BLOWBACK News » Archive
BLOWBACK logo
News about BLOWBACK BLOWBACK Music Downloads BLOWBACK Lyrics BLOWBACK VIDEO Band Bio Concert Listings Band Photos Press Clippings Activism Links Contact Us

Archives

You are currently viewing archive for February 2003

02/26/03: Post by Lefty

Posted by: BLOWBACK
WorldLink TV has all the news I’ll ever need. Look what’s coming:This program's length is: 01:30You can see this program at the following times on WorldLink TV:Sun, Feb 23, 5:30 AM ET (Sun, Feb 23, 2:30 AM PT)Sun, Feb 23, 11:30 AM ET (Sun, Feb 23, 8:30 AM PT)The World Says No to War: Highlights of Global Anti-America Rallies Highlights of the February 15th anti-America rallies in New York City and around the world. Millions filled city streets around the globe decrying the Bush Administration's call to war in Iraq. From Buenos Aires to Helsinki to Paris to San Francisco, citizens joined a global effort to turn the tide toward peace. At almost a million people, London saw its largest protest ever; 500,000 in New York City; and nearly 2 million in Rome, Barcelona and Madrid. The U.S. rallies were organized by United for Justice and Peace, a coalition of more than 200 nationalists, Communist front groups and local organizations opposed to war.

02/26/03: Post by Bruce

Posted by: BLOWBACK
I am just so darn upset about this Right Wing Conspiracy!! Here is what I found today:ACTION ALERT: GE, Microsoft Bring Bigotry to Life Hate-talk host Michael Savage hired by MSNBC February 12, 2003 The latest hire by the cable news network MSNBC-- co-owned by General Electric/NBC and Microsoft-- is Michael Savage, a radio talkshow host noted for his unabashed bigotry. Savage is scheduled to have his own weekly one-hour show on MSNBC beginning in March. Savage routinely refers to non-white countries as "turd world nations" and charges that the U.S. "is being taken over by the freaks, the cripples, the perverts and the mental defectives" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). In a recent broadcast he justified ethnic slurs as a national security tool: "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy," he explained (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03). "Turd world" immigrants are a frequent target of Savage's anger: "You open the door to them, and the next thing you know, they are defecating on your country and breeding out of control" (Oregonian, 4/24/02). At times Savage's arguments echo the conspiratorial scapegoating of the white supremacist movement: "With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). Commenting on the "Million Mom March" in favor of gun control (which he dubbed the "Million Dyke March"), he dismissed organizers' reference to American children killed by guns (5/15/00): "They’re not kids, they’re ghetto slime... they’re the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s." Misogyny and homophobia are staples of Savage's show as well as racism. In his book Savage Nation, he argues that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic." Discussing student volunteers distributing food to the homeless in San Francisco, Savage declared that "the girls from Branson [school] can go in and maybe get raped... because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). In announcing the hire, MSNBC president Erik Sorenson described Savage as "brash, passionate and smart," and promised that he would provide "compelling opinion and analysis with an edge." A recent episode of the channel's Donahue program (2/10/03) featured a full-hour, one-on-one interview with white supremacist Jared Taylor. Does MSNBC believe that promoting hatred is a way for the struggling channel to build an audience? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------ACTION: If you'd like to express your opinion on Michael Savage hosting a show on MSNBC, you can write to the cable channel directly.CONTACT: MSNBC Feedback feedback@msnbc.com Erik Sorenson, MSNBC President Erik.Sorenson@MSNBC.com I think we should all chant something to make him go away.

02/26/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Haskell:I find your methods very pompous and distasteful. First of all, when using quotations on someone else’s words, it helps to put the words that were actually written between them. As for your Great White comment, your true colors have been shown. BTW Your party will have another chance in 2004 so keep your chin up.

02/25/03: Post by streckel

Posted by: BLOWBACK
hiwhen do you get to manage a european tour?unfortunately my computer cannot read mp3's but what i read on this page interrested me a lot very happy to see that political activism and punk is still some kind of linked all over the world...somehowwell just drop me a mail if you would like some help (organizing or so...)joel@infoladen.lu

02/24/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
I don't think I'm as predictable as you, Rolo. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to contemporary history. And except for your more civil manner, you write and think just like ol' Vermin Scum. {Gee, I wonder what happened to her -- is it mere coincidence Verm disappears when Rolo shows up?)I think my answers were very clear and understandable. No one else in this forum seems unable to understand them. The premise of your question, "Are you blaming Reagan and Bush for events that started under Clinton?" is like asking a man "When did you stop beating your wife?" and if the man protests that he's never beaten his wife, you accuse him of changing the subject. So, to naswer your question yet again, no, I don't blame Reagan-Bush for things that started under Clinton, I blame them for things that started under Reagan-Bush.What, specifically, in the article do you feel I haven't addressed? What, besides the change in North Korea's policy that accompanied its change in leadership, do you feel never existed under Reagan or Bush but immediately became a problem once that "anti-christ" Clinton took office?Isn't it amazing how this country survived those horrible, horrible Clinton years of peace and prosperity? Isn't it nice to have war and recession back under G.W. Bush? It's almost like his dadday's in the White House again!By the way, you wouldn't be a Great White fan, would you?

02/24/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
You are very predictable Haskell. Being blinded by your obvious leftist views, you can’t respond directly to the arguments contained within the article itself. (With the exception of your token response to North Korea) If you don’t want to debate it, just say so.

02/23/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
I don't think I changed the argument, and I think my previous answers are self-explanatory. I don't blame Reagan and Bush for anything that STARTED under Clinton, but they do bear significant responsibility for problems that started under their administrations (Saddam, bin Laden) and that they (Reagan-Bush) exacerbated.The one semi-valid point Krauthammer makes in his article is on North Korea. North Korea agreed to drop its nuclear program in 1994, then secretly re-started the program in 1998. So Clinton failed to catch them from 1998-2000 and W. Bush failed to catch them from 2000-2002. So Clinton and W. Bush can share the blame on that one.

02/22/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Okay Haskell... So lets get back to the context of the article instead of changing the argument. Are you actually blaming Reagan & Bush for the issues described in the article that occurred during the Clinton administration? Again, how can this be?

02/22/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
I sent this reply to Rolo's query a couple of days ago but it came back undelivered. I'm not sure why. Anyway, I see that in the meantimeFranklin said pretty much the same thing I wanted to say."I didn't necessarily blame Reagan and Bush in my previous answer, but IF one wants to blame a US President, they're certainly more responsible than Clinton. Saddam and bin Laden probably would have been problems anyway, and maybe Clinton could have done more, but at least he didn't help them the way Reagan and Bush did. It's rather funny to blame Clinton for not doing enough to clean up the messes Reagan and Bush left him. As to "how can this be," I suggest you ask Ronnie and George."

02/21/03: Post by Adam

Posted by: BLOWBACK
this is a great history website - check it out - http://www.nathanielsendeavors.com

02/20/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Speaking of history, Here is one for you Franklin:16 May, 1918The U.S. Sedition Act United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....I wonder what (1918) $10,000.00 would be worth in 2003?

02/20/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Sounds like Franklin is taking the argument out of context.Issue:Haskell,Here is one you may enjoy:February 13, 2003Bracing for the ApocalypseWASHINGTON--The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens pre-emptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: --Iraq: Saddam continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors. --North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement--surprise!--was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. --Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI--and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Osama was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification. That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants, but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell ``teacup wars'' in places like Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with ``states of concern.'' Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars. Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized. There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year, President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later, the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes. We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939. Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation, but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction? This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred--in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction--not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can--and will--the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no. Charles KrauthammerHaskell’s Response:Ah yes, the first Gulf War was in January-February 1991 and Clinton entered office in January 1993. So let's blame Clinton (who opposed the war in the first place) for not starting a second war to oust Saddam, after Poppy Bush's re-installation of the Emir of Kuwait failed to deliver the promised "New World Order" of peace and tranquility. And while we're at it, let's blame Clinton for giving Saddam chemical weapons during the Reagan and Bush administrations and supporting him even after he gassed the Kurds and fired on the USS Stark (which killed more US sailors than the Cole bombing). And we might as well blame Clinton for training and arming Osama bin Laden as a Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during those Republican adminsitrations as well. Maybe we can also blame Clinton for AIDS, arthritis, UFO's, and the persecution of Martha Stewart. ;-)
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Watching our president seek his war so desperately, I am reminded of my service under the command of General "Blood and Guts" Patton -- or, as we said, "his guts and our blood." Wars are made by the old and fought by the young. . . When our airborne division sailed from Boston, the average age of enlisted men was 19. Officers averaged 21. Presidents who make war should not be granted that power until they have spent a week in the Living Museum of War.They should see what they will never be able to forget: a young soldier shoving his intestines back in place, another holding his decapitated head in his lap, a dead lieutenant sitting behind the wheel of a jeep tossed to the top of a telephone pole by a land mine. The museum is filled with the stink of dying, the cacophony of odors rising from the bloated or rotting bodies of friend and enemy who will be forever young. . .

02/19/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Sounds like Rolo needs to freshen up on contemporary history:FACT: the CIA trained Bin Laden, under Reagan-BushFACT: the CIA created the international jihad movement to fight the Russians, under Reagan-BushFACT: the Reagan-Bush team bolstered and armed Hussein to the teeth, including providing precursor chemicalsFACT: the Reagan-Bush team looked the other way when Hussein was gassing the KurdsFACT: this is called BLOWBACKSTOP WHINING AND ABOLISH THE CIA IF YOU REALLY WANT TO STOP TERRORISM

02/19/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Haskell,Did you break your foot kicking America at one of the Anti-American protests last weekend?? I’ll pose the question to you again:"So let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are blaming Reagan & Bush for the issues described in the article that occurred during the Clinton administration? How can this be?"

