Two days ago Scott Horton debated a guy called Harvey Kushner from New York (I am not kidding!) at Texas A&M University and the resulting discussion is highly interesting to watch. First, Scott really ripped this poor Neocon into tiny little shreds over and over again. It is absolutely hilarious to see this so-called "expert" getting hammered by Scott who never pretended to be an expert on anything (even though he could teach graduate college courses on US foreign policy in any Ivy League college). Poor Harvey is reduced to "pulling rank" by referring to his lifetime expertise in the "real world" only to go on getting hammered by Scott again. By the end of the debate Harvey from New York was clearly frustrated, humiliated and angry. And so he should: I have rarely seen anyone getting so thoroughly thrashed.
The debate is also very interesting from another aspect. It clearly shows the mindset of kind of Fascist Neocon which have hijacked the USA in the last decades. Harvey from New York openly speaks of 5th columns, of an infiltrated Congress, of an infiltrated US military. Make no mistake, Harvey from New York cannot wait until the Federal government cracks down on any and all forms of dissent. Harvey from New York, when forced to admit that the USA is an empire, says that he is *proud* of the fact that the USA is an empire. Basically, Harvey from New York want to kill all those who oppose the rule of Harvey from New York over the planet. This is the real nature of the threat which faces the entire planet. Its really that simple and that basic. Harvey from New York vs. the rest of mankind.
Scott deserves a lot of credit for forcing this crazed Neocon to reveal his real nature and agenda.
Showing posts with label Scott Horton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Horton. Show all posts
Friday, September 12, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Scott Horton interviews Scott Ritter - a *must* listen!
Check out there interview here: http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/scott-ritter-5/
(download sound file here: http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_07_11_ritter.mp3 )
An absolute must listen!
(download sound file here: http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_07_11_ritter.mp3 )
An absolute must listen!
Monday, December 10, 2007
Reflections on the NIE on Iran and its consequences
It has been over a week since the publications on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and a number of observations about ti can now be made with some confidence.
First and foremost, this NIE is clearly the product of long and protracted negotiations between the UN intelligence community and the Administration. It appears that the office of the VP finally agreed to release this NIE as a way, or so they thought, to preempt the upcoming El-Baradei report which will finally clear Iran from all the accusations of having concealed a nuclear weapons program.
By saying that Iran had a program until 2003 the Neocons can thereby 'prove' that such a program could, in fact, by run right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors. The US intelligence analysts probably figured that making such a concession (putting a totally fabricated 'fact' inside the NIE) was a price worth paying if it could at least undermine the Neocon propaganda about 'an Iranian existential threat to Israel'. So who won, the Neocons in the Administration or the intelligence analysts? Though only time will show, my guess is that the latter did.
Sure, the Neocons can claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program can be restarted at any time and that therefore Iran is as much a threat as it was in the past. Still, this NIE report release still represented a huge loss of momentum for the Neocon's propaganda campaign. It is one thing to get a nation to war to 'save Israel' and quite another to do some because maybe, in the future, a threat for Israel might possibly materialize.
The trademark of this administration has always been a total incompetence of absolutely breathtaking magnitude and a systematic sacrifice of middle to long term strategic objective to short term tactical goals (and even those were usually screwed-up). The release of this NIE is, I believe, exactly such a miscalculation.
If I am correct, this might very well be the proof that the 'old Anglo guard' has made good use of the removal of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others to weaken the Neocons for whom time is now running out and who need to re-create the momentum towards war with Iran.
To see why the Neocons need a war with Iran at all costs it is absolutely crucial to understand what the absence of such a war would mean to the Neocons. Should this war *not* happen this would mean that:
1) Iran succeeded in calling the Neocon's bluff and that the Neocons "blinked first". It would prove to the entire Middle-East that the USA is not the superpower it claims to be and that it can be openly challenged and deterred.
