sprung.
“Despite all the killing Bush has accomplished, he thirsts for yet more blood. Iran is in his and Israel’s sights. All indications are that Bush is going to attack Iran. Propaganda, demonizations, and crass lies are pouring out of the Bush regime and its media and academic propagandists such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger.”
Lee! George! Really, and those media lap dogs, I just don’t know why the RNC claim that the NYT, and WaPo are not on their side.

But finally we get to where Lew’s featured writer is coming from; Americans’ willingness to murder others out of fear for their own safety is a result of September 11. The antiwar movement is impotent, because it has accepted the government’s 9/11 story. To oppose a war when you accept the government’s reason for the war is an indefensible position.

My God, the whole problem with Western society and the major flaw leading to the abject failure of the peace movement is God forbid; We are not truthers.

Could the left and the Lew Rockwell truthers tell me how you reconcile your insistence that George Bush is as thick as two short planks, with your insistence that he is a diabolical Machiavellian schemer who puts it over you every time.

1 comment:

  1. To be a libertarian you don't have to be an anarchist, believe conspiracy theories, support the paleo-catholic philosophy of, or even be against the Iraq war. But I don't think you can be a libertarian and also support John McCain. There has never, ever been anything remotely "libertarian" about his political positions. George W. Bush is more of a libertarian than John McCain. McCain is a "moderate," which is a nice way of saying he has no principals whatever and simply does whatever is politically expedient.

    Let's cut to the chase: John is a populist. He gave us that egregious affront to freedom of speech, the press, and association, Campaign Finance Reform, which bears his name. He spearheads investigations into and legislation against acts between consenting adults. He is opposed to self-government and federalism, as he supports a federal, one-size-fits-all definition of marriage and federal enforcement of other "values" issues such as broadcast decency. He supports socialist central-planning to become independent of mideast oil, even as he tries to win Iraq and other Arab states as allies. He supports "free trade" and market competition, but not when it comes to oil and other sources of energy. He does not question our relationship with egregiously anti-libertarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan so long as they suit our larger foreign policy "interests."

    McCain believes that Vietnam could have been won if we would have simply drafted (read: enslaved) move young Americans and taxed (read: stole) more money from workers for a longer period of time. A libertarian can support a war, but not continous war, as John McCain clearly does. McCain believes we are an empire, albeit a benovolent one.

    For a libertarian to choose between McCain and Obama is like a democrat choosing between Hitler and Stalin. There are differences, surely, but not enough to make a difference. Of course, the simple fact the John McCain is not a libertarian would not prevent a libertarian from supporting him. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that McCain's political economy is so wildly at odds with any semblence of classical liberal thought that there is no way that a libertarian or classical liberal could ever support him.