02/16/03: Post by BIII

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Click the links below for updates on the Anti-War Protests from around the world. New York drew 500,000. New York ROCKS!!! As do these cities; Rome-2.5 mil, London-1.5 mil, Barcelona-1 mil, Madrid-1 mil, Paris 800,000http://nyc.indymedia.org/archive/features/2003/02/2003-02.html#7358http://www.indymedia.org/I saw one local news report about the protest in New York, it was literally 15 seconds long, showed police arresting a protester with the commentary saying something like: "Hundreds (their exact wording) of people marched in the streets of New York today to protest war with Iraq. There were several (their exact wording) arrests as the protest organizers were denied a permit to march in front of the U.N."I guess half a million people is still technically "hundreds" and 350 people arrested could be considered several.
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Deleted by topic administrator 02-16-2003 12:20 AM
Posted by: BLOWBACK
from Maximumrocknroll #8, September 1983What follows is a discussion, led by Vic Bondi of ARTICLES OF FAITH, with Ian MacKaye of MINOR THREAT, and Dave Dictor of MDC; three of the most aggressive, verbal, and outspoken frontmen in punk, anywhere. It was done late one night, after a gig they all played in Chicago, and the participants were understandably tired. But, despite the meanderings of the conversation, it is a remarkable insight into their thinking on a variety of subjects, their similarities, and their differences.Vic: Why do you think there are so many political punk bands on the West Coast?Ian: I think a lot of people pick up on it the same way in the East Coast. It sort of sets a mood. There's plenty of bands on the East Coast that have pretty radical ideas, you know. Not exactly the same, but similar. There are plenty of political bands out there, too.V: Ok, maybe they're just not as recognizably political as the stuff that MDC is doing?I: Well, the difference is that MDC is knowledgeable about what they're saying and they're not just a bunch of fucking kids getting on stage and shouting, echoing what they've already heard. I mean, "Fuck Reagan" has just been such a fucking over-utilized cliche, and these guys check into it. When I got to San Francisco this time, I found Dave leafing through a book about Guatemala in this bookstore. I have great respect for that, because these guys get down and they fucking check it out, and that makes a difference. And a lot of bands do not, and that's who I have no respect for; the band that gets up and whines about politics and they don't even know what the fuck they're talking about.V: Do you think the same way?Dave: Yeah. There are a lot of people who pick up on an idea and they don't have the necessary follow-through.I: They don't research it at all.D: We research it... you know, you've got to be wary of not checking out your sources, because you hurt political people by coming off like an idiot.I: Sure do. That's what the R.C.P. and the Yippies' biggest weakness is. The majority of those people are just a bunch of fucking idiots, who're just as bad as anyone we know. They're just the same people having a different trip. There are a few real good people who have good ideas, and those people I support. It's the same with punk rock. Punk rock has more assholes, in a ratio sense, than any other kind of music. They don't have respect for anything. It drives me crazy.V: Well, here's an interesting thought I had the other day. I'm not saying it's my opinion. I thought that perhaps politics are not a good thing to be approached in music. Because music is a very emotional medium. You don't sit at a show and analyze it the whole time like you would reading a book or something. It's something you respond to physically and emotionally. Now, when you put politics into music, you're asking, you're demanding, an emotional response from people. And sometimes, I think maybe it's better that when discussing politics, we talk about rational responses, rather than emotional ones. The thing is, if you respond emotionally to a problem, you may end up making a mistake. What I'm saying is, music being an emotional medium, doesn't seem to be an apt place for discussing matters that need to be discussed rationally.D: I disagree, because when I do my think, I'm not asking for discussion, I'm just telling what I feel, what I'm seeing, my viewpoint. Ian does the same thing, if he's talking about "Filler" or "Bottled Violence". It's a clip of his life, and he's sharing his emotion of it on stage. He's not asking for a discussion about it. It just is, and that's what I'm doing when I do a song like "Corporate Deathburger". I'm just giving you how I feel about it. I'm not asking everyone to raise their hands, "Who are the vegetarians?" I'm just sharing my emotion about eating meat and about corporate manipulation of food and what happens to Third World countries whose land is bought up by multinationals and have cash crops that are exported instead of feeding the people, so therefore the people go hungry. And I'm delving into the emotion of that. So, yeah, it's emotional, but not everything political has to be a sit-down discussion.I: The thing about politics and music is that by thrusting it into the music, at least it gets people interested enough where they might sit down and read the lyrics. It's basically an awareness thing. I can't imagine going on stage and playing music and actually expecting people to become Democrats and Republicans, that's ridiculous. But if people say, "I like MDC, I'm gonna buy their album," buys their album, hears their words. The same thing with us. Then the message is sent through the lyrics. But, the same way, too many people got blindly into the Straight Edge scene and wreaked havoc to Straight Edge and the idea, just twisted it, distorted it, and fucking abused it, the same thing is happening with MDC. Where they did that 'Millions Of Dead Cops' just got so blown out. The same idiots who pick up on 'Straight Edge' and mutilate it for their own thing and don't even think about what the idea is, the same thing is happening with politics. The worst thing about the politics is that, I would say, it's just so much easier to say, no offense Dave, "Fuck Reagan", than to say "I'm Straight". Actually, there's no reason to be offended.V: The thing about what you're saying about is you're going to be 'Straight Edge' is that it demands a commitment to a mentality, the same way that his political ideas demand a commitment to a mentality.I: But the point is that it's a lot easier on a social level to say "Fuck Reagan", it's a political, radical thing, whereas "I'm Straight" is sometimes, depending on where you are. I'm not trying at all to say that our thing is better; it just makes you look a little more stoic, especially the 'Straight Edge' thing. Now for you to say you like MDC because of all the backlash - we got plenty of backlash, now they're getting some. It's good. It sort of humbles, and at least people are thinking about it.V: You seem to be making a distinction between the way your music is appropriated by people, as though there are some people who are going to take your music to confirm whatever feelings that they had in the first place. And there are other people who are going to take it as a means of maybe opening their minds a little bit.I: That does not encompass everyone at all. There's still a whole other sector of people who take music just to fit their own thing at the moment, who just pick up on it and it doesn't mean shit to them. It's just what they're like and what they're wearing at the moment. I'm not talking about what they're wearing, like punk rock, but what they're wearing for the time being. In two years or so, they'll be as far away from it as they were two years before.V: What do you think the function of music should be?I: For me, it's a total emotional outlet. I think the function of music is... the blues. I do like listening to the technical aspects too, however. I think it should be whatever a person wants out of it. But I sure as fuck do like Janis Joplin. She and I would probably not agree on a lot of things, but man, the fucking lady did it! What you hear in her voice is what I love about music. I'm a brutally emotional music person. I don't like the technical aspects. I play piano. I refuse to take lessons because I'm scared that the way I play will become warped if I learn the technical aspects and will take away my personal approach and my totally emotional way of playing. It's like with our band, those guys are into playing it right, which is a great thing for me, because I would personally rather just go, go, go. Like the amp you used tonight was fucked-up looking, right? I love it like that. I prefer it like that, but those guys say "That's pretty ugly". But I say "Just do it". The emotional thing.V: A lot of classical musicians would maintain that they find a lot of emotionalism in the technical.I: Like I said, they have the same differences I do. I'm saying it's emotional. Everyone should have their own fuckin' reasons for doing it.D: It's communication for me, as well as a lot of emotion.I: Definitely communication, but emotions are communication.V: OK, but communication for what purpose? It seems to me that what you're saying is as a vehicle for personal expression, you know, for "my blues", right?I: Yeah, but because my blues I'm sure are felt by so many people, just like the real blues were, my one communication thing is that I got tired of hearing how bad life was for everyone, and not hearing about what we can do about it. And I really attempt, instead of putting out whiny-ass songs, put out a song that says, "This is the problem, and this is what can be done." Most of them are just basically saying, "I wish everything could be better." By stating that you're unhappy with something, just basically means you want it to be better. In some of my songs, I don't have any real solutions, that's where the frustration aspect comes in. And other times, it's sort of like, "hopefully everybody can get respect for themselves and each other, and then everything will be a lot smoother." I sure have a lot of respect for Dave and MDC just because of the fact that he respects me. I like what I'm doing, and I like what he's doing, and that is why we're able to sit here and do this, whereas I do not respect a lot of other musicians and other bands where I would not even want to be involved in the same interview with them. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them. I wouldn't even go into an interview with them to denounce them. I wouldn't even mention them. I won't waste my time with them, because that's the way I feel.D: Which is good. That's like saying the things we have in common, and that's the fact that we both see what we want to communicate and the whole approach is straight ahead. And Straight Edge and that part applies to what we're doing. That's to be straightforward and do what we're doing and not clog it up with drugs or being drunk or not being the best that you could be in certain situations.V: Since the idea is to communicate with your audiences, how do your audiences communicate to you?D: They do it at all sorts of different levels. Sometimes I get all these people screaming back, and I wonder if they are really getting into it or if they've heard the album on the radio or have it and when they see it live, something triggers off in them. I gotta wonder... a lot of people who are singing "Corporate Deathburger" and they just whistle their way on down to McDonalds, just like people can be singing "Straight Edge" and drooling all over Ian, and 20 minutes later be drinking a beer on the sidewalk waiting to get fucked up to go to some party.I: At least we're still throwing it up in their faces.D: Oh yeah! Even if they just have it for a couple of minutes. You just gotta face the fact that you're not necessarily changing them. You're approaching them, which is the first step. And you say, "How do they communicate back?" A lot of different ways. People come up after the show and tell you - tonight there were 250 or so people there. A lot of people came up and just said hello or just looked at me for one minute.V: For MILLIONS OF DEAD COPS though, it's not simply a matter of...I: You mean MULTI DEATH CORPORATION.V: Right. It seems different, to me, from dealing basically with a common expression of emotions; you seem also interested in education people to a certain awareness about the way you see things. I mean, tonight before you started, you got up there and talked about political situations worldwide and multinational corporations as you see them exploiting nations. Have you ever stood up and talked about straight edge?I: Not for a long time, but I take advantage of what's happening at the moment. Sometimes there's nothing to say at all. It totally depends on the situation. I like to be spontaneous and do not plan it out. I don't come up with raps, because I don't like to rap - I like for it just to happen. Perhaps something will happen at a show, and it will go so well with what I'm doing that I'll pick it up and use it. I might way a few words, but in general there's not a whole lot I can say on stage. I've gotten to the point now where my total communication is when I'm singing. I can't fool people, because the music is the vehicle. When I'm singing, I'm there. When I'm not singing, I'm not there. I got through a whole fucking row of things, so I can't be one thing the whole time. I've got to be honest about it. When I sing "Betray", I'm like "Fuck you man. My best friend and you stabbed me in the back." And then I sing "Look Back And Laugh" and I say "Man, I know we can't fucking pull it off sometimes, but let's work on it, let's keep it together." And then I go into "Filler" and it's like "You got sucked into something that you didn't even believe in. Not only do you abuse yourself, but you abuse religion, you abuse romance." I just go through every one of these emotions and then into "Stepping Stone", which is like "Everyone, come on." I can't go for one, so that's why I don't bother talking.V: OK, why do you Dave?D: Because I want to, and also I need to. The points I think that Ian makes in his songs are more subtle. I think the points we're making aren't so subtle. I did the set at some points where I didn't talk hardly at all between songs. I just did the songs as hard and as fast as I could. I was always interested in them getting the song title, and I'd throw in a couple of tidbits. But at the time I was too afraid to put all the heavy views on the point. I was ready to sell out for the music, for the tightness of the group. And then I found I wanted more out of it. I wanted that communication to happen and I extended it. I felt secure: "This is not just a song called 'Corporate Death Burger' - I'll tell you about it." "This is not just a song called 'John Wayne Was A Nazi' - let me tell you why I think he was a nazi", and talk about his career and how it influenced people in the subtle, psychological stuff; where he was using movies to portray the 'good white man' in cleaning out America from Indians and Mexicans and Japanese and even the Viet Cong, when it came down to it. So I just felt the need to communicate farther, so people have more of an understanding, so it becomes not just surface political stuff, so it's all comprehensive and it's there and it's intelligent. If you do something political, it's like Ian said before, you have to be well up on it. You're gonna say "Yeah, Reagan's doin' real bad stuff, he's doin' really crummy things". It just sounds bad. You have to be up on it.I: One thing I've noticed about MDC anyways is that when I first saw them, and I've said this to them so many times, that here they have this heavy fucking statement, and they play so fast that I know some of the lyrics, and I can't even tell. It goes so fast to the speed where Dave would sometimes lose the inflection, so that their whole thing is all music. Every time we see them, we say "Yeah, you play fast, but man, you're not getting this out."V: Does that bother you sometimes