Re: A Clockwork Orange [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Lee Mager wrote: "...and many people simply refuse to believe the horrors that the CIA's victims went through, primarily through self-denial." Not only that. It is difficult to get across the complete monstrosity of our 'intelligence'[sic] agencies. Even when Americans are told BY THE VERY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT COMMITTED THESE ATROCITIES that the US government in the 1950's-60's: 1) committed nuclear experimentation on unwitting Americans, 2) experimented on Americans by spreading 'harmless' bio-vectors to study the effectiveness of bio-weapons, 3) the covert drug experiments of Mk Ultra, etc ad nauseam. AND, TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THESE ARE BUT A TASTE OF THE MALFEASANCE OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO The utter stupidity of the masses is only surpassed their virtually unlimited ability to forget. Cossack - Original Message - From: "Lee Mager" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 13:21 Subject: RE: A Clockwork Orange [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- This is obviously the case; however the MK Ultra/Project Monarch mind control programs used by the CIA (still today) tend to be motivated by the reverse of the one used in A Clockwork Orange. In other words, using trauma to cause someone in a post-hypnotic/triggered state to do something that conflicts with their better morals, usually to use them as an assassin/prostitute/drug courier etc. I would strongly recommend reading Trance: Formation of America by Mark Phillips and Cathy O'Brien, or indeed any of the multitude of first hand accounts from survivors of MK Ultra programmes on the net. I'd only say it is just about as distressing an account as can be imagined and many people simply refuse to believe the horrors that the CIA's victims went through, primarily through self-denial. Still, it's important to know about these things... -Original Message- From: Miroslav Antic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 14:36 To: YUGO; 'BALKAN'; 'NATO'; 'SNN'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'SNN-Yahoo' Subject: A Clockwork Orange [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/768273/posts CIA mind-control trials revealed as secret inspiration behind 'A Clockwork Orange' The Independent (UK) | 13 October 2002 | James Morrison Anthony Burgess was inspired to write his most famous novel A Clockwork Orange by his real-life involvement in CIA-run mind-control experiments, a new biography claims. The revelations, published next month, come as the controversial film version gets its first mainstream British television screening. The new biography claims A Clockwork Orange's central theme - the use of brainwashing to quell evil impulses in the criminal mind - arose from Burgess's involvement with the British secret service and the CIA experiments. It argues that many of the novel's other trademarks, including Nadsat, the fictional slang in which it is written, stem from the author's dealings with secret agents. Burgess, a curmudgeonly interviewee, always refused to be drawn in any detail on his inspiration for A Clockwork Orange. When asked about the famous scene in which government scientists pump images of torture into the mind of its delinquent antihero, Alex, to rid him of violent thoughts, he dismissed it as an idea that came to him in a dream. Now, a decade after Burgess's death, respected biographer Roger Lewis believes he may have uncovered the truth, thanks to a mysterious retired British intelligence agent. According to the anonymous source, Burgess became involved with the CIA while working as a Colonial Service education officer in Malaya in the 1950s. There he became a party to trials for a mind-control process designed to trigger emotional responses in the brain using pain and pleasure - the inspiration, it is claimed, for the chilling Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange. The ex-spy's most compelling claim was that a sequence of capital letters seen on Alex's bedroom wall in Chapter 3 of the novel and supposedly lifted from Alex's school trophies is actually an encryption for the location of a US military base where "psychotronic warfare" experiments took place. The coded wording reads: "SOUTH 4; METRO COR-SKOL BLUE DIVISION; THE BOYS OF ALPHA." According to the spy, the figure 4 refers to the conjunction of four US states, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. To the south of this is a military reservation, based in a metropolitan location. The base is a training school (skol in Russian), initially supervised by the US Navy's Blue Division, which experimented with the Alpha waves of the human unconsciousness. Its name was Fort Bliss; the word "bliss" appears repeatedly in the chapter. Another clue, Mr Lewis argues in
