-Caveat Lector-
Reprinted from The Seven Arts, II (June 1917), pp. 133-146.
The War and the Intellectuals
Randolph Bourne
To those of us who still retain an irreconcilable animus against war,
it has been a bitter experience to see the unanimity with which the
American intellectuals have thrown their support to the use of war-
technique in the crisis in which America found herself. Socialists,
college professors, publicists, new-republicans, practitioners of
literature, have vied with each other in confirming with their
intellectual faith the collapse of neutrality and the riveting of the
war- mind on a hundred million more of the world's people. And the
intellectuals are not content with confirming our belligerent
gesture. They are now complacently asserting that it was they who
effectively willed it, against the hesitation and dim perceptions of
the American democratic masses. A war made deliberately by the
intellectuals! A calm moral verdict, arrived at after a penetrating
study of inexorable facts! Sluggish masses, too remote from the world-
conflict to be stirred, too lacking in intellect to perceive their
danger! An alert intellectual class, saving the people in spite of
themselves, biding their time with Fabian strategy until the nation
could be moved into war without serious resistance! An intellectual
class, gently guiding a nation through sheer force of ideas into what
the other nations entered only through predatory craft or popular
hysteria or militarist madness! A war free from any taint of self-
seeking, a war that will secure the triumph of democracy and
internationalize the world! This is the picture which the more self-
conscious intellectuals have formed of themselves, and which they are
slowly impressing upon a population which is being led no man knows
whither by an indubitably intellectualized President. And they are
right, in that the war certainly did not spring from hysterias, of
the American people, however acquiescent the masses prove to be, and
however clearly the intellectuals prove their putative intuition.
Those intellectuals who have felt themselves totally out of sympathy with this drag
toward war will seek some explanation for this joyful leadership. They will want to
understand this willingness of the American intellect
to open the sluices and flood us with the sewage of the war spirit. We cannot forget
the virtuous horror and stupefaction which filled our college professors when they
read the famous manifesto the their ninety-three Ger
man colleagues in defense of their war.1 To the American academic mind of 1914 defense
of war was inconceivable. From Bernhardi2 it recoiled as from blasphemy, little
dreaming that two years later would find it creating i
ts own cleanly reasons for imposing military service on the country and for talking of
the rough rude currents of health and regeneration that war would send through the
American body politic. They would have thought anyo
ne mad who talked of shipping American men by the hundreds of thousands - conscripts -
to die on the fields of France. Such a spiritual change seems catastrophic when we
shoot our minds back to those days when neutrality
was a proud thing. But the intellectual progress has been so gradual that the country
retains little sense of the irony. The war sentiment, begun so gradually but so
perseveringly by the preparedness advocates who come fr
om the ranks of big business, caught hold of one after another of the intellectual
groups. With the aid of Roosevelt, the murmurs became a monotonous chant, and finally
a chorus so mighty that to be out of it was at first
to be disreputable and finally almost obscene. And slowly a strident rant was worked
up against Germany which compared very creditably with the German fulminations against
the greedy power of England. The nerve of the wa
r-feeling centered, of course, in the richer and older clases of the Atlantic
seaboard, and was keenest where there were French or English business and particularly
social connections. The sentiment then spread over the c
ountry as a class-phenomenon, touching everywhere those upper-class elements in each
section who indentified themselves with this Eastern ruling group. It must never be
forgotten that in every community it was the least l
iberal and least democratic elements among whom the preparedness and later the war
sentiment was found. The farmers were apathetic, the small business men and workingmen
are still apathetic towards the war. The election w
as a vote of confidence of these latter classes in a President who would keep the
faith of neutrality.3 The intellectuals, in other words, have identified themselves
with the least democratic forces in American life. They
have assumed the leadership for war of those very classes whom the American democracy
has been immemorially fighting. Only in a world where irony was dead could an
intellectual class enter war at the head of such illiber
al cohorts in the avowed cause of world-liberalism and world-democracy. No one is left
to point out the undemocratic nature of this war-liberalism. In a time of faith,
skepticism is the most intolerable of all insults.