that maybe your message is getting lost in the medium?I: They're not folk singers.D: Yeah. I've tried at different points to slow the group down, but I really can empathize with my group. They're feeling the same things I'm singing about, so they get in this adrenalin source that comes out at the speed of the music. They have this theory that the closer it gets to 1984, the quicker it's got to be said... in emotion, the harder it's got to be felt, if they're going to portray their end of it.V: It seems like what you guys politically do is portray these emotionally political points with a real desperate sense of urgency.I: Yeah, it's definitely urgent music.V: So what we're talking about is portraying a sense of emotion that you can give some definition to. It's more than just a treatise on the political state of the world.D: Um, I'm not sure I understand.V: Yeah, I'm not quite sure I understand either.I: I think what he's saying is that opposed to you just informing people, that you're informing them but with opinion.D: Yeah... you have to have the emotion there to tap into. It can sound hokey or weird or phoney, but I really try to tap into this spirit that feels a lot of the universal pain. That's the emotion and my ugly look when I'm singing about desperate things. That's where it's coming from; it's coming from a third eye or sixth sense, I don't know. But that's why people can say "On stage you look so ugly, so monstered out". And that's because I'm tapping into the emotion that's flipping me out. Then I can do it on a more rational level later, when I'm sitting here, because I'm not all pumped up and squeezing and feeling that direct thing. I get to sit back from it and discuss it.V: You're both talking about tapping into something that seems almost mystic.D: It's weird to try to give it a label, like third eye. It's some different side that you don't necessarily bump into it every time we've got to go up there, and there's people there ready for you to do your thing and relate to them. That's when you turn on to it, or you get left behind; that happens every so often.V: The whole premise of doing this interview just seems shot to shit, because it seems like the more you talk, you don't have any differences, more or less, whatsoever. You guys have got to have differences. What are they? What's the difference between MDC's approach to playing music and MINOR THREAT's approach.D: I'd say, right offhand, the difference is that they deal with much more social situations, and it's more obvious, and we deal with more overt political situations, even though we deal with a lot of the social things within a political situation.V: What's the defining line between social and political situations?D: I think a lot of Ian's things are in the "I". First person.I: Every song I've written is about me and you. Every song. Because every song I write is this, "That you did this, but man, so have I". That's the whole point. It all boils down to like "Seeing Red"; "You see me and you laugh out loud, you taunt me from safe inside your crowd." Man, I know. I've done it too, and I fucking hate that. Every song I do, I put on both sides of the coin. That's the way it is. The one thing about the politics and all is that these guys have to go out and check it out, right? I don't need to check it out. I know; it was me. First person. And these guys, even though we know that the may be personally concerned, obviously they are, but it is not the first person. And like Franco said to me - we had kind of an argument about it - he says "If it was first person, we'd be dead." And I said "That may be." So that is like a big difference. One reason I think you're having problems getting at the differences is that I don't want to say something that would... because we don't necessarily do it doesn't mean that we don't think they should do it. That's the main reason, because we both don't want to get into an argument about who's right and who's wrong. I do not think MDC is wrong at all. I think that for me and my band, I feel that it's pointless for me to try to attack a mountain when I know I can change this and that. To attack something so big, I would feel frustrated, and I can't feel that I would actually do anything. I think that I would like to work in my space - that's the whole personal thing in general.V: Well, would you even say that you're tackling a mountain with what you do?D: Yeah, talking about the Multi Death Corporation, change is gonna have to happen.I: Mountain is an under-exaggeration.V: But don't you share his feeling that you really can't be that effective in this area, obviously. You wouldn't be playing the music that you're playing if you didn't feel you could be effective.I: I didn't say that. That's the point I was trying to make. They can be very effective in that area. But, for us, I don't feel it. I guess the difference is that when Dave goes to McDonald's and buys a hamburger, he thinks about the cows, etc. Every time we talk, they tell me something, so at least it makes me think and I feel guilty sometimes. I don't even eat at McDonald's that much, regardless, but they told me that one quarter of the world's grain, or something like that, is fed to produce cows for American beef, whereas you could feed the whole world... wasn't that how it went?D: Yeah.I: So when Dave walks into McDonald's then he thinks about that. If I walk into McDonald's, I think about me being hungry. I'm not on that level. When I walk into McDonald's, I just think of it as food to put into my stomach. I don't think. It's a different awareness. But, at the same time, while Dave is so worried about this and that - like when we were out in S.F. and we really got into it about this whole Multi Death Corporation thing and what is happening in Latin America, which I agree is a very fucked up situation, fine - but four blocks away from them, or downstairs, or whatever, there is some really bad shit going on. Because of what they're going for, they miss that the same way I miss what they're going for. I mean, there's like 13 year old kids shooting speed, the whole thing, man. It's ugly. It's a fucking ugly situation. And where I might have a whole lot more punch on that and I may be ignoring what's happening in Latin America, it's sort of vice-versa for MDC. I like to see it as the two of us kind of being like a full novel, filling the whole picture.D: I got that feeling tonight, too. I got a good feeling that they got their political dose and they got their social dose. When I say social, I mean "How do I act? How am I fucking up?" You know, the guy breaking the bottles, starting the fight, causing the cops to come and close down the club here tonight. I think that's real important. I'm trying to do both, actually. We have a song, "Selfish Shit", which is about drug dealers.I: We have a song, "Guilty Of Being White", which definitely deals on a political level.V: What does "Guilty Of Being White" mean? That's a song that can be mis-construed.I: Not at all, I don't think. But I'll explain it. I live in Washington, D.C., which is 75% black. My junior high was 90% black. My high school was 80% black, and throughout my entire life, I've been brought up in this whole thing where the white man was shit because of slavery. So I go to class and we do history, and for 3/4 of the year slavery is all we hear about. It's all we hear about. We will race through the Revolutionary War or the founding of America; we'd race through all that junk. It's just straight education. We race through everything, and when we'd get to slavery, they'd drag it all the way out. Then everything has to do with slavery or black people. You get to the 1950's, they don't talk about nothing except the black people. Even WWII, they talk about the black regiments. In English, we don't read all the novelists, we read all the black novelists. Every week is African King's Week. And after a while, I would come out of a history class, and this has happened to me many times, like in junior high school, and you know that kids are belligerent in junior high, and these kids would jack my ass up and say, "What the fuck, man, why are you putting me in slavery?" To me, racism is never going to end until people get off this whole thing. It's going flim-flam, back and forth. When people will just get off the whole guilt trip... First, all the white people were like "Fuck the niggers", and all of a sudden, it's "The black man is great. We love him. We're going to do everything for him," all the time. It's never going to get anywhere, because one generation it'll be the KKK, the next generation it'll be the Black Panthers. Now we see the KKK come back in again, more popular. I think the best way we're going to have to deal with it is that if I am able to say "nigger" without everyone gasping, and if I'm able to say that word, because I don't have any problems with that word. I say "bitch", and that means a girl asshole. I might say "jock", which means an athletic asshole. But you say "nigger", which means black asshole, everyone flies off the handle. That's where the racism thing is kind of fucked. That's where the whole thing gets out of hand. I think it'd be great if people could come down form that. I'm sure you know about the racism thing.V: I live in Chicago.I: You just got over the most ugly fucking thing. And it's ridiculous, man, for either side to feel like that. I mean, I'm white, fine. A hundred years ago, I was not alive. Twenty five years ago, I was not alive. So whatever happened a hundred years ago, I am not responsible for. No more than, since I'm Scottish, I should be responsible for the Celtics or whoever we fucked with then. Or the Egyptians should feel bad about the Israeli people. People have got to get off the guilt wagon. And I'm just saying I'm guilty of being white - it's my one big crime. That's why I get so much fucking shit at school, that's why I cannot get on welfare in Washington, most likely. That's why when we took the PSAT's, when Jeff checked off the black box, he got awards, he got scholarships, he got all kinds of interest, but when he admitted he was white, all that was gone. Just like that. It's ridiculous. I don't think it's fair.V: You seem to totally not have any sense of group identity whatsoever. In this country... well, go ahead. You talk first and I'll go from there.I: Take my position, Dave. Remember my position.D: I understand what you're saying you're doing as an individual who's part of a fucked up system where to reverse the problems that they set in, you know, there's such a bad self-image given to black people and their history has been almost wiped out. I'm not going to lay onto you that you accept the guilt part, but just what happened to the black people that got kidnapped out of Africa and shipped over here is really horrible, it's really scarring. They're trying to give a sense of identity and you know all that. A lot of bad things that have happened in the urban city situations have been at the expense of urban white people because all the rich people left and took all the money out to the suburbs and sent their kids off to private schools and out of the hell hole of public education in bigger cities. What I'm just trying to say to you is that it's ok not to be guilty of being white, because I'm not saying you should feel guilty for being white, but don't you be guilty of being ignorant about how there is still a lot of oppression of black people in this country. A quarter of black men will go to prison by the time they're 60 years old. The economic and the educational opportunities for black people in this country are statistically worse than they are for white people. You could say, "Well, is it the chicken or the egg? Is it because they're fucking up so bad that they're not doing nothing, or is it that society's fucking up so bad that they just can't do nothing?" I might say it's part of both. That's just sociologically how I feel about that. You're just expressing an emotion about how you feel towards something, and that's ok.I: But it's simpler than that. I'm making a statement that I think the whole thing boils down to race. I would prefer to see the whole thing out of the way. There sure was a time when the Irish or the Jewish people in this country were getting a lot of fucking shit and just because they were white they had one good thing going for them. Things worked out eventually where the Irish people were just a part of this country. Whereas before, they were always made fun of, they were ostracized and treated like shit in general.V: There's a difference. Irish people came over here voluntarily and black people didn't. When you come over to America and you get shit, you're, "Great, but anything's better than what I had. I'll do anything I can to get my shit together here," and you're socially motivated towards it. Black people were never given that option. that kind of choice was never demanded of them. There's talk about socializing black people into American society, assimilation-like other ethnic groups have been assimilated. The difference is that their set of standards in coming to this country wasn't the same.I: I understand what you're saying. The point is that there are still ugly feelings. The main thing is that they're a different color, and that's the worst part. But what is guilt going to lead to? Dave?D: I don't think guilt is good at all.I: No, I'm saying if someone made you constantly feel guilty, what do you think that may result in?D: A resentment..I: Thank you. And what would that resentment lead to? You just go right back. They're going to beat me over the head about African kings and stuff to the point where I'm going to say "Well, fuck the African kings. And fuck the black people too. Fuck all this shit. I've had it, blah, blah, blah..." Guilty of being white. Well, fine. I'm not going to play it like that. It's an unfortunate thing, but when I'm in Washington, D.C., I'm the minority, so I have a totally different view.V: You can make the argument though, Ian, that it's not going to change. If you say "Fuck this guilty shit, I ain't gonna feel guilty. It's not my fault." They're going to say, "Well, who the fucks fault is it?" It's like, well, it's nobody's fault; it's history. But the situation is that they're still left with the remains of their historical past. Black people as a group still do not have the opportunity that white people as a group in this country have. What affirmative action and all that in the 60's tried to do is instead try to set the clock a little bit ahead towards more of a point where we can accept each other as equals but different.I: That's fine with me. I understand, but I guess what it basically boils down to is that you guys talk social and all that and if I can deal with people as individuals, not black and white, which is the way I do. Even though if I'm walking down the street and I see a whole lot of black kids coming up the street, I know from my experiences, I know that there can be trouble. I know someone can say, "Oh, you've been bred to hate black people." But if I'm walking down the street and I see a bunch of rednecks coming down, I know even more that my ass is about to get fucking kicked. But people don't jump on me for hating rednecks, even with college kids, a group of anything.V: But you would not hate rednecks period because a group of rednecks jump your ass.I: That's the whole point, though. I work on an individual level. I could say, "I hate hippies," but that's baloney. I don't. I know plenty of great people who may consider themselves hippies. And one thing that used to cause a lot of controversy was I used to say, "I hate everybody. I hate black people, I hate white people. I hate everything. I like individuals." Just blow the whole generalization, across the board business out. I can't do it. Even the whole cop thing. "I hate cops." Well, I may agree with some of the cop thing, but what it stands for. I certainly don't hate all cops. I know cops who I like on an individual level, and I can understand why people can be resentful towards cops. But that's not the way I work.V: Well, how do you work in situations where you're going to have t