2) It would very much weaken the position of the "Reformists" in Iran who were harshly criticizing Ahmadinejad for acting in a provocative way towards the West and who now will be told by Ahmadinejad that his hard stance won Iran a victory which the Reformists would have never achieved with their appeasing policies.
3) It would prove to the Israeli Liukudniks that the USA cannot be counted on to obediently execute any policy decided upon by the Neocons and that Israel cannot use the threat to "unleash the USA" on Iran. Think about it: Israel's armed forces were defeated by less than 1000 Hezbollah combatants in 2006 and the USA was deterred by Iran in 2007. Such an outcome would leave Israel tremendously weakened.
4) Last, but not least, short of a war with Iran the Republicans will be booted out of the White House in 2008 and even though I have written many times that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is about as meaningful as the difference between (Kosher) Coca-Cola and (Kosher) Pepsi-Cola, the Democrats might well sacrifice some of the most hated Republican leaders to the anger of the US people. Keeping in mind that the Republicans are clearly guilty of a long list of criminal acts loosing the White House in 2008 might well land some of the Republicans behind bars.
For all these reasons I would argue that the absence of a war with Iran represents an existential threat to the Neocons and their interests. However, the Neocons and their policies represent an existential threat to the US Empire as envisioned and designed by the Old Anglo Guard. We are now entering into a dangerous period of time in which the struggle between these two groups is entering something of an end-game in which one of the two sides will be mated. Which side will win? My guess is that in the end the Neocon control over the US corporate media and Congress will prove crucial to the outcome.
There are, however, cracks appearing here and there in this control.
First, the kind of language and policies pushed forward by Ron Paul and his immense popularity in the only media which, at least for the time being, escapes Neocon control - the Internet - is a sign that an increasing number of Americans are really getting fed up with what is being done to their country.
Second, the kind of angry anti-Bush editorials which Keith Olbermann has recently aired on MSNBC shows that cracks are also appearing in the corporate media:
I have to add here that the very fact that such commentaries are aired and that no action has been taken, at least so far, against Olbermann or MSNBC is a powerful illustration that the USA has not become a true Fascist state yet.
In a truly Fascist state Olbermann would have been arrested for sedition or sabotage, and MSNBC would have been promptly taken off the air (I even doubt that there are many countries in Europe in which a mainstream journalist would be allowed to criticize the President with the kind of language Olbermann uses). I am not a fan of Olbermann, of the corporate media, and even less so of journalists making commentaries (I do not even own a TV) - but I have to say that the fact that this kind of dissent is allowed in the USA is hugely encouraging for democracy.
Coming back to the NIE and the situation in Iran, I would like to strongly recommend the very interesting interview Scott Horton made with Scott Ritter recently (click here to listen to it). Scott Ritter is one of the very best US analysts on Iran and in this interview he truly makes a very good job of saying the unvarnished truth about the US policies in Iraq and Iran. His take on the NIE and its real meaning is also very interesting.
THE main overwhelming danger now for the Middle-East and the rest of the world is a carefully engineered "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" kind of false flag operation by the Neocons in the White House. All we can hope for is that the Anglos in the Administration, the US armed forces and and intelligence community will succeed in preventing such an operation from being executed. Likewise, we can hope that the same Anglos will also succeed in preventing Israel from executing such an operation with its own assets. We can hope for this, but I should not expect it and my huntch is that such a false flag operating is being worked on as I write these words.
First and foremost, this NIE is clearly the product of long and protracted negotiations between the UN intelligence community and the Administration. It appears that the office of the VP finally agreed to release this NIE as a way, or so they thought, to preempt the upcoming El-Baradei report which will finally clear Iran from all the accusations of having concealed a nuclear weapons program.
By saying that Iran had a program until 2003 the Neocons can thereby 'prove' that such a program could, in fact, by run right under the noses of the IAEA inspectors. The US intelligence analysts probably figured that making such a concession (putting a totally fabricated 'fact' inside the NIE) was a price worth paying if it could at least undermine the Neocon propaganda about 'an Iranian existential threat to Israel'. So who won, the Neocons in the Administration or the intelligence analysts? Though only time will show, my guess is that the latter did.