Our intellectual class might have been occupied, during the last two years of war, in
studying and clarifying the ideals and aspirations of the American democracy, in
discovering a true Americanism which would not have be
en merely nebulous but might have federated the different ethnic groups and
traditions. They might have spent the time in endeavoring to clear the public mind of
the cant of war, to get rid of old mystical notions that cl
og our thinking. We might have used the time for a great wave of education, for
setting our house in spiritual order. We could at least have set the problem before
ourselves. If our intellectuals were going to lead the ad
ministration, they might conceivably have tried to find some way of securing peace by
making neutrality effective. They might have turned their intellectual energy not to
the problem of jockeying the nation into war, but
to the problem of using our vast neutral power to attain democratic ends for the rest
of the world and ourselves without the use of the malevolent technique of war. They
might have failed. The point is that they scarcely
tried. The time was spent not in clarification and education, but in mulling over
nebulous ideals of democracy and liberalism and civilization which had never meant
anything fruitful to those ruling classes who now so gli
bly used them, and in giving free rein to the elementary instinct of self-defense. The
whole era has been spiritually wasted. The outstanding feature has been not its
Americanism but its intense colonialism. The offence o
f our intellectuals was not so much that they were colonial - for what could we expect
of a nation composed of so many national elements? - but that it was so one- sidedly
and partisanly colonial. The official, reputable
expression of the intellectual class has been that of the English colonial. Centain
portions of it have been even more loyalist than the King, more British even than
Australia. Other colonial attitudes have been vulgar. T
he colonialism of the other American stocks was denied a hearing from the start.
America might have been made a meeting-ground for the different national attitudes. An
intellectual class, cultural colonists of the differe
nt European nations, might have threshed out the issues here as they could not be
threshed out in Europe. Instead of this, the English colonials in university and press
took command at the start, and we became an intellec
tual Hungary where thought was subject to an effective process of Magyarization. The
reputable opinion of the American intellectuals became more and more either what could
be read pleasantly in London, or what was written
in an earnest effort to put Englishmen straight on their war-aims and war-technique.
This Magyarization of thought produced as a counter-reaction a peculiarly offensive
and inept German apologetic, and the two partisans
divided the field between them. The great masses, the other ethnic groups, were
inarticulate. American public opinion was almost as little prepared for war in 1917 as
it was in 1914.
The sterile results of such an intellectual policy are inevitable. During the war the
American intellectual class has produced almost nothing in the way of original and
illuminating interpretation. Veblen's "Imperial Germ
any;" Patten's "Culture and War," and addresses; Dewey's "German Philosophy and
Politics;" a chapter or two in Weyl's "American Foreign Policies;" - is there much
else of creative value in the intellectual repercussion of
the war? It is true that the shock of war put the American intellectual to an unusual
strain. He had to sit idle and think as spectator not as actor. There was no
government to which he could docily and loyally tender hi
s mind as did the Oxford professors to justify England in her own eyes. The American's
training was such as to make the fact of war almost incredible. Both in his reading of
history and in his lack of economic perspective
he was badly prepared for it. He had to explain to himself something which was too
colossal for the modern mind, which outran any language or terms which we had to
interpret it in. He had to explain his sympathies to the
breaking-point, while pulling the past and present into some sort of interpretative
order. The intellectuals in the fighting countries had only to rationalize and justify
what their country was already doing. Their task
was easy. A neutral, however, had really to search out the truth. Perhaps perspective
was too much to ask of any mind. Certainly the older colonials among our college
professors let their prejudices at once dictate their
thought. They have been comfortable ever since. The war has taught them nothing and
will teach them nothing. And they have had the satisfaction, under the rigor of
events, of seeing prejudice submerge the intellects of th
eir younger colleagues. And they have lived to see almost their entire class,
pacifists and democrats too, join them as apologists for the "gigantic irrelevance" of
war.
We had had to watch, therefore, in this country the same process which so shocked us
abroad - the coalescence of the intellectual classes in support of the military
programme. In this country, indeed, the socialist intell
ectuals did not even have the grace of their German brothers and wait for the
declaration of war before they broke for cover. And when they declared for war they
showed how thin was the intellectual veneer of their social
ism. For they called us in terms that might have emanated from any bourgeois journal
to defend democracy and civilization, just as if it was not exactly against those very
bourgeois democracies and capitalist civilization
s that socialists had been fighting for decades. But so subtle is the spiritual
chemistry of the "inside" that all this intellectual cohesion - herd-instinct - which
seemed abroad so hysterical and so servile, comes to us
here in highly rational terms. We go to war to save the world from subjugation! But
the German intellectuals went to war to save their culture from barbarization! And the
French to save international honor! And Russia, m
ost altruistic and self-sacrificing of all, to save a small State from destruction!
Whence is our miraculous intuition of our moral spotlessness? Whence our confidence
that history will not unravel huge economic and imper
ialist forces upon which our rationalizations float like bubbles? The Jew often
marvels that his race alone should have been chosen as the true people of the cosmic
God. Are not our intellectuals equally fatuous when they
tell us that our war of all wars is stainless and thrillingly achieving for good?