Re: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Dear Sandeep, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that there is even a grain of truth in the statement: ...in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert. [Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)] A more accurate statement would be: It is unarguably true that to lessen or minimize the death and destruction in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia, HATO (lead by the brutish US) must be EXCLUDED from Kosovo. Cossack - Original Message - From: Sandeep Vaidya (LMI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:19 Subject: RE: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- I am not a history student, but some of the arguement made in this article can be easily proved to be misleading: in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert. [Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- War on Iraq: Who Needs It? By Robert Skidelsky The United States wants to remove Saddam Hussein from power; its main allies would be content with his disarmament. The United States, therefore, wants to keep the United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq; its allies want to get them back in. To reconcile these aims -- at least formally -- is the point of the intense jockeying now going on at the UN. The United States wants a new Security Council resolution so drawn up as to make legal the early use of force. France and Russia, while not opposed to the use of force as a last resort, want to use existing Security Council resolutions to give disarmament a last chance. Britain finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It is co-sponsor with the United States of a resolution whose not-so-hidden aim is to force out Saddam, while being openly committed to nothing more than his regime's disarmament. In one sense the maneuvers at the United Nations are a side show. The United States will go ahead with regime change whatever the UN decides. So the unenviable choice for America's allies is either to accede to the U.S. demand for a new UN resolution that brings about regime change in Iraq -- probably by war -- or to acquiesce in unilateral U.S. action to remove Saddam. No other choice is open, because there is no force capable of stopping the United States. This is the reality of a world with only one superpower. The U.S. draft resolution -- at the time of writing -- makes eight demands on Iraq. Under extreme pressure Iraq might be expected to accept seven of them, but not the one which gives the inspection teams the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution ... ground and air-transit corridors which shall be enforced by UN security forces, i.e. which allows U.S. forces to enter Iraq where and when they want. The technique of demands drawn up to be rejected rather than accepted is not new. On July 23, 1914, Austro-Hungary presented a 10-point ultimatum to Serbia following the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo, giving it 48 hours to reply. Serbia accepted nine points, but not unexpectedly rejected the 10th, which would have allowed Austrian officials to conduct the murder investigation on Serbian territory unhindered. The Austrian invasion of Serbia followed a few days later, and led to World War I. A more recent example, also involving Serbia, was the so-called Rambouillet accord of March 20, 1999. In order to enforce peace and self-government in Kosovo, NATO forces were to enjoy free and ... unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. U.S. bombing started four days after Serbia's rejection of this implementing provision. Monstrous though Saddam Hussein's regime is, there is much less justification for forcing a war on Iraq today than there was for going to war in 1914 or 1999. In the first case, the existence of Serbia did pose a threat to the survival of Austro-Hungary; in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert. Today, there exists no legal or security case for a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iraq. Saddam is not a threat to the United States, though he may be a menace to some of his neighbors. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and no evidence has been adduced of Iraqi involvement in the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. In any case, effective disarmament of the Saddam regime -- a legitimate peace aim following Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait -- can be secured by a toughened inspection regime: Even the much-evaded inspectorate system in place between 1991 and 1998 succeeded in liquidating most of its external military capacity. There
Re: (Pass me the sickbag, Alice.) BBC: EU gives US troops immunity[WWW.STOPN
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---
As in the way American soldiers
were "dealt with" by their military tribunals for crimes against
civilians in Vietnam?
For shame David, you neglected to
mention:
The way American war criminals were dealt with for
their war crimes in Cambodia;
The way the American court system (or the military
justice system) dealt with the free-wheeling cowboys who snipped the cable car
cable and KILLED more than 20 innocent civilians while on 'military exercises'
in Italy;
The way the US justice system (or, the
international justice system, for that matter) dealt with the obvious war
crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention perpetrted by HATO and the US
in the gang rape of Yugoslavia'
etc., ad nauseam.
We, Americans, reserve to ourselves (and our chosen
lapdogs; HATO members, Sharon and IDF) the right to accuse, persecute and
convict those WE determine are war criminals while exempting ourselves (and the
aforementioned lapdogs) from any real consequences of their very real crimes and
atrocities.
Putnik
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 19:16
Subject: RE: ("Pass me the sickbag, Alice.") BBC:
EU gives US troops immunity [WWW.STOPNA
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
--- Then the
Europeans want a guarantee that Americans accused of war crimes and
crimes against humanity will be dealt with by American courts.