Sure, the Neocons can claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program can be restarted at any time and that therefore Iran is as much a threat as it was in the past. Still, this NIE report release still represented a huge loss of momentum for the Neocon's propaganda campaign. It is one thing to get a nation to war to 'save Israel' and quite another to do some because maybe, in the future, a threat for Israel might possibly materialize.
The trademark of this administration has always been a total incompetence of absolutely breathtaking magnitude and a systematic sacrifice of middle to long term strategic objective to short term tactical goals (and even those were usually screwed-up). The release of this NIE is, I believe, exactly such a miscalculation.
If I am correct, this might very well be the proof that the 'old Anglo guard' has made good use of the removal of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others to weaken the Neocons for whom time is now running out and who need to re-create the momentum towards war with Iran.
To see why the Neocons need a war with Iran at all costs it is absolutely crucial to understand what the absence of such a war would mean to the Neocons. Should this war *not* happen this would mean that:
1) Iran succeeded in calling the Neocon's bluff and that the Neocons "blinked first". It would prove to the entire Middle-East that the USA is not the superpower it claims to be and that it can be openly challenged and deterred.
2) It would very much weaken the position of the "Reformists" in Iran who were harshly criticizing Ahmadinejad for acting in a provocative way towards the West and who now will be told by Ahmadinejad that his hard stance won Iran a victory which the Reformists would have never achieved with their appeasing policies.
3) It would prove to the Israeli Liukudniks that the USA cannot be counted on to obediently execute any policy decided upon by the Neocons and that Israel cannot use the threat to "unleash the USA" on Iran. Think about it: Israel's armed forces were defeated by less than 1000 Hezbollah combatants in 2006 and the USA was deterred by Iran in 2007. Such an outcome would leave Israel tremendously weakened.
4) Last, but not least, short of a war with Iran the Republicans will be booted out of the White House in 2008 and even though I have written many times that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is about as meaningful as the difference between (Kosher) Coca-Cola and (Kosher) Pepsi-Cola, the Democrats might well sacrifice some of the most hated Republican leaders to the anger of the US people. Keeping in mind that the Republicans are clearly guilty of a long list of criminal acts loosing the White House in 2008 might well land some of the Republicans behind bars.
For all these reasons I would argue that the absence of a war with Iran represents an existential threat to the Neocons and their interests. However, the Neocons and their policies represent an existential threat to the US Empire as envisioned and designed by the Old Anglo Guard. We are now entering into a dangerous period of time in which the struggle between these two groups is entering something of an end-game in which one of the two sides will be mated. Which side will win? My guess is that in the end the Neocon control over the US corporate media and Congress will prove crucial to the outcome.
There are, however, cracks appearing here and there in this control.
First, the kind of language and policies pushed forward by Ron Paul and his immense popularity in the only media which, at least for the time being, escapes Neocon control - the Internet - is a sign that an increasing number of Americans are really getting fed up with what is being done to their country.
Second, the kind of angry anti-Bush editorials which Keith Olbermann has recently aired on MSNBC shows that cracks are also appearing in the corporate media:
I have to add here that the very fact that such commentaries are aired and that no action has been taken, at least so far, against Olbermann or MSNBC is a powerful illustration that the USA has not become a true Fascist state yet.
In a truly Fascist state Olbermann would have been arrested for sedition or sabotage, and MSNBC would have been promptly taken off the air (I even doubt that there are many countries in Europe in which a mainstream journalist would be allowed to criticize the President with the kind of language Olbermann uses). I am not a fan of Olbermann, of the corporate media, and even less so of journalists making commentaries (I do not even own a TV) - but I have to say that the fact that this kind of dissent is allowed in the USA is hugely encouraging for democracy.