An intellectual class that was wholly rational would have called insistently for peace
and not for war. For months the crying need has been for a negotiated peace, in order
to avoid the ruin of a deadlock. Would not the s
ame amount of resolute statesmanship thrown into intervention have secured a peace
that would have been a subjugation for neither side? Was the terrific bargaining power
of a great neutral ever really used? Our war follow
ed, as all wars follow, a monstrous failure of diplomacy. Shamefacedness should now be
our intellectuals' attitude, because the American play for peace was made so little
more than a polite play. The intellectuals have st
ill to explain why, willing as they now are to use force to continue the war to
absolute exhaustion, they were not willing to use force to coerce the world to a
speedy peace.
Their forward vision is no more convincing than their past rationality. We go to war
now to internationalize the world! But surely their league to Enforce Peace4 is only a
palpable apocalyptic myth, like the syndicalists'
myth of the "general strike." It is not a rational programme so much as a glowing
symbol for the purpose of focusing belief, of setting enthusiasm on fire for
international order. As far as it does this it has pragmatic
value, but as far as it provides a certain radiant mirage of idealism for this war and
for a world-order founded on mutual fear, it is dangerous and obnoxious. Idealism
should be kept for what is ideal. It is depressing t
o think that the prospect of a world so strong that none dare challenge it should be
the immediate prospect of the American intellectual. If the League is only a
makeshift, a coalition into which we enter to restore order
, then it is only a description of an existing fact, and the idea should be treated as
such. But if it is an actually prospective outcome of the settlement, the keystone of
American policy, it is neither realizable nor de
sirable. For the programme of such a League contains no provision for dynamic national
growth or for international economic justice. In a world which requires recognition of
economic internationalism far more than of poli
tical internationalism, an idea is reactionary which proposes to petrify and federate
the nations as political and economic units. Such a scheme for international order is
a dubious justification for American policy. And
if American policy had been sincere in its belief that our participation would achieve
international beatitude, would we not have made our entrance into the war conditional
upon a solemn general agreement to respect in th
e final settlement these principles of international order? Could we have afforded, if
our war was to end war by the establishment of a league of honor, to risk the defeat
of our vision and our betrayal in the settlement?
Yet we are in the war, and no such solemn agreement was made, nor has it even been
suggested.
The case of the intellectuals seems, therefore, only very speciously rational. They
could have used their energy to force a just peace or at least to devise other means
than war for carrying through American policy. They
could have used their intellectual energy to ensure that our participation in the war
meant the international order which they wish. Intellect was not so used. It was used
to lead an apathetic nation into an irresponsible
war, without guarantees from those belligerents whose cause we were saving. The
American intellectual, therefore has been rational neither in his hindsight, nor his
foresight. To explain him we must look beneath the inte
llectual reasons to the emotional disposition. It is not so much what they thought as
how they felt that explains our intellectual class. Allowing for colonial sympathy,
there was still the personal shock in a world-war w
hich outraged all our preconceived notions of the way the world was tending. It
reduced to rubbish most of the humanitarian internationalism and democratic
nationalism which had been the emotional thread of our intellectu
als' life. We had suddenly to make a new orientation. There were mental conflicts. Our
latent colonialism strove with our longing for American unity. Our desire for peace
strove with our desire for national responsibility
in the world. That first lofty and remote and not altogether unsound feeling of our
spiritual isolation from the conflict could not last. There was the itch to be in the
great experience which the rest of the world was h
aving. Numbers of intelligent people who had never been stirred by the horrors of
capitalistic peace at home were shaken out of their slumber by the horrors of war in
Belgium. Never having felt responsibility for labor wa
rs and oppressed masses and excluded races at home, they had a large fund of idle
emotional capital to invest in the oppressed nationalities and ravaged villages of
Europe. Hearts that had felt only the ugly contempt for
democratic strivings at home beat in tune with the struggle for freedom abroad. All
this was natural, but it tended to over-emphasize our responsibility. And it threw our
thinking out of gear. The task of making our own c
ountry detailedly fit for peace was abandoned in favor of a feverish concern for the
management of war, advice to the fighting governments on all matters, military, social
and political, and a gradual working up of the co
nviction that we were ordained as a nation to lead all erring brothers towards the
light of liberty and democracy. The failure of the American intellectual class to
erect a creative attitude toward the war can be explaine
d by these sterile mental conflicts which the shock to our ideals sent raging through
us.