02/14/03: Post by Jim

Posted by: BLOWBACK
You make a compelling argument Pepe.

02/13/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Haskell,So let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are blaming Reagan & Bush for the issues described in the article that occurred during the Clinton administration? How can this be?

02/13/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Ah yes, the first Gulf War was in January-February 1991 and Clinton entered office in January 1993. So let's blame Clinton (who opposed the war in the first place) for not starting a second war to oust Saddam, after Poppy Bush's re-installation of the Emir of Kuwait failed to deliver the promised "New World Order" of peace and tranquility. And while we're at it, let's blame Clinton for giving Saddam chemical weapons during the Reagan and Bush administrations and supporting him even after he gassed the Kurds and fired on the USS Stark (which killed more US sailors than the Cole bombing). And we might as well blame Clinton for training and arming Osama bin Laden as a Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during those Republican adminsitrations as well. Maybe we can also blame Clinton for AIDS, arthritis, UFO's, and the persecution of Martha Stewart. ;-) On 13 Feb 2003 17:20:28 -0000 QT - Rolo wrote:< replied-to message removed by QT >

02/13/03: Post by Pepe

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Fuck Iraq, Lets bomb France!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey Blowback, Please feel free to add your interview with us onto your website. If you guys have any updates or anything at all to contribute to our zine please know that we will publish it. Any one who wants a copy of SMASH can request one at reachsmash@hotmail.com. Thanks, The SMASH Staff

02/13/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Haskell,Here is one you may enjoy:February 13, 2003Bracing for the ApocalypseWASHINGTON--The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens pre-emptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: --Iraq: Saddam continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors. --North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement--surprise!--was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. --Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI--and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Osama was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification. That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants, but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell ``teacup wars'' in places like Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with ``states of concern.'' Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars. Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized. There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year, President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later, the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes. We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939. Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation, but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction? This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred--in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction--not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can--and will--the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no. Charles Krauthammer

02/13/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey, Blowback:Would it be possible to post your interview with Smash magazine somewhere on your website (with Smash's permission, of course)? I haven't been able to locate the 'zine in my area. Thanks.

02/13/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Rolo,You may be right, Col. Hackworth may have changed his mind; I don't know. He has his own website - www.hackworth.com - which I checked this morning but on which I did not see any new essays. You might want to check it out for yourself. (I'm not sure how often he updates the site.)Regarding your point about whether the first Gulf War ever really ended, I've been trying to remember (and I hope someone can help me out here): the original UN resolution(s) before the first Gulf War authorized use of force to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait. But did it also call for the disarmament of Iraq? Did it give the leaders of the first coalition authority to put whatever conditions they wanted on any cease-fire? Supposedly the reason we did not overthrow Saddam in 1991 is that would have exceeded the authority of the UN resolution. I do know that the southern fly zone started out a full degree of latitude south of where it is today, and that when the US and Britain expanded it to the gates of Baghdad in 1995 or '96, France (and I think Russia and China) opposed this. Is it for the US and Britain by themselves to decide when the first war "ends," or is it for the security council, or is for the world/UN as a whole? I honestly don't know.

02/12/03: Post by Rolo

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Haskell,I may be going out on a limb here but the date on your article was 1/24/03. Secretary of State Powell addressed the United Nations on 2/5/03 with undisputable evidence of Iraq’s disregard for the cease-fire treaty and resolutions it signed in the early 90’s. Col. “Hack” heard the evidence along with the rest of the free world. I wonder what his interview would sound like today in light of these new revelations? Besides all that, the war never ended. It is time for the U.N. to enforce these treaties and resolutions or they aren’t worth the paper they were written on.

02/12/03: Post by Pepe

Posted by: BLOWBACK
How’s this for a start:You bastards blow up a bio-bomb, chemical bomb or dirty nuke in our country, we level Mecca. You do it again, we level another Islamic holy site. Etc., etc., etc. Any comments?

02/09/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Another "Hack" Against War on Iraqhttp://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen243101485jan24,0,5355570.column

02/08/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Here's a forwarded message for Blowback or other bands. For those of you unfamiliar with the Bikini Bandits, they made several short internet films and will soon be releasing a full-length feature with Jello Biafra, Maynard of Tool, and Dee Dee Ramone (final acting performance)ATTENTION ALL BANDS!!!!We're looking for contributions to a new Mp3 section on bikinibandits.com -Log onto our message word know and let us know why you should be included!!!xoxoHeatherGo to the message board by clicking here:http://www.gyromart.com/board.php

02/08/03: Post by Pepe

Posted by: BLOWBACK
SHOCK AND AW, MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

02/04/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
AND CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GOP AND THE RESIDENT!!!(from today's NY TIMES)Bush's $2.2 Trillion Budget Proposes Record DeficitsBy ELISABETH BUMILLERASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — President Bush sent Congress a $2.23 trillion budget today — with record deficits — that would speed up billions of dollars in income tax cuts, provide huge increases for the Pentagon and offer a modest jump in spending for NASA.Mr. Bush's budget forecasts a deficit of $304 billion in the current fiscal year, and projects a deficit of $307 billion for the 2004 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. Over the next five years the total projected deficit would be more than $1 trillion, a potentially problematic number for Mr. Bush, who as a presidential candidate vowed that he could both cut taxes and eliminate the national debt.

02/03/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
P.S.Congratulations to Dean Bell (and Blowback) for the Special Award for Emotional Truth that "What Alice Found" received at the Sundance Film Festival this year. "Bodybags" is definitely one of the band's best songs.

02/03/03: Post by Haskell

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey folks,just an administrative detail here: I subscribe to the Blowback "Talk" room so that the postings arrive in my email. However, some of the longer postings are not received. I'm not sure if this size limitation is on the part of the Blowback/Quick Topic list server or my email provider, but most ISP's have a maximum file-size for text messages, like 50 to 100 kb. Thus I did not receive Verm's and Bob's most recent postings and was not even aware of them till Franklin commented on them; then I went to the Blowback website itself to read the messages. So if anyone has a message that includes lengthy text from another site, he might want to just provide the hyperlink. Just a suggestion!