Coming back to the NIE and the situation in Iran, I would like to strongly recommend the very interesting interview Scott Horton made with Scott Ritter recently (click here to listen to it). Scott Ritter is one of the very best US analysts on Iran and in this interview he truly makes a very good job of saying the unvarnished truth about the US policies in Iraq and Iran. His take on the NIE and its real meaning is also very interesting.
THE main overwhelming danger now for the Middle-East and the rest of the world is a carefully engineered "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" kind of false flag operation by the Neocons in the White House. All we can hope for is that the Anglos in the Administration, the US armed forces and and intelligence community will succeed in preventing such an operation from being executed. Likewise, we can hope that the same Anglos will also succeed in preventing Israel from executing such an operation with its own assets. We can hope for this, but I should not expect it and my huntch is that such a false flag operating is being worked on as I write these words.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Saker interviews Scott Horton
Its been a long time since I wanted to ask Scott Horton about his political ideas. I have to confess that ever since I discovered his fantastic radio show and his blog I have been listening to it on a daily basis. Never before had I heard a radio show with such a more interesting list of experts invited or with a more knowledgable and free thinking host. Scott, whom I now consider being a friend (even though we never met personally) interviewed me for his show already three times and now I can finally "retaliate".
While there are many current issues that I could have asked Scott about, I decided to center my questions on his political beliefs. I have to admit here that before discovering his show I had never been exposed to US libertarian ideas. Being a European myself I do not agree with a wholesale rejection of any form of government, nor do I agree with the idea that government regulations are inherently bad (I personally consider the existence of a government regulated economy essential to protect the people from the power of the corporations and I believe that the main purpose of a government is to protect the poor, the weak, the unemployed and the sick from destitution). Nevertheless, I have come to respect and admire American libertarians for their total rejection of violence and wars (except in self-defense) and their uncompromising commitment to civil rights and freedoms.
Following my interview with Joel S. Hirschhorn, it was also timely to get the point of view of a person who believed that voting still makes sense, at least voting for a person like Ron Paul. As I have written before, short of a miracle the USA will have an openly fascist president in 2008 and Ron Paul is the best, if not only, chance for the USA to remain a republic, however imperfect, and not turn into a Neocon Fascist Empire. Whether having a libertarian president would be good or bad for the USA is for Americans to decide, not for foreigners like me. But one thing is certain, having a president like Ron Paul would be incomparably better than any other option for the rest of the planet.
I can only recommend to all my readers to listen to Scott's show (streaming daily on radio KAOS and whose archives are posted on his blog) to judge the man and his ideas for themselves. Also - check out his excellent stickers.
Lastly, anyone interested in understanding the Ron Paul phenomenon should check out the Ron Paul library which features a large collection of his speeches, articles and book (including several in PDF format for free download)
-------
Q: first, tell us something about yourself: how did you end up hosting what is, in my opinion, the best radio talk show in the USA? What is the link between you, Radio KAOS and antiwar.com? What did you do before you became a talk show host?
A: Well, I've done pirate radio in Austin since the end of 1998. First was Say it Ain't So on Free Radio Austin 97.1 FM (Thanks Reckless, etc.!) which was raided twice by the FCC. The second time was the day of the election in 2000. That was it for FRA.
Then Shauna Kaye started KAOS 95.9 to be the place for punk and metal in town. Since I'm lucky, she let me do a politics show. It was called The Way Shit Is, The Best I Can Tell with Col. Edward Mandell House. KAOS was started in December 2001 and I guess my show got going pretty soon after that. Probably January or February, 2002. Then on the eve of the war at the beginning of 2003, Shauna suggested I start getting interviews and my friend Jon gave me a computer if I would promise to use it. So I started the Weekend Interview Show and PhilipDru.com for a place to post the archives.