Mental conflicts end either in a new and higher synthesis or adjustment, or else in a
reversion to more primative ideas which have been outgrown but to which we drop when
jolted out of our attained position. The war cause
d in America a recrudescence of nebulous ideals which a younger generation was fast
outgrowing because it had passed the wistful stage and was discovering concrete ways
of getting them incarnated in actual institutions. T
he shock of war threw us back from this pragmatic work into an emotional bath of these
old ideals. there was even a somewhat rarefied revival of our primative Yankee
boastfulness, the reversion of senility to that republi
can childhood when we expected the whole world to copy our republican institutions. We
amusingly ignored the fact that it was just that Imperial German regime, to whom we
are to teach the art of self-government, which our
own Federal structure, with its executive irresponsible in foreign policy and with
its absence of parlimentary control, most resembles. And we are missing the exquisite
irony of the unaffected homage paid by the American
democratic intellectuals to the last and most detested of Britain's tory premiers as
the representative of a "liberal" ally, as well as the irony of the selection of the
best hated of America's bourbon "old guard" as the
missionary of American democracy to Russia.5
The intellectual state that could produce such things is one where reversion has taken
place to more primative ways of thinking. Simple syllogisms are substituted for
analysis, things are known by their labels, our heart'
s desire dictates what we shall see. The American intellectual class, having failed to
make the higher synthesis, regresses to ideas that can issue in quick, simplified
action. Thought becomes any easy rationalization of
what is actually going on or what is to happen inevitably tomorrow. It is true that
certain groups did rationalize their colonialism and attach the doctrine of the
inevitability of British seapower to the doctrine of a Le
ague of Peace. But this agile resolution of the mental conflict did not become a
higher synthesis, to be creatively developed. It gradually merged into a justification
for our going to war. It petrified into a dogma to be
propagated. Criticism flagged and emotional propaganda began. Most of the socialists,
the college professors and the practitioners of literature, however, have not even
reached this high-water mark of synthesis. Their me
ntal conflicts have been resolved much more simply. War in the interests of democracy!
This was almost the sum of their philosophy. The primative idea to which they
regressed became almost insensibly translated into a cra
ving for action. War was seen as the crowning relief of their indecision. At last
action, irresponsibility, the end of anxious and torturing attempts to reconcile
peace-ideals with the drag of the world towards Hell. An e
nd to the pain of trying to adjust the facts to what they ought to be! Let us
consecrate the facts as ideal! Let us join the greased slide towards war! The momentum
increased. Hesitations, ironies, consciences, considerat
ions, - all were drowned in the elemental blare of doing something aggressive,
colossal. The new-found Sabbath "peacefulness of being at war"! The thankfulness with
which so many intellectuals lay down and floated with th
e current betrays the hesitation and suspense through which they had been. The
American university is a brisk and happy place these days. Simple, unquestioning
action has superseded the knots of thought. The thinker dance
s with reality.
With how many of the acceptors of war has it been mostly a dread of intellectual
suspense? It is a mistake to suppose that intellectuality necessarily makes for
suspended judgments. The intellect craves certitude. It take
s effort to keep it supple and pliable. In a time of danger and disaster we jump
desperately for some dogma to cling to. The time comes, if we try to hold out, when
our nerves are sick with fatigue, and we seize in a grea
t healing wave of release some doctrine that can immediately be translated into
action. Neutrality meant suspense, and so it became the object of loathing to frayed
nerves. The vital myth of the League of Peace provides a
dogma to jump to. With war the world becomes motor again and speculation is brushed
aside like cobwebs. The blessed emotion of self-defense intervenes too, which focused
millions in Europe. A few keep up a critical pose
after war is begun, but since they usually advise action which is in one-to-one
correspondence with what the mass is already doing, their criticism is little more
than a rationalization of the common emotional drive.
The results of war on the intellectual class are already apparent.
Their thought becomes little more than a description and
justification of what is going on. They turn upon any rash one who
continues idly to speculate. Once the war is on, the conviction
spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one
can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding
back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and
plunge into the great work. Not only is everyone forced into line,
but the new certitude becomes idealized. It is a noble realism which
opposes itself to futile obstruction and the cowardly refusal to face
facts. This realistic boast is so loud and sonorous that one wonders
whether realism is always a stern and intelligent grappling with
realities. May it not be sometimes a mere surrender to the actual, an
abdication of the ideal through a sheer fatigue from intellectual
suspense? The pacifist is roundly scolded for refusing to face the
facts, and for retiring into his own world of sentimental desire. But
is the realist, who refuses to challenge or criticise facts, entitled
to any more credit than that which comes from following the line of
least resistance? The realist thinks he at least can control events
by linking himself to the forces that are moving. Perhaps he can. But
if it is a question of controlling war, it is difficult to see how
the child on the back of a mad elephant is to be any more effective
in stopping the beast than is the child who tries to stop him from
the ground. The ex-humanitarian, turned realist, sneers at the
snobbish neutrality, colossal conceit, crooked thinking, dazed
sensibilities, of those who are still unable to find any balm of
consolation for this war. We manufacture consolations here in America
while there are probably not a dozen men fighting in Europe who did
not long ago give up every reason for their being there except that
nobody knew how to get them away.