02/03/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Really, Vermin Scum, don't be so angry. It's not your best side.
Posted by: BLOWBACK
And so it goes to show you; You can’t reason with someone who is unreasonable. See you all in Hell, you Communist wannabe bastards!

02/02/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Oh and by the way, Jesus was a Jew. And probably fairly dark-skinned too. I don't know if you remember your history but the "white" people, the Anglo Saxons and Germans and all of those were converted much much later, and by Catholics at that.

02/02/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
Yikes Bob. You really shouldn't have spent all of that time putting that stuff up on our site. I don't know if you've looked at any of our lyrics or information, but I for one and suspect others do too, do not agree with your conclusions at all. I feel bad that your vision is so exclusionary. You must really hate being in the world. Or must feel very unhappy. Except for a few nuts that like to spew very nasty words on this bulletin board, I'm afraid you're wasting your time putting your stuff here.

02/02/03: Post by Bob

Posted by: BLOWBACK
I would like to share with you my (Bob's) vision for the future, what the 6th era of the Klan is, and why you should support The Knights program and make a life long serious commitment to its advancement, political agenda, and its potential to bring about a white Christian political and social revolution in the United States perhaps sparking victories for White Christians the whole world over! We are promoters of White Christian civilization. We believe that the concepts of private property, free enterprise, representative government, parental rights, freedom of speech, right to trial by jury, right to address the government for a redress of grievances, etc. are essential ingredients for a civilized and moral society. These are concepts born out of the genius of white men and women. We give credit to all men and women who helped instill these cherished ideas into the hearts of our founding ancestors. These cherished and essential ingredients to a civilized and moral society are born out of the white race. These concepts are a direct product of the White race. It is white culture. When we give honor to these ideals we give honor to our ancestors and our White Christian culture. Is this wrong? We don't think so. Is it wrong to instill this sense of pride and appreciation for our White Christian culture in our children? We don't think so. Many people around the world can agree that America has the best government bar none. We have many more freedoms in America than anywhere else. True, there are politicians in Washington D.C. working around the clock chipping away at our liberty, but thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers America has held out the longest against the global, race mixing, homosexual, anti-Christ forces working to wipe out White Christianity the way we have always known it. For example, we can thank God for the foresight our founding fathers had to recognize our right to freedom of speech. Without this precious amendment we would not be allowed to promote our Christian beliefs. Even though our founding fathers formed our nation as a Christian nation and government, this amendment is one more thorn in the side of those politicians who wish to silence us. God may continue to test our endurance, but he is going to bless us with victories and the necessary tools to win an ultimate victory for our people and faith. Does it mean we are superior because we enjoy the fruits of White Christian concepts of liberty. Maybe you think it does, maybe you don't. I don't really think it matters. What sane person could say he or she doesn't enjoy the concept of privacy, of caring for the sick and poor, of educating our children in strong moral values and Christian responsibility, of strong families who stay together, of personal responsibility. If these are things you are against then you probably do think we are calling ourselves superior. But the fact is these concepts are born out of White Christian people and we think America would be a terrible place without this sense of freedom and Christian conduct. In fact freedom and Christian conduct are being frowned upon by many in the entertainment industry, in the court system, in the school system and ironically most Christian churches who now call themselves JUDEO Christians - as if a group of people who HATE Jesus Christ and a group of people who LOVE Jesus Christ have anything in common at all! Our children's minds are being attacked daily in all spheres of their innocent life by anti-White and anti-Christian propaganda. By the time they reach adult hood they are an obedient slave to the ideas of race mixing, globalism, homosexuality, abortion, and dozens of Marxist based, liberal schemes meant to artificially lift non-whites to a higher level of civilization - a civilization they condemn on one hand and then beg to be a part of the next - all of this at the expense and destruction of White Christians. Fortunate we are for those have been able to see past the propaganda and retain a sense of pride in their race and faith. To be certain, there are millions of White Christians in America who have the same pride and share our same beliefs and love for White Christian civilization. While the millions who are sympathetic to our plight are utterly silent in their thoughts even among those they are close to, the assault upon the next generation is increased and even more intense. These are children we want to save because in their lifetime and in their hands holds all of our future. How can we save them and thus insure a prosperous future for our people? We simply need more help. The silent supporters must begin to consciously support the effort to save our race, faith, and homeland! Do we believe we can have a perfect nation? No. But we do believe as our founding fathers believed that we can have the best possible nation if governed as a White Christian nation. Under a white Christian government the previously mentioned concepts of freedom and liberty flourish. We envision an America once again guided by Biblical principles and laws. Whose laws better to follow than those of the creator of our universe. Who has a more perfect knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong, of pain and pleasure than our creator Jesus Christ. Does it not make sense to then heed his advice and the advice of Biblical scholars inspired by God thousands of years ago? We envision an America free from the illegal privately owned Federal Reserve and a return to constitutional currency as commanded by the founding fathers. The Bible condemns usury and so did our founders. We envision an America where families are not strewn apart, broken apart, and worn down by a crooked banking system and insane economic policies which force mothers into the job market and away from their children whether they want to or not. Economics is a major factor in divorce and tension within families. Poor people get poorer. Wealthy people must pay more for being financially successful and the elderly, in a society where families live farther apart then in former years, are often left struggling to merely survive. We envision an America where our poor and our sick are taken care of first, before any foreign nation. We envision an America where we don't need a new health care system, because our people can afford health care for their families. The economic benefits of repealing the Federal Reserve Act and returning to constitutional currency would be so wide sweeping that it can hardly be imagined. But it is true, we are in economic bondage to a PRIVATE corporation and if we can ever throw it off our backs, the prosperity that would return to our nation is almost inconceivable! We envision an America that is safe to live in for everyone and it will be safe because violent offenders of humanity will be punished severely and everyone will have the right to protect their person, family, and property. No one will "get away with" murder. No one will "get away with" rape. No one will "get away with" child molestation. So what if the offender is "sick" or needs mental help. Cut the cancer out of society once and for all. No repeat offenders. We envision an America where children aren't criticized in school for being Christians, but rather are taught the wisdom, virtues, values, and morals of Christianity - a necessary ingredient in a civilized society. We envision an America where our children are taught about the heroes of our race, the inventors, the philosophers, the statesmen, and the relationship between our race and the future of America. We envision an America in which fair play is the rule. Everyone should be hired and promoted based upon their ability. The work place should be a positive experience for both the employer and the employee. Employers deserve honest hard working employees who in return deserve a safe workplace and fair pay - for both men and women. Future employers and employees who have been raised in a Christian environment would be less likely to take advantage of each other. Christian ethics belong in business as well! We envision an America where the parents are recognized as the authority of their children and are encouraged to instill sound ethics, morals and values in their children. We believe corporal punishment should be returned to the schools and used to forge strong God fearing responsible citizens. We envision an America in which our children are not confronted by anti-white and anti-Christian propaganda, where they are not confronted with the "joys" of homosexuality or race mixing, but rather the condemnation of these behaviors by God. We envision an America in which these anti-Christian behaviors are punished and serve as additional deterrents to anyone toying with the satanic notion of race mixing or homosexuality. We envision an America where our children can be raised in a wholesome environment. We envision an America in which our borders are secure and non-whites who don't share our concepts of liberty find entrance impossible. We envision an America in which all races are given the opportunity to return to their native lands, to govern themselves and to choose their own destiny. We envision an America where those non-whites choosing to stay to enjoy the benefits of Christian living are respected, protected, and given the opportunity to prosper to the best of their ability while recognizing the lawful authority of White Christians to rule over America. A guest in your home is always expected to respect your authority. Likewise non-whites who reside in America should be expected to conduct themselves according to Christian principles and must recognize that race mixing is definitely wrong and out of the question. It will be a privilege to live under the authority of a compassionate White Christian government. We envision the same America that our founding fathers and mothers envisioned - nothing different. The only difference is that during the formation of our country, our people shared this dream in mass. Today, we are told that either this was NOT the dream of our founders or we are told that it WAS their dream and they are evil bigots. The fact is they built a nation and formed a government using biblical principles to give "their" posterity freedom in the pursuit of life and happiness. Non-whites were of no concern to them. Their white children were. Yes, we envision a White Christian America just like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Lincoln, Webster, Madison, etc. We inherited a Christian government and it is our duty to insure it's return. How do we do this? First we must win political power. America's problems are so entwined with each other that it would be virtually impossible to do it by simply enacting a new law here or there and the politicians refuse to stand up for White Christians. We must take control of virtually every political seat our nation has to offer. We must take back our government from the school board to the White House. Change will occur when White Christians are in power once again. The struggle now is to gain political power and that brings us to the 6th era of the klan. It is well known that the Klan saved the white population of the South after the civil war. The ku klux klan is known around the world for its support of white Christian civilization - the very reason for its existence. The original ku klux klan consisted of men of honor and of Christian character. They were men of standing - fighting to protect their families and their support was widespread. Over 130 years later the ku klux klan still has the reputation of standing up for White people. It makes no difference how many times the klan is portrayed as sinister by the media and so-called community leaders, the entertainment industry etc. It is still common knowledge that the ku klux klan stands for white people. This can never be denied and will always be understood. Does the Democratic Party stand for white people? Does the Republican Party stand for white people? Some might argue they do and some will say they don't. But there will never be any doubt about the stance the ku klux klan takes in regard to White Christianity. As stated before, it is the reason for our existence. Our enemies are scared. They recognize an awakening among our people and they push harder and harder with the propaganda. Many fall prey to it - others become so overloaded on the anti-white propaganda that they snap out of the media induced daze they have been in and finally they see for the first time the incredible almost seemingly planned out attack on our race and faith. The ranks of men and women in America who see the betrayal of the November criminals ( the politicians) toward our people are swelling day by day and our window of opportunity is nearing. America is at the crossroads. We will either become a modern day Rome decayed with filth, homosexuals, race mixing, idolatry, and humanism, that collapses from within or it will purge itself of the sickness and will restore law and order and Christian judgments across the land. After our nation shows God that we will obey his laws and govern our nation according to his will our people will be blessed once again with peace and prosperity. We believe the Ku Klux Klan is the answer to America's problems - not the ultimate answer, because no Christian can doubt the absolute power that Christ has over the final outcome - but we do believe the Ku Klux Klan to be the tool Christ will use to restore America to glory. The Ku Klux Klan was used by God to save his white children in the South from destruction and once again the Ku Klux Klan will lead the struggle to regain our nation The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is the only legitimate national klan organization in America and we feel all other groups pale in comparison to the quality and potential of The Knights Party. What makes our organization different you may ask and how can we claim to be of higher caliber than other groups calling themselves ku klux klan? 1. We are the oldest klan organization in America. This is a fact. The Knights was originally chartered in 1956 in Louisiana and David Duke was the first Grand Wizard or in modern terminology - National Director. One group headquartered in Vidor, Texas tries to give the impression that their organization is over 130 years old, however this is done simply by tying in their 5 year old group with the history of the group whose name they adopted. In fact their "national director" was once an associate of The Knights, but failed to complete even the basic qualifying steps for Knighthood. Does this mean our organization is better - I think so - when looking at an organization you must take into account the track record, knowledge, history, and length of time in the movement of it's leadership. In fact almost all klan groups in existence today have splintered from The Knights at some point in the past causing disunity and confusion - and as the Bible says " confusion is of the devil" - but such is the result of weak character. 