Of course, I interviewed the Antiwar.com guys all the time, since they are the best, and they started posting the mp3s. In 2004-2005 I took the show over to the 9/11 kook network RBN, and in the meantime started and sold LibertyStickers.com. I had a few months worth of living money so I started writing articles for AWC to go along with the interviews. From there I was hired as assistant editor. After leaving RBN, I came back home to KAOS and eventually set up the daily interview show as it exists now.
To be clear, there is no link whatever between KAOS and Antiwar.com, other than that Antiwar.com runs the archives of my KAOS interviews.
Q: while most Americans have a pretty good idea what libertarian ideas are in the US context, most Europeans do not. Could you please summarize the basic ideas and values of libertarians ideals and please tell us what the core reading list should be for somebody wanting to understand US libertarian ideas?
A: I'm not sure that most Americans get it, but a libertarian is what I understand is still referred to as a liberal by Europeans. Here in America, the socialists weren't brave enough to call themselves what they were and stole the name liberal. So Rothbard refashioned the old right classical liberals as the libertarians to distinguish the genuine classical liberals from the socialists on the left and nationalist war mongers and conservatives on the right.
Specifically, libertarianism is belief in the non-aggression principle. It is not okay to initiate force against another person. Most people believe this, parents, Yoda, karate class, old west hero, etc., but the libertarian applies it to politics as well. If it's wrong for me to steal from you, it's wrong for me to hire a cop to steal from you. Once you recognize that government simply means the people who are allowed to commit all the crimes that we are not allowed to commit and that the same moral laws ought to apply to them, things begin to seem a bit different. Lysander Spooner said government was like a highway man only the highway man has the decency to leave you alone after he mugs you, the state follows you home, bosses you around, steals more of your stuff everyday and then tells you he's your security guard there to protect you from the highwayman.
Shoot. Just check LewRockwell.com for the politics and Mises.org for the economics. The Mises Institute has an incredible amount of literature online. And bibliographies galore.
Q: what exactly is anarcho-capitalism and how is it different from libertarianism? What is the "Austrian School" you often mention in your shows?
A: Anarcho-capitalism is what a libertarian believes in when he stops being a hypocrite and recognizes that a tax funded monopoly on security and litigation issues is as immoral and unworkable, and for the same reasons, as a monopoly on anything else. See, left anarchists think that private property only exists due to the (socialist) state protecting it with everyone's taxes and monopoly force, but they got it all wrong. If you get rid of the state and it's control over "public" property, what's left? Private property. Which happens to be the basis of civilization.
There are many, many people much, much more qualified than myself to discuss Austrian economics, but what I know is that Ludwig Von Mises posited that man is an individual and that individual man acts. From there he deduced a great many things such as all the Keynesian charts, algebra, and whathaveyou is a bunch of crap. As Alan Greenspan told Jon Stewart, he hasn't learned a thing or improved at all in his "forcasting" in 50 years on the job. People are free they do what they want for reasons that can't be computer modeled; That whenever government introduces force into the market - always on behalf of capitalism-hating millionaires - it produces dislocations, bad investments, and lost liberty. He explained that the boom and bust cycle was not the natural result of capitalism, but the result of the central banks creating new money out of nothing in the name of smoothing out the booms and busts. Mises also explained way back in the 20's - I think - that socialism can't work because it was based on Adam Smith and Marx's flawed labor theory of value and showed that value comes from the customer's view, and since the socialists were trying to be the rationer and the rationee at the same time, they would have no way to accurately determine prices and therefore no way to accurately determine which resources should go where or when.
This, I think, was a big part of why Rothbard and them rejected the Cold War. They looked at the USSR and said "Threat? Where? These jokers are doomed." They were right. Time was on our side, not theirs.
Q: the US political system has turned into a tragic farce in which when people vote for the "liberal" Clinton they get a wholesale dismantlement of the social security and when they vote for the "conservative" George W. Bush they get a huge deficit, imperial wars, and a huge deficit. As a result, some, such as Joel S. Hirshhorn conclude that the only solution is to refuse to vote (check his excellent article on this subject here). You, on the other hand, call for voting for Ron Paul even though you once created a sticker with the words "voting is for suckers" but you are now calling to vote for Ron Paul. What made you change your mind?