But the intellectuals whom the crisis has crystalized into an
acceptance of war have put themselves into a terrifying strategic
position. It is only on the craft, in the stream, they say, that one
has any chance of controlling the current forces for liberal
purposes. If we obstruct, we surrender all power for influence. If we
responsibly approve, we then retain our power for guiding. We will be
listened to as responsible thinkers, while those who obstucted the
coming of war have committed intellectual suicide and shall be cast
into outer darkness. Criticism by the ruling powers will only be
accepted from those intellectuals who are in sympathy with the
general tendency of the war. Well, it is true that they may guide,
but if their stream leads to disaster and the frustration of national
life, is their guiding any more than a preference whether they shall
go over the right-hand or the left-hand side of the precipice?
Meanwhile, however, there is comfort on board. Be with us, they call,
or be negligible, irrrelevant. Dissenters are already excommunicated.
Irreconcilable radicals, wringing their hands among the debris,
become the most despicable and impotent of men. There seems no choice
for the intellectual but to join the mass of acceptance. But again
the terrible dilemma arises, - either support what is going on, in
which case you count for nothing because you are swallowed in the
mass and great incalculable forces bear you on; or
remain aloof, passively resistant, in which case you count for
nothing because you are outside the machinery of reality.
Is there no place left then, for the intellectual who cannot yet
crystallize, who does not dread suspense, and is not yet drugged with
fatigue? The American intellectuals, in their preoccupation with
reality, seem to have forgotten that the real enemy is War rather
than imperial Germany. There is work to be done to prevent this war
of ours from passing into popular mythology as a holy crusade. What
shall we do with leaders who tell us that we go to war in moral
spotlessness, or who make "democracy" synonymous with a republican
form of government? There is work to be done in still shouting that
all the revolutionary by-products will not justify the war, or make
war anything else than the most noxious complex of all the evils that
afflict men. There must be some to find no consolation whatever, and
some to sneer at those who buy the cheap emotion of sacrifice. There
must be some irreconcilables left who will not even accept the war
with walrus tears. There must be some to call unceasingly for peace,
and some to insist that the terms of settlement shall be not only
liberal but democratic. There must be some intellectuals who are not
willing to use the old discredited counters again and to support a
peace which would leave all the old inflammable materials of armament
lying about the world. There must still be opposition to any
contemplated "liberal" world-order founded on military coalitions.
The "irreconcilable" need not be disloyal. He need not even be
"impossibilist." His apathy towards war should take the form of a
hightened energy and enthusiasm for the education, the art, the
intrepretation that make for life in the midst of the world of death.
The intellectual who retains his animus against war will push out
more boldly than ever to make his case solid against it. The old
ideals crumble; new ideals must be forged. His mind will continue to
roam widely and ceaselessly. The thing he will fear most is premature
crystallization. If the American intellectual class rivets itself to
a "liberal" philosophy that perpetuates the old errors, there will
then be need for "democrats" whose task will be to divide, confuse,
disturb, keep the intellectual waters constantly in motion to prevent
any such ice from ever forming.
Our Notes:
"Appeal to the Civilized World" was published in October, 1914, by
ninety-three German writers and teachers. In it they defended
Germany's war effort and praised its military establishment.
German general and military historian, Friedrich von Bernhardi, whose
1912 book, "Germany and the Next War", advocated a war of conquest
for Germany. The book was used for propaganda purposes by the allies.
Campaigning for the Presidency in 1916, Wilson pledged himself to non-
intervention in the war in Europe.
The League to Enforce Peace, organized as a non-partisan group,
advocated a post-war league of nations to employ economic sanctions
or military force against any member waging war.
The references are to Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary and
former prime minister, and to Elihu Root. Balfour headed the British
war mission to the U.S. in April 1917. Root was appointed in the same
month to head an American mission to revolutionary Russia.
Randolph Bourne Home Page
R. Bourne - Selections
John Dos Passos on Bourne (from U.S.A.)
A Radical and a Patriot
To page 1
If you like this site, please
click the eye and tell a friend
BigEye Internet Search:
The Web News MP3 Video Audio Images
©Copyright 2001 BigEye.com, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