As in the way American soldiers were "dealt
with" by their military tribunals for crimes against civilians in
Vietnam?
S. Conroy wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2287776.stmEU gives US troops immunity
The European Union has allowed member states to
reach bilateral agreements with the United States, giving American
troops limited immunity from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC). Such deals will be permitted provided
certain conditions are met such as granting immunity to diplomats
and soldiers only. The decision was announced after
a meeting of EU foreign minister in Brussels on Monday.
The Bush administration has argued that US citizens
must be protected from hostile governments prosecuting them for
political reasons, and has approached EU and other states to
secure immunity agreements for American troops.
Twelve countries - mostly small or poor - have signed such deals
so far, promising not to hand over US citizens on their territory
to the ICC. 'Red lines'
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said immunity agreements will
be allowed if a number of "red lines" are respected.
First, they should apply only to soldiers or officials sent abroad.
Then the Europeans want a guarantee that Americans
accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity will be dealt
with by American courts. Finally, agreements should
not be reciprocal: citizens of the European state involved would
not be similarly protected. Correspondents say this
position is an attempt to bridge the gap between the US, which
wants to ensure that none of its citizens is ever prosecuted by
the new ICC, and the Europeans, who want to strengthen the court's
credibility. Human rights campaigners have accused
Britain in particular of being ready to undermine the court,
rather than have a serious clash with the US.
Mr Moeller denied this. "There is no
concession," he said. "There is no undermining of the
International Criminal Court." However his German
counterpart, Joschka Fischer, made clear he had wanted a clear
rejection of the US demand for blanket immunity. "We
did not get that, but we came very close to it," he said.
--
--- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^^===
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84AMI.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===
Re: People who equate Slobodan Milosevic with Ariel Sharon[WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Dear Nancy, An enlightened and well read friend of mine and I were discussing this very topic earlier and we came to the following conclusions: Milosevic, as opposed to Sharon, was conducting legitimate anti-terrorist operations ON THE SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUENT TERRITORY OF JUGOSLAVIA (Kosovo). Sharon, on the other hand, has been carrying out his bloody deeds ON OCCUPIED LANDS (in contravention of a plethora of UN resolutions) IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT ILLEGAL OCCUPATION AND THE FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE TERRITORY OF ISRAEL AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE LANDS SO ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED. The charge against Milosevic was the 'indiscriminate "slaughter"' of Albanian 'civilians' during the above cited anti-terrorist operations. True, Albanian civilians were occasionally 'caught in the crossfire' during these anti-terrorist operations. However, Milosevic's anti-terrorist operations could hardly be said to have been aimed at THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF THE KOSOVAR ALBANIAN CIVILIANS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. Sharon's bloody operations, on the other hand, are self-evidently DESIGNED TO COMPLETELY DESTROY THE CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE PALESTINIANS MAKING THE ALREADY MARGINAL EXISTENCE OF THE PALESTINIANS IMPOSSIBLE. When Milosevic made an agreement with the 'murderous asshole' Holbrooke to withdraw JNA and Serbian anti-terrorist forces from Kosovo, he held to that agreement and with dispatch withdrew those forces. Sharon, on the other hand, HAS HEMMED, HAWED, DAWDLED AND DELAYED AT EVERY JUNCTURE. In spite of the Shrub's 'insistence' that Sharon withdraw his forces from the West Bank, every such 'withdrawal' hailed by the mainline media is nothing more than a strategic pullback to just outside the Palestinian towns and cities accompanied by numerous and repeated 'sweeps' through yet more Palestinian towns and cities. All without even the hint of any US military pressure (as opposed to virtually every step in the US initiated wars of Jugoslav dissolution). There I believe you have 3 rather dramatic and distinct points of difference between the policies of Milosevic and Sharon. Cossack - Original Message - From: "Nancy Hey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 08:22 Subject: People who equate Slobodan Milosevic with Ariel Sharon [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Dear friends, I've noticed a very disturbing trend recently at pro-Palestinian rallies that I've been to, and that is the tendency of certain people to carry signs with slogans on them like "Sharon = Milosevic", and "Hitler, Milosevic, Sharon, United They Stand". I'm disturbed by this trend, because these people