A: Ron Paul is the greatest congressman in American history. I've been reading much of what he's written for about 10 years now, had the honor of meeting him a few times, and I think he's one of the best teachers of liberty around. The whole point is that the only time anyone pays attention to politics is when people are running for president. Dr. Paul is teaching them about liberty in numbers unheard of in all history. In a world where Republicans aren't evil and stupid, which we don't live in, they would all rally around him, since he's the only one who could possibly beat Hillary in the fall of '08, and in that case, there is no one I would trust more than him to hold that power, to restore the Bill of Rights and bring this empire home in a soft landing instead of catastrophe.
Also, I am ashamed that my last vote on earth was not for Harry Browne. Now I will be proud to cast my last for the good doctor. Lysander Spooner makes a decent case for anarchists voting in self defense in No Treason, but, no, ultimately it's important for people to understand that Alexander Hamilton was a fascist who led an evil counter-revolution against the results of the Great Secession from Britain, that his Constitution has been a disaster and that the state should be abolished - yesterday.
Q: Do you really believe that Ron Paul could get elected and, even more importantly, that if elected the political elites who run this country would let him change anything? It not the real problem the fact that the USA is no more a democracy but that it is in fact a country ruled by an elite which has turned any real democracy into a sham? In your opinion, does the current political process have any legitimacy left and do you believe that this system can still be reformed?
A: Democracy sucks. It is based on the collectivist myth of popular sovereignty and majority rule. We do have a democracy. That's why our system sucks so bad. The minority with the power can always manipulate a majority into thinking whatever they want them to think. Even when the majority disagrees with the elite, they're usually wrong then too.
I think that if Paul were elected president that he could do a great many things to restore the structures of the law which somewhat serve to protect our liberties. He could immediately rescind hundreds of executive orders, order torturers brought up on charges, repudiate the unitary executive theory, bring the army and navy home, unsign treaties, ask Congress to pass an omnibus restore the Bill of Rights Act, veto any budget he wished, and he could teach people that the president ain't liberty, liberty is where the president ain't.
Q: coming back to anarcho-capitalism, can you name a society in history which has ever implemented this kind of socio-political system or which came as close as can be to what you want?
A: These are questions best left for Roderick T. Long, I'm afraid, but I do know that Iceland had a system much like the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard and his successors. There were cops, but no territorial monopolies on their jurisdiction. It worked great for 350 years. A hell of a lot longer than Hamilton's constitution, maybe even this society, will. Also, in Conceived In Liberty, Rothbard writes of anarcho-Pennsylvania which was out of the control of the crown for I guess about 100 years or so and worked things out in a very private property anarchy kinda way. And, of course, the old west had may examples of stateless people working things out themselves just fine. Though obviously that didn't last very long with the national government set on dominating the whole continent.
Q: if I understood you correctly you believe that government regulations are a highly ineffective way of resolving differences in a society and that the best way would be to litigate differences in a court of law. Is this correct and, if yes, how would the courts force anyone to accept their jurisdiction and how would the courts enforce their rulings absent a police force? Also, in your society what kind of penalties could the courts impose of offenders? Would there be jails and who would be in charge of them? Would there be fines and who would collect them? Lastly, who would pay for the costs of creating and maintaining a judiciary?
A: Yes, the regulations exist to protect the the regulatees from the people. Always have. I'll duck the how exactly would the anarcho-libertarian court system
might work and direct you to those much more qualified to answer, such
as http://mises.org and http://praxeology.net/molinarisoc.htm .
Q: what is your analysis of who has the real power in the USA? The most often mentioned are the Oil Lobby, the Israel Lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex. Do you agree and, if yes, how would you rank them. Do you rather agree with Greg Palast who says that oil is the key force, or would you rather agree with James Petras who believes that the Israel Lobby has become the overwhelming force in US politics.