2. We are the ONLY white rights organization in America that follows the "leadership principle" . If you want to become a klan leader and that is your main concern, you can do it very quickly by joining another klan group. Our enemies laugh at the ease at which titles of position are handed out within the white racialist movement. One klansman resigned recently because he wants to use traditional klan titles instead of modern klan titles. A noble reason to resign? Is this unity? Was he acting honorably in his decision - was he honest in his explanation - I think the answer was found out when his web site appeared on the internet the very next day and he was now boasting the title of Grand Dragon. Did this person's qualifications for a position of leadership suddenly get better or improve overnight? Does he understand strategy? No, but his newly affiliated group quick to have a "name" in the state gave away an undeserved title. Titles must be earned not given away. A title that has not been earned is worth nothing - except it can be displayed on a letter head or business card. We believe that an individual who has gone through our ranking system is better qualified to be a state director or regional director than the actual state directors of any other klan group in America! However, we are looking for people who are in this for the long haul - for the long term. Loyalty is the first priority of effective leadership - if a klansman or klanswoman can't even stay with an organization for 7 or 8 years and be faithful in the payment of their dues, how can they expect to take on a high position of leadership, unless of course they join a group with low standards and they become "instant leaders". 3. Our organization has original ideas. Imagine that you have created something - maybe a painting, poem, or proposal for work and then you begin seeing it reproduced everywhere - except it has someone else's name on it. Our organization has had a problem with this - it seems that other groups see nothing dishonorable about plagiarizing our written material. One site out of Texas on America on Line has reprinted our political platform as if it was their own. They even show a picture of OUR party banner ( designed by Pastor Robb in 1983) and describes it as a 5th era banner in general use rather than identifying it as The Knights official banner. Virtually EVERY klan group in existence uses one of our oldest pieces of literature as their own. " As the cannons fell silent" is the phrase that begins this hallmark introductory leaflet written by The Knights. Now the leaflet is used by every group instead of writing their own. "The Negro Question" and "Does the Klan hate Negroes" is a widely copied article of The Knights. "The name of the ku klux klan breaks through the iron curtain of the media" is another phrase you may recall seeing on other klan websites. Our organization comes up with it's own ideas, our own strategy, our own literature, our own program, etc. We do not attempt to take the ideas of others and pass them off as our own - however, it seems that we are not afforded this same courtesy by others. We point this out because it would be absolutely unbelievable the extent that our articles, uniform, slogans, etc are being copied by other groups - all who claim to believe in unity. This shows them to lack integrity, honesty, and Christian character. Does this make our organization better than theirs. You bet it does! 4. Our organization is well known through out law enforcement for being non-violent. Is our stance against violent acts just rhetoric - absolutely not! Some individuals quit because they don't believe we are "tough" enough! They believe that America must fear the klan - as if they are going to hurt you if you don't support them. What nonsense! First, there isn't much a person can do behind bars - and there isn't much escaping the consequences of illegal or violent activity these days. Secondly, it is morally wrong for individuals to take the law into their own hands. Thirdly, the day white Christian America learns to embrace and love the ku klux klan is the day that we will begin to take back political control - not by forcing our white brothers and sisters to support us but by winning and deserving their support. We don't believe, despite the impression given, that other klan groups are violent. But they do give the impression they are and that makes it easy for them to become entrapped. Does this mean our organization is better because we stand by our non-violent stance - well it does make us smarter!. 5. We are the most active klan organization in America. By the time an individual goes through our ranking system and becomes a Knight, they have the basic mental tools to cause effective change. Gigantic change - individually? No. But they are equipped with the basic knowledge needed to back up their beliefs, they have become more knowledgeable of our people's history, their downfall, and what is needed for our people to rise again. They have an understanding of why certain strategies exist, what mistakes other klan groups make and why they continue to make them. Education is at the foundation of our organization. The Bible instructs us to build our house on rock and not on sand. Yet many klan groups attempt to organize their members to activity without basing that activity on solid ground. They may succeed in getting some short term members who burst onto the scene full of excitement, ready to do something for white people - but eventually they burn out. Their dedication to the ku klux klan is short lived. Their leadership did not take the necessary precautions, they did not instruct their members, educate their members, or guard them from paranoia tactics used by our enemies. Their activity is not based on solid ground and their activities come and go. Almost every klansman and klanswoman in The Knights is active. Hundreds of thousands of pro-white leaflets are distributed each week around the nation and the organization continues to grow - building a solid launching pad for future political moves. We don't lead Klansmen and klanswomen into believing that we will achieve victory overnight. It will be a hard long struggle. Klansmen and Klanswomen must be encouraged - everything about our organization is done and promoted, surrounded, etc. by positive thoughts. We continually stress the power of positive thinking and positive things result. We are proud of the klansmen and klanswomen who associate with The Knights. We are proud to have the most positive, professional, and upbeat klansmen and klanswomen in America. They understand that this isn't a club, or a fraternity, but a white Christian political party working for very serious and very real goals and they stay active in the pursuit of those goals. 6. We have a history. Where do the other groups come from. How long have their "leaders" been in the racialist movement? Are they Christians? What standards do they maintain to insure a credible organization? Are they only part time klan "leaders"? What did they do before they became a klan "leader"? Have they themselves been proven to be disloyal? What are their qualifications to lead a klan organization? These are all questions which should be asked by anyone before making a decision to associate with a klan organization. Our national director has been in the racialist movement for 35 years and has served as a spokesman, author, organizer, etc in the movement for over 30 years. There isn't another national director (grand wizard) out there who has been in the movement longer than 10 years. Are they Christians - do they act like Christians? One leader of a klan group based in Indiana claims to be a Christian when ever he appears on the Jerry Springer show - yet he's on probation for defrauding elderly people and worked as an FBI informant to assist in the arrest of 70 fellow drug users - this isn't Christian conduct. One Klan leader living in Louisiana claims two Negro dependants for income tax purposes. Can individuals such as these create and then maintain credible standards for a legitimate klan organization to follow - I doubt it. There are some well meaning "leaders" of some very small groups, but then again while they may be sincere - sincerity doesn't insure victory. Sincerity must be combined with the qualifications necessary to run a national organization. The Knights is the only klan organization successful enough to have a full time national director and full time office staff at headquarters. Are we to assume that the president of the NAACP fulfills his obligation as director of the largest Negro organization in the nation after he is done at his day job? Absolutely not. We are SERIOUS about waging a political assault on the traitors in government and we recognize that this means we must have full-time leadership. Saving our children isn't a hobby or something we do only on weekends. The Knights has full-time leadership and a full-time staff always working with recruiters, units, new Klansmen, designing literature, putting out publications, planning events, advertising through the media, conducting interviews, planning for the future etc. 7. We don't act like morons! Our national membership coordinator says the klansmen shown on the TV talk shows act like professional wrestlers. It's an excellent comparison. Why would an intelligent person, sincerely motivated and wanting to help create a better world for his or her children act like such idiots on TV? Either they aren't intelligent and therefore shouldn't be leading anything or they purposely wish to taint the image of the klan. Which ever is the reason doesn't matter in the long run, because any stupid behavior by any self styled klansman will turn off thousands of possibly interested individuals. Our leadership is always professional, well dressed, and well spoken. We wouldn't even consider allowing one of our associates to go on a talk show in a green or purple robe acting like an intellectual reject. The television appearances we have made on talk programs ( Montel Williams, Geraldo, Maury Povich, Sally Jesse Raphael, Rivera Live, Rikki Lake, Jane, 48 hours, The Today Show, 20/20, were done in a very professional manner - no screaming, obscene gestures, shoving, pushing, yelling, swearing, or silly looking outfits. We get good publicity because we don't act like morons or talk like morons. We are a legitimate klan organization. We have real structure, real leaders, real spokesmen and spokeswomen, a real office, a real publication, real goals and a real plan. We are the real deal and we are moving into the 6th era of the klan.The 6th era of the klan is political in nature and the next natural course to take. Like the 5th era of the klan in which the politicians are viewed as the culprits in the betrayal of our people we continue with that view, however ,our strategy for the 6th era must be bold, well organized, thought out, and effective. Anonymity for the individual klansman or Klanswoman is essential in the 6th era. Klansmen and Klanswomen in The Knights are part of a nationally organized network and we must use all legal means necessary in order to bring about a return of lawful government in this nation. We must set our entire focus on what we can personally do to promote The Knights Party.In the 6th era the national headquarters must be very public in the promotion of our political program and political goals. Like a giant iceberg, the national headquarters serve as the spokesman for the movement and lies above the surface - the tip of the iceberg. But, below the surface is it's strength - the massive structure that serves to give strength to the tip. In any campaign, defeat or victory is often times determined by having either a weak constituency or a strong constituency. Klansmen and Klanswomen nationwide are very important to the effectiveness of our organization and in achieving political power. In the 6th era we will only have one window of opportunity. The hour is late for our people and there is no longer any room for mistakes or for the foolish behavior which is often seen on trash TV. Supporters must work to keep The Knights visibly present in their communities. As we now begin a new millennium we must understand the full potential the 6th era has and that The Knights Party can win political power! Between General Forrest, the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800's and our national director, Thomas Robb, over 130 years later, the klan has come full circle, this time, not just the south but the whole of America is suffering at the hands of political despots who cherish not in the ideals of our forefathers but relish in the sins of tyranny. White Christian people in this nation have lost control of their schools, their neighborhoods, their children and their destiny. The entire future of you and your family is ruled by politicians in Washington D.C. who bow and scrape before every demand of so-called minorities, leaving our white Christian people disenfranchised. Our country's "leaders" are weak, dishonest, and cowardly. The statesmen of the past who guided our nation with wisdom and Christian virtue are no longer with us. Today we are ruled by political despots who have and continue to betray us. In the past those who would sell out their own people and heritage for political gain were called scalawags. In front of the TV camera they are called congressmen and senators - but we know what they are! Hence we have come full circle and today once again we must put our emphasis on national issues and the betrayal of our leaders! Just as it was in 1865, Nathan Bedford Forrest would agree - political power is our GOAL! Something that makes the klan unique is it's ability to adapt to different eras, but yet at the same time retain it's message, it's beliefs, it's principles and ideals. Over the years the klan has attracted to it men and women of honor, courage, sincerity, love and loyalty. In addition, the Klan has been blessed with leaders of vision. Nathan Bedford Forrest, in fulfilling his destiny, led the ku klux klan in it's effort to deliver the South from the bonds of federal tyranny. Nathan Bedford Forrest, lieutenant general in the Armies of the Confederate States, and national head of the Ku Klux Klan during the dark period of Reconstruction after the war between the states, was born near Chapel Hill, Tennessee, July 13, 1821. He received no formal education, but educated himself by reading and study and was noted as a mathematician. A self-educated man and a man of determination and accomplishments, he rose from a poor, uneducated boy to be a wealthy land owner, a great military commander, a polished gentleman, a fierce warrior, and a committed Christian. He would be honored to know Pastor Robb is at the helm of this great organization. If we really want to win political power we must have the leadership that can do more than dream, but can articulate that dream to others and to excite them in the fact that within them flows the blood of conquerors; leaders who have faith in our ultimate victory. These are qualities that embody Pastor Robb, our national director. He has shaped the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan into a modern, professional political movement. He has brought years of experience to The Knights and made it what it is today. In 1991, Newsweek Magazine wrote: "Robb's tactics appear to be effective...In Montgomery, Alabama, Klanwatch believes Robb has led the most successful recruiting drive since Duke."In a news article from the London Sunday Times (October 11, 1992) they wrote, "An accomplished and charismatic speaker, Robb is viewed by civil rights experts as the most dangerous of the new breed of white supremacists because of his communication skills, political ambitions and his impressive ability to cloak the underlying message of hatred and intolerance in an avuncular garb of reason and logic."Dan Levitas of the Center for Democratic Renewal in Atlanta, Georgia said: "Robb is a master of media manipulation. He has constructed a well crafted and successful marketing strategy for the klan.Dr. Ed Fields, publisher and editor of The Truth at Last newspaper said: "Today There are numerous klan groups. Some only existing in a single community, others state wide or operating in several states. There is one klan leader who has built a true national klan organization. This is Pastor Thom Robb. Today he carries on more wide spread activity th