don't seem to realize that Slobodan Milosevic, unlike Ariel Sharon, never was a tool of American imperialism, in fact, he is a victim of it through his prosecution at the "kangaroo" court in the Hague, and whether or not one agrees with all of his policies, one should recognize this fact, and condemn that court more than Mr. Milosevic, for being a tool of American and NATO imperialism. I fear that people, by carrying these signs, are just giving legitimacy to the imperialists' campaign of demonizing Mr. Milosevic and by extension the whole Serbian people. When they claim to be opposed to American imperialism by opposing US support for Israel, they should not make their point by legitimizing imperialism in its other forms. Would they try to make their point that Ariel Sharon is bad by comparing him to Fidel Castro? I've tried to approach people carrying these signs, but they've always just responded by saying that they believe "Milosevic is a war criminal" or "he's killing Muslims". I'd like to know what can be done to make poeple like this see the light, any kind of literature we can give them that might clarify the error of this analogy? Any suggestions, anyone? Peacefully yours, Nancy Hey --- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST --- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: The Not-So-New Imperialism [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Rick, I was reading the article, "Why Bin Laden Is So Hard to Catch"By Nicholas BerryThe Moscow Times In which was contained the following paragraph: "This situation presents General Tommy Franks, chief of Central Command,with two major problems. To rebuff the image of an occupying force,Franks has wisely ordered that no permanent military bases beestablished. Housing, logistics, and weapons and troop deployments areall temporary and integrated with Afghan allies." By logical extension, one would have to conclude that HATO is "an occupying force" in Kosovo, else how would one justify such "permanent military bases" as Camp Landsteal? Add to that the fact that US has extorted one of their world known"99 year leases" to the Camp (Gitmo anyone?). Just how incredibly blind and insensible the averageAmerican is that they don't see the depredations of their fabled land and must ask, "Why do they hate us?!" Could it possibly be that the natives have had enough of their imperial overlord? Cossack - Original Message - From: "Rick Rozoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:56 Subject: The Not-So-New Imperialism [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Spiked (UK) Article11 April 2002 The not-so-new imperialism by David Chandler Robert Cooper, policy adviser to UK prime minister Tony Blair, has caused something of a storm with his call for a 'new kind of imperialism'. In the Foreign Policy Centre pamphlet Reordering the World, Cooper argues for 'a new age of empire' - in which Western powers won't have to follow international law in their dealings with other states, will be able to use military force without consulting the United Nations, and will be free to impose protectorates in problematic areas. According to Labour MP Tam Dalyell, Cooper's comments go against the Labour Party's long history of anti-colonialism - while fellow Labour MP Alan Simpson accuses Cooper of offering an intellectual justification for Britain and America's bypassing of the UN. These MPs can't have been paying much attention to international affairs over the past few years - because, in fact, Cooper does not argue for anything new or exceptional. Some Labour MPs seem to have short memories. A number of Britain's colonial wars have been fought while Labour governments were in power: the war with India and the Palestine conflict in the late 1940s, the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' that started in 1969. Long before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the UK Labour government was at the forefront of downgrading the role of the UN and creating new powers for ad hoc 'coalitions of the willing' to wage war without the sanction of international law. Indeed, Labour has shown scant need for anything as concrete as intellectual justification for bypassing the UN, instead relying on moral support for its new interventionism. The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was justified 'on moral grounds', rather than legal grounds. Lord George Robertson, former Labour defence secretary and now NATO secretary-general, argues that Western leaders have the job of 'balancing.law, morality and the use of force'. Of course, once the law is secondary to what NATO leaders Blair and Bush consider to be morally necessary, there can be no legal limits to intervention across the globe - so long as the cause is right. Robertson explains that 'the only morality is to do what one has to do, when one has to do it'. In this context, the question of whether and when to intervene is purely a matter for powerful leaders' consciences. Claims that Cooper is a 'maniac' only show how out of touch his critics are. The new age of imperialism is already well established. Two years ago, the UK government's Joint Consultative Committee called for the UN to restore the Trusteeship Council for managing the growing number of international protectorates. And Tony Blair recently