A: Don't forget the money men, though it looks to me like the banking/oil establishment has been largely supplanted by the MIC-Neocon-Israel Lobby groups, though these things are fluid. They're all still in there fighting it out. As Lew Rockwell once wrote: "It's a heck of a note... to have to root for the Rockefellers."
Q: the future looks very bleak and, barring some kind of miracle, Hillary will become the next US President. What do you think will happen if she is elected? Give us your sense of what 4 years of a Hillary Administration would bring?
A: Death. Pain. Tyranny. Blood. Just like when her husband was president. Just like now.
While there are many current issues that I could have asked Scott about, I decided to center my questions on his political beliefs. I have to admit here that before discovering his show I had never been exposed to US libertarian ideas. Being a European myself I do not agree with a wholesale rejection of any form of government, nor do I agree with the idea that government regulations are inherently bad (I personally consider the existence of a government regulated economy essential to protect the people from the power of the corporations and I believe that the main purpose of a government is to protect the poor, the weak, the unemployed and the sick from destitution). Nevertheless, I have come to respect and admire American libertarians for their total rejection of violence and wars (except in self-defense) and their uncompromising commitment to civil rights and freedoms.
Following my interview with Joel S. Hirschhorn, it was also timely to get the point of view of a person who believed that voting still makes sense, at least voting for a person like Ron Paul. As I have written before, short of a miracle the USA will have an openly fascist president in 2008 and Ron Paul is the best, if not only, chance for the USA to remain a republic, however imperfect, and not turn into a Neocon Fascist Empire. Whether having a libertarian president would be good or bad for the USA is for Americans to decide, not for foreigners like me. But one thing is certain, having a president like Ron Paul would be incomparably better than any other option for the rest of the planet.
I can only recommend to all my readers to listen to Scott's show (streaming daily on radio KAOS and whose archives are posted on his blog) to judge the man and his ideas for themselves. Also - check out his excellent stickers.
Lastly, anyone interested in understanding the Ron Paul phenomenon should check out the Ron Paul library which features a large collection of his speeches, articles and book (including several in PDF format for free download)
-------
Q: first, tell us something about yourself: how did you end up hosting what is, in my opinion, the best radio talk show in the USA? What is the link between you, Radio KAOS and antiwar.com? What did you do before you became a talk show host?
A: Well, I've done pirate radio in Austin since the end of 1998. First was Say it Ain't So on Free Radio Austin 97.1 FM (Thanks Reckless, etc.!) which was raided twice by the FCC. The second time was the day of the election in 2000. That was it for FRA.
Then Shauna Kaye started KAOS 95.9 to be the place for punk and metal in town. Since I'm lucky, she let me do a politics show. It was called The Way Shit Is, The Best I Can Tell with Col. Edward Mandell House. KAOS was started in December 2001 and I guess my show got going pretty soon after that. Probably January or February, 2002. Then on the eve of the war at the beginning of 2003, Shauna suggested I start getting interviews and my friend Jon gave me a computer if I would promise to use it. So I started the Weekend Interview Show and PhilipDru.com for a place to post the archives.
Of course, I interviewed the Antiwar.com guys all the time, since they are the best, and they started posting the mp3s. In 2004-2005 I took the show over to the 9/11 kook network RBN, and in the meantime started and sold LibertyStickers.com. I had a few months worth of living money so I started writing articles for AWC to go along with the interviews. From there I was hired as assistant editor. After leaving RBN, I came back home to KAOS and eventually set up the daily interview show as it exists now.
To be clear, there is no link whatever between KAOS and Antiwar.com, other than that Antiwar.com runs the archives of my KAOS interviews.
Q: while most Americans have a pretty good idea what libertarian ideas are in the US context, most Europeans do not. Could you please summarize the basic ideas and values of libertarians ideals and please tell us what the core reading list should be for somebody wanting to understand US libertarian ideas?