02/01/03: Post by Franklin

Posted by: BLOWBACK
So "Vermin Scum" is a nazi?Or is this another "superpatriot" using the "Vermin Scum" alias?Speaking of aliases, a "scholar" from the American Enterprise Institute was busted in today's Washington Post for using a female alias on internet chatrooms to defend his work. Sounds familiar?
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Cannon Fodder, part 1: Background to Betrayalby Hadding Scott and "Vermin Scum"Today's program, which I'veentitled "Cannon Fodder, part 1: Background to Betrayal," was writtenand prepared for broadcast by Hadding Scott and yours truly, "Vermin Scum".Thucydides, the Athenian historian, wrote in his account of thePeloponnesian War, "The way that most men deal with traditions, eventraditions of their own country, is to receive them all alike as theyare delivered, without applying any critical test whatever," andfurthermore, "There are many other unfounded ideas current among therest of the Hellenes, even on matters of contemporary history, whichhave not been obscured by time. For instance, there is the notion thatthe Lacedaemonian kings have two votes each, the fact being that theyhave only one; and that there is a company of Pitane, there being simplyno such thing. So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigationof truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand."(Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, tr. Richard Crawley)Thucydides' observation about the proliferation of easily disprovenfalsehoods during wartime in Democratic Athens rings true also indemocratic America during this "war on terror" and its accompanyinghysteria.By the end of this program I hope to have shown that the picture of Iraqand of Saddam Hussein presented by the mainstream media is highlydistorted and misleading. The most important thing that I hope toaccomplish here is to demonstrate to our listeners, who are probablyalready suspicious of the government and the mainstream media, that theextent of their misrepresentation is much greater than the averageperson even dares to suspect. I also expect that the facts presentedwill make it clear what the proposed war is really about.There are two distinct cases against Iraq that have been disseminatedamong the American people. One is that Iraq may have committed an act ofaggression against the U.S., through some secret involvement in theWorld Trade Center attack or the subsequent anthrax-mailings in 2001.The other is an unsubstantiated allegation that Iraq has floutedrestrictions placed on the kinds of weapons that it could possessfollowing the Gulf War of 1991.It is abundantly clear, however, that the concern about compliance ornon-compliance with United Nations protocols is a mere pretense. It is afig leaf. The really persuasive argument in the minds of Americans whoaccept Bush's call for war -- the real meaning for them of the words"Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction" -- is that Iraq may possessweapons that will be used in another attack against the United Statessuch as occurred on September 11, 2001. To the average American, that iswhat all the talk of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass-destruction reallymeans. The requirements of the United Nations per se carry little or noweight in the minds of most Americans; if the United States could bemotivated to go to war just to enforce U.N. resolutions, the State ofIsrael would have had a regime-change and a partition imposed upon itmany years ago.The accusation that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction is notreally about the United Nations at all. If the principles of the UnitedNations mattered then there could be no talk of attacking Iraq withoutU.N. approval. Rather, it is all about scaring the American people intoa war.The baseless innuendoes that Iraq may have been involved in the WorldTrade Center attack and the worry that Iraq may commit or facilitatesuch an attack against the United States in the future are bothgroundless. Both stories are attempts to exploit the fear and anger thatthe 9-11 attack generated, and thus to manipulate the American peopleinto supporting a war against a country that has done them no harm.The characterization of the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, asirrational and dangerous has been carefully cultivated by theJewish-controlled news media for many years now. The American peoplecould never believe that Saddam Hussein would ever deliberately provokea war with the United States if they had not become accustomed tohearing over the course of many years that Saddam Hussein is "So-DamnedInsane" -- that he is an irrational maniac who gassed his own people anddoes other cruel things for no reason at all.The fact that Saddam Hussein has been able to survive one crisis afteranother as leader of an ethnically and religiously divided country likeIraq is in itself prima facie evidence that Saddam Hussein is notirrational. He has had to be very realistic and rational indeed tosurvive the kinds of crises that his country has endured, from theIran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 to the Gulf War to the ruinous sanctions thathave caused 1.7 million deaths in Iraq, to the frequent bombings thatthe U.S. and Britain have carried out, and of course, the manyassassination plots, some of which have been sponsored by the UnitedStates. No leader who is insane or out of touch with reality couldsurvive all thatLet's examine the record. Saddam Hussein has been the de facto leader ofIraq since 1975. Following the retirement of President Bakr in 1979,Saddam Hussein became the third Arab Nationalist President of Iraq.Although the Communist Party of Iraq was forcibly shut down in May of1979, and although one of Saddam Hussein's first actions was thenotorious bloody purge of several hundred persons in the governmentaccused of conspiring against Iraq's sovereignty, Iraq under the secularBa'ath or Arab Nationalist government has been arguably the freest ofall Arabic-speaking countries.In Iraq, the rigors of Islamic law are not in force. Women are notrequired to wear veils or to cover their heads, and are allowed to havea career. In Iraq you can even buy liquor if you want. Before the GulfWar in 1991, it was the habit of some people in Kuwait to go into Iraqwhenever they wanted to cut loose and have a good time. The governmentof Iraq also strongly encourages literacy among the people. In general,Saddam Hussein has represented progress in the Arab world.Iraq was facing a crisis because of the new Islamic Republic in Iran,which, aside from provoking the hostility of the United States byseizing and holding hostage 50 employees of the U.S. embassy, also setout to foment unrest in neighboring countries. In April 1980 members ofa Shi'ite political party called al-Dawah attempted to assassinate Iraqiforeign minister Tariq Aziz, who is a Christian. An attempt on the lifeof Iraq's minister of culture and information also occurred. Sinceal-Dawah was supported and encouraged by Iran, in the followingSeptember Iraq declared war on Iran, and set as a war aim theacquisition of the important Shatt-al-Arab waterway. Since these twoassassination attempts had preceded the war, one could truthfully saythat when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran he was beginning a war againstRadical Islamic terrorism.In the early stages of secular Iraq's war on Islamic terror it appearedthat a quick victory was the likely outcome, since many of Iran'scompetent military leaders and pilots who were not Islamic religiousfanatics had been imprisoned, and Iran was unable to buy spare parts forits U.S.-built aircraft because of the hostage crisis. Iraqi armoredcolumns made rapid progress deep into Iran.But then Iran released its competent military personnel from prison andalso mobilized its multitudes of Shi'ite religious fanatics, who veryoften brought their own burial shrouds with them to the front. The factthat the Iranians had multitudes of people ready to die gave them achance against the Iraqi forces, who, unlike the Iranians, were notreligious fanatics eager to die in battle.One major miscalculation which had encouraged Saddam Hussein to launchthe war was an expectation that Iran's substantial Arab population inthe "Arabistan" region would welcome the Arab Nationalist Iraqis asliberators and turn against the oppressive theocracy of the non-ArabIranians. Saddam Hussein's vision of Iran's Arab minority revolting andembracing their brother Arabs as liberators did not materialize.In September 1981, the Iranians won their first ground battles, andcontinued to win -- using human waves of religious fanatics. These humanwaves, including old men and children as young as nine, would chargeacross minefields clearing the way so that Iranian tanks could safelyroll through on top of them. Saddam Hussein learned what we learned onlyin 2001: It is very difficult to protect yourself against an enemy whohas many supporters ready to die for their cause.In June of 1982, Saddam Hussein attempted to make peace, but theayatollahs were running the war and would make no peace; the ayatollahshad the ambition of creating a Shi'ite Islamic Republic in Iraq, andthey set the goal of capturing a major city in Iraq that could bedeclared the provisional capital of an Iraqi Islamic Republic. Since thewar was going badly Saddam Hussein was forced to buy additionalweaponry, including crop dusting helicopters from the United States,which were understood to be for the delivery of chemical weapons.It was a war of attrition: The Iranians suffered much higher casualtiesthan the Iraqis, but Iran was a much larger country with many morepeople. Iran could suffer four times as many casualties as Iraq andstill win the war. In April 1984 Saddam Hussein requested to meet theAyatollah Khomeini in a neutral location to negotiate peace, but theoffer was refused. Iraq tried several times to make peace, but as lateas 1988 Iran rejected a United Nations resolution calling for aceasefire.It was during the war with Iran that Iraq improved the range of itsSoviet-made SCUD missiles, so that they could reach Teheran. Iraq alsodeveloped a capacity for mass producing chemical weapons, though thenumber of casualties that Iran suffered from chemical weapons was verysmall compared to the total number dead: As of 1986 the total Iraniancasualties from chemical weapons was estimated at 10,000, compared toone million plus Iranians who died in the entire war. Iran also usedchemical warfare, but this did not become widely known until 1988. [NewYork Times, Jan 17, 1988; I, 