helped former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Paddy Ashdown get the job of high representative (or colonial administrator) in Bosnia. Lord Ashdown now has the power to pass laws by decree and to dismiss Bosnia's elected presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians if he considers them to be obstructive. The power that had always eluded Ashdown in the UK, by way of the ballot box, has now been granted him by the self-selected Peace Implementation Council - which has 'voluntarily' taken upon itself the duty of running Bosnia for the indefinite future. Those who kicked up a stink about Cooper's 'new imperialism' statement seem to have been more offended by his choice of words than by their political content. Cooper is not alone in calling for an end to the UN framework of international law and respect for state sovereignty. Liberal advocates of
Re: Compensation for Rape workshop,Legal Action for Women [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Perhaps I'm being a bit dense but, why was this forwarded to the group? Much as I have always, always been an active fighter for women's rights, I must admit I lost all respect for the vast majority of 'women's rights groups' who, almost uniformly, jumped on the 'Serb rape camp' canard and screamed the loudest to begin and intensifyHATO's gang rape of Yugoslavia (which did wonders for all the women of Yugoslavia, BTW). Much as rape is absolutely impermissible among civilized people (IMHO), these 'spokespeople' for women's groups have, (again, IMHO) totally undermined any credibility they had by allying themselves with the likes of Clinton (a known multiple abuser of women) and the entire HATO enterprise in gang-raping Yugoslavia. Cossack - Original Message - From: "jonathan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 09:28 Subject: FW: Compensation for Rape workshop, Legal Action for Women [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK--- -Original Message- From: leila Sent: 26 March 2002 14:19 To: eveyone Subject: FW: Compensation for Rape workshop, Legal Action for Women-Original Message- From: All Women Count [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 March 2002 14:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Compensation for Rape workshop, Legal Action for Women Legal Action for Women Crossroads Women ' s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU Tel: 020 7482 2496 minicom/voice Fax: 020 7209 4761 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 13 March 2002 Self-help workshop: Claiming compensation for rape other sexual violence Thursday 11 April 2002, 2-5.30pm, Crossroads Women ' s Centre Dear Friends, We are writing to invite you to a self-help workshop on claiming criminal injuries compensation for rape. The workshop will bring together rape survivors with organisations and lawyers who have supported them, or who want to find out how they can be helpful. We will hear from one of the women who brought and won the first private prosecution for rape in England but saw her compensation award reduced because she was a sex worker; other rape survivors who faced similar discrimination; and the organisations and legal representatives who worked on their case. Whilst women who have pursued compensation claims have developed vital expertise, this expertise is not generally recognised nor is it available to others. As you know, rape is widespread, and although reporting is on the increase, less than 7% of reported rapes result in conviction. For any woman, official recognition that a serious crime has been committed against her is a vital first step in the healing process. Where the attacker is not convicted, criminal injuries compensation can provide that vital acknowledgement as well as some resources to help rebuild one ' s life. But rape survivors face many obstacles in claiming compensation. Some find themselves disbelieved by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), and their sexual and medical history is used to humiliate and dismiss them. A woman ' s " character and conduct " is routinely used to deny her compensation, discriminating against women on the basis of her occupation, lifestyle or criminal convictions for prostitution, shoplifting or possession of cannabis. And while a woman can apply for legal aid to get a lawyer to prepare her claim or appeal, there is no legal aid for representation at the appeal hearing. Working with Women Against Rape, which has attended many hearings, we have been able to win higher awards for women. We hope that the workshop will encourage lawyers and others to take on this crucial area of work. The workshop will begin with women ' s experiences of pursuing their own claims. It will address the following: * Which experiences of claiming compensation are common to all claimants and which are particular to rape survivors. * How rape survivors have challenged sexism, racism and other prejudices and discrimination by the CICA. * How to get the best from lawyers, and from statutory and voluntary agencies. * How to present or question the evidence of witnesses, police, doctors, psychiatrists and other professionals so that it helps rather than undermine a claim. * What has been won, in procedures, in decision-making and in the rules. * What changes to press for and how to press for them most effectively. * How to combine effective legal action with campaigning. This is the second in a series of workshops organised by Legal Action for Women. The workshops aim to: give visibility to women who have accumulated enormous skill, knowledge and insight through their work demanding justice; put that experience at the disposal of others; evaluate how women ' s self-help enhances the legal and civil rights of the most disadvantaged in society
Re: Cowboy Prez rides to rescue? - Columnist Eric Margolis[WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Steve, First, allow me to start on a positive note by applauding and commending you on your many excellent articles, all of which I have enjoyed immensely. Secondly, while I agree with you that no one should arrogate to themselves the 'right' to dictate another person's reading list, I didn't take Rick's note to be an edict banning Margolis' tripe but rather more as one friend telling another, "Don't blow yer bucks on 'Black Hawk Down'; it's just another masturbatory product of Hollywood PC". Having read, and become infuriated by, many of Margolis' outpourings of bile, that was the way in which I took Rick's 'advisory'. I hardly ever read any of Margolis' tripe anymore, being now fully acquainted with his bias and slant. Much in the manner of the ever voluble Thos. (McDonald's wouldn't exist but for McDonnel-Douglas) Friedman, if I read any of his screed, it is purely to obtain a view of what passes as the 'establishment view' at any given point. Cossack - Original Message - From: "Stephen Gowans" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:17 Subject: Re: Cowboy Prez rides to rescue? - Columnist Eric Margolis [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK---Rick,I've never read a single column written by Eric Margolis, and nor I haveever dipped into his book, (what is it called -- War at the Top of theWorld?), and that may be because, being Canadian, I'm more familiar with theToronto Sun (Margolis's paper) than others are, and so I know what toexpect. But if you keep going on about him, I swear I'll read him.You've created an impression, unintended I'm sure, which only those inclinedto submit to intellectual bullying will tolerate: that only the incissivewit of the didactic Rick Rozoff can protect the dull and lumbering minds ofthe rest of us from being able to sort nonsense from truth, misinformationfrom untainted information. "No need to read Margolis. Rick's already donethat for us. There are others, more worthy of reading, Rick says, who makethe same points. What a handy guy Rick is to have around to do our thinkingfor us."Can one be blamed for expecting you'll next present a list of proscribed andprescribed journalists and columnists, followed by an enemies lists,comprised of names of people who have disagreed with you on some matter inthe past, (but of course you'll do it in a courtly way, as is your wont,leaving the uttering of imprecations and name-calling to the snarling Mart,who has a penchant for that kind of thing)?Your importuning others not to post Margolis because it gives himcredibility strikes me as nonsensical, and objectionable. Presumably, he wasposted by whoever posted him because the poster liked Margolis's ideas onsome topic, (and the post wasn't on the Balkans or socialism or Canada'shealth care system.) This blanket dismissing of people as agents ofmisinformation or for disagreeing with you on some other matter (theBalkans) and not for what they say on an ad rem matter amounts to nothingmore than ad hominem argument, and is no different from dismissing others ongrounds they're --- oh my gosh! -- communists, or anarchists, orauthoritarian, or conspiracy theorists, or Wicans, or those crazy people from Emperor's Clothes. Maybe we can put everyone into boxes, and all carry onour discussions within our own ever shrinking, marginalized worlds, as weall descend into a paranoid lunacy about those who surround us being CIAoperatives, agents of misinformation, and PsyOps specialists. Who isMargolis? ANTINATO's own Emanuel Goldstein, on whom we're to vent our twominutes of hate?Your intolerance, I fear, will only guarantee that what you can't tolerateprevails, like all those town fathers who thought they could protect youngimpressionable minds from the filth of Flaubert and Miller and Lawrence, orthe subversiveness of Brecht, by urging librarians not to give "ourenemies" credibility by carrying their books.Steve- Original Message -From: Rick Rozoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:25 AMSubject: Re: Cowboy Prez rides to rescue? - Columnist Eric Margolis[WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --- Dear Friends, For anyone not already acquainted with the fact, Eric Margolis is a Western disinformation agent who boasts, inter alia, of smuggling rockets into the Afghan mujahedin in the 1980s and possessing a host of intelligence contacts, including with the CIA. A quick Google search with the words "Eric Margolis socialism" will demonstrate with whom we're dealing. There is nothing remotely enlightened or progressive about this individual, notwithstanding the fact that his columns, from the very establishment Toronto Star where he is the official foreign correspondent, have been crossposted and linked on several US