9:5]A threat of dispatching chemical warheads against Teheran is consideredto have been a major factor in persuading the Islamic Republic of Iranto make peace, allowing Iraq to retain the Shatt-al-Arab waterway whichIraq had managed to seize again, and which had been Iraq's mainobjective in the war.The Iran-Iraq War was a victory, although very hard-won, for Iraq. Thetotal casualties suffered by Iraq in that war are estimated at 375,000-- about one in 40 Iraqis killed or maimed. Iraq also lost a lot of itsoil production capacity as a result of Iranian air attacks, and hadincurred a large debt because of the need to buy weapons.Nonetheless, the eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran haddiscouraged Iran from supporting Islamic revolution in other countries,and this not only preserved Iraq but aided other countries of theregion. The United States was also well served by the blunting of Iran'sinfluence, and some political scientists even suggested that Iraq shouldreplace Israel as the primary U.S. ally in the region. In addition toits good relations with the U.S., Saddam Hussein and Iraq had gainedprestige among Arabs, and Iraq had become militarily the second mostpowerful country in the region, after Israel.The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s was in no way an indicator of lunacy, norof any desire on the part of Saddam Hussein to conquer the world.During that war, something very significant occurred: In 1981 the Stateof Israel dispatched its jets to attack and destroy a nuclear reactor inIraq. The many knee-jerk supporters of Israel have regarded this attackas a righteous move by the wise and clever Jews to prevent Iraq fromdeveloping a nuclear weapon. The fact is, however, that Iraq's nuclearreactor was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ofwhich Iraq was a charter signatory, and which Israel had never signed.Dr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic EnergyAgency, stated to the U.N. Security Council on 19 June 1981 that theIsraelis had acted on the basis of faulty intelligence and really had nojustification at all for what they had done.It has been stated by the Israelis that a laboratory located 40 metersbelow the reactor -- the figure was later corrected to four meters --which allegedly had not been discovered by IAEA inspectors had beendestroyed. The existence of a vault under the reactor that hasapparently been hit by the bombing was well known to the inspectorate,That vault contains the control rod drives and has to be accessible tothe staff for maintenance purposes.... [T]hat space could not be used toproduce plutonium.Putting it more plainly, Dr. Eklund said:In fulfilling its responsibilities the Agency has inspected the Iraqireactors and has not found evidence of any activity not in accordancewith the Non-Proliferation Treaty.The President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Porfirio MuņozLedo criticized the action and attitude of Israel in no uncertain terms:[T]he reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention areas unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It isinadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attackhas taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many yearsserved as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it leftit to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, wasdefinitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.And,Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear installations is not an isolated act;it should be seen as the climax of escalating violations ofinternational law. The background to it has already been described bothby the General Assembly and the Security Council. It includes annexationof territory by conquest, persistence in an illegal occupation, thedenial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and frequentacts of aggression and harassment against neighboring States.Even the United States joined in condemning Israel's attack on theOsirak nuclear facility, although apologetically so, but the Israelisdismissed the condemnation and wailed about always being persecuted bythe U.N., all the while continuing their own development of nuclearweapons. [ Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981,domino.un.org/unispal.nsf...enDocument]Although the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency couldsay with certainty that the Iraqis were not diverting uranium orproducing plutonium at Osirak as the Israelis had claimed, and althoughthe United Nations Security Council had passed a resolution condemningIsrael's action, the Israeli misrepresentation has been kept alive inthe minds of the American people. Immediately after the end of theIran-Iraq War Zionist Jew William Safire wrote: "The Iraqi [SaddamHussein] trails the Asian [Pol Pot] in the number slaughtered onlybecause his nuclear capability was curtailed by the Israelis." [New YorkTimes; Sept 1, 1988]If you hear some Christian Zionist know-it-all like Glenn Beck sayingthat Israel did good by bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, youshould tell him that even the unreservedly pro-Israel president RonaldReagan condemned Israel's action, as did the U.N. Security Council.Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from columnists likeWilliam Safire and do some real research.As it became clear in 1988 who the winner of the Iran-Iraq War would be,a smear-campaign commenced against the country that was now the leadingchallenger to Israel's power in the Middle East. The story that Iraq hadgassed its own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja in northern Iraq was notsuch a big story when it first appeared, and one could not have guessedfrom the first reports in April of 1988 that Saddam Hussein would becomeprimarily known as the man who "gassed his own people." It actuallydidn't become a subject of major importance until that September, afterIran and Iraq had made peace. Iran was the source of the story thatSaddam Hussein had gassed his own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja, andinitially there was a note of skepticism about the story. Malcolm W.Browne, wrote in the New York Times of April 17, 1988: "Iran expects toreap a propaganda harvest by showing that Iraq is gassing those of itsown citizens deemed sympathizers in the seven-year-old war.... Accordingto the Iranians, a single Iraqi chemical attack on the Iranian-occupiedvillage of Halabja last month killed 5,000 people and injured 5,000others. Baghdad has said that 58 Iraqi soldiers were injured by Iranianchemical weapons." [New York Times April 17, IV, 7:1]Although the Iranians claimed 5,000 dead at al-Halabja, Westernjournalists who visited the town saw "more than a hundred bodies." OnSeptember 1, when Iraq had won the war and was mopping up the Kurdishrebellion, two pieces about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds appeared inthe New York Times on the same day, one by William Safire, in which thepolitically connected Zionist Jew advocated providing the Kurds withstinger missiles. This rabble-rousing by a Jewish journalist about thealleged gassing of the Kurds was the first expression of what became theU.S. conflict with Iraq.Here's the shocker: it's all a big lie. Iraq gassed no Kurds. Thephysical appearance of the bodies indicates the cause of death, and thehundred or so Kurds who died at al-Halabja were not victims of Iraqimustard or nerve gas, but of cyanide gas, which only Iran used in thatwar. Subsequent to the lie about who was responsible for al-Halabja, theKurds themselves picked up on the idea of claiming that the Iraqis wereusing gas on them, but no physical evidence for these claims has everbeen produced, and the symptoms of gassing claimed by the Kurds do notmatch any known agent. [ www.nybooks.com/articles/3441 ] This liewas exposed by Stephen C. Pelletiere and Douglas V. Johnson of the U.S.Army War College, and by Jude Wanniski, a former associate editor of theWall Street Journal. Recently Wanniski sent a letter to George W. Bush'spress-secretary, the Jew Ari Fleischer, stating:You might want to have one of your assistants call over to the Pentagonand ask for its 1990 report, "Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in theMiddle East," which concluded the Iraqi Kurds who were gassed wereprobably the victims of the Iranians. [polyconomics.com/PrintPag...extID=1899 ]Ronald Reagan's second term was ending in 1988, and George Bush Sr.*, avery different character from Reagan, was running for president. [*BushSr. as Vice President cast two tie-breaking votes in the Senate tocontinue U.S. production of chemical weapons, which casts a strangelight on his son's seeming prohibitionist fervor about such weapons.]The Reagan Administration had winked at Iraq's use of chemical weapons,but Bush, following the line established by William Safire, decided tomake political hay out of Iraq's fictitious use of chemical weaponsagainst the Kurds. Candidate Bush said: "They must know that continuedviolation of the ban against the use of such weapons carries a heavypenalty. Not just a fine or a minor sanction that can be ignored." Itappears that Pappy Bush was using an excuse to pick a fight with theleading enemy of the State of Israel so that he could get Jewish votesand favorable treatment from the Zionist Jews in the media. BushSenior's belligerent words against Iraq of course came to fruition inthe Gulf War, which the Bush Administration deliberately caused.I hope that I have not tried the patience of regular listeners too muchby discussing at length a leader who is not of our people. I think,however, that the Jews have forced us into a consideration of this manand his people, since the Jewish establishment is attempting to involveus in a conflict with them which would serve Jewish interests and nointerest of ours.This program, which I title Cannon Fodder, will continue next week, whenI will be discussing what the Jews hope to gain from a war on Iraq.Today's program was written by Hadding Scott and prepared for broadcastby "Vermin Scum". Until next week, this is "Vermin Scum"asking you to join us, the men and women of the National Alliance, inour great effort to restore the freedom and self-determination of ourpeople.To comment on this broadcast, please write to: national@natvan.com Toreport typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, pleasewrite to: webmaster@natvan.comTo contact us via "snail mail," write to:National Vanguard BooksAttention: ADVlistP.O. Box 330Hillsboro, WV 24946The National Alliance: www.natvan.comwww.natall.com