A: I'm not sure that most Americans get it, but a libertarian is what I understand is still referred to as a liberal by Europeans. Here in America, the socialists weren't brave enough to call themselves what they were and stole the name liberal. So Rothbard refashioned the old right classical liberals as the libertarians to distinguish the genuine classical liberals from the socialists on the left and nationalist war mongers and conservatives on the right.Specifically, libertarianism is belief in the non-aggression principle. It is not okay to initiate force against another person. Most people believe this, parents, Yoda, karate class, old west hero, etc., but the libertarian applies it to politics as well. If it's wrong for me to steal from you, it's wrong for me to hire a cop to steal from you. Once you recognize that government simply means the people who are allowed to commit all the crimes that we are not allowed to commit and that the same moral laws ought to apply to them, things begin to seem a bit different. Lysander Spooner said government was like a highway man only the highway man has the decency to leave you alone after he mugs you, the state follows you home, bosses you around, steals more of your stuff everyday and then tells you he's your security guard there to protect you from the highwayman.
Shoot. Just check LewRockwell.com for the politics and Mises.org for the economics. The Mises Institute has an incredible amount of literature online. And bibliographies galore.
Q: what exactly is anarcho-capitalism and how is it different from libertarianism? What is the "Austrian School" you often mention in your shows?
A: Anarcho-capitalism is what a libertarian believes in when he stops being a hypocrite and recognizes that a tax funded monopoly on security and litigation issues is as immoral and unworkable, and for the same reasons, as a monopoly on anything else. See, left anarchists think that private property only exists due to the (socialist) state protecting it with everyone's taxes and monopoly force, but they got it all wrong. If you get rid of the state and it's control over "public" property, what's left? Private property. Which happens to be the basis of civilization.There are many, many people much, much more qualified than myself to discuss Austrian economics, but what I know is that Ludwig Von Mises posited that man is an individual and that individual man acts. From there he deduced a great many things such as all the Keynesian charts, algebra, and whathaveyou is a bunch of crap. As Alan Greenspan told Jon Stewart, he hasn't learned a thing or improved at all in his "forcasting" in 50 years on the job. People are free they do what they want for reasons that can't be computer modeled; That whenever government introduces force into the market - always on behalf of capitalism-hating millionaires - it produces dislocations, bad investments, and lost liberty. He explained that the boom and bust cycle was not the natural result of capitalism, but the result of the central banks creating new money out of nothing in the name of smoothing out the booms and busts. Mises also explained way back in the 20's - I think - that socialism can't work because it was based on Adam Smith and Marx's flawed labor theory of value and showed that value comes from the customer's view, and since the socialists were trying to be the rationer and the rationee at the same time, they would have no way to accurately determine prices and therefore no way to accurately determine which resources should go where or when.
This, I think, was a big part of why Rothbard and them rejected the Cold War. They looked at the USSR and said "Threat? Where? These jokers are doomed." They were right. Time was on our side, not theirs.Q: the US political system has turned into a tragic farce in which when people vote for the "liberal" Clinton they get a wholesale dismantlement of the social security and when they vote for the "conservative" George W. Bush they get a huge deficit, imperial wars, and a huge deficit. As a result, some, such as Joel S. Hirshhorn conclude that the only solution is to refuse to vote (check his excellent article on this subject here). You, on the other hand, call for voting for Ron Paul even though you once created a sticker with the words "voting is for suckers" but you are now calling to vote for Ron Paul. What made you change your mind?
A: Ron Paul is the greatest congressman in American history. I've been reading much of what he's written for about 10 years now, had the honor of meeting him a few times, and I think he's one of the best teachers of liberty around. The whole point is that the only time anyone pays attention to politics is when people are running for president. Dr. Paul is teaching them about liberty in numbers unheard of in all history. In a world where Republicans aren't evil and stupid, which we don't live in, they would all rally around him, since he's the only one who could possibly beat Hillary in the fall of '08, and in that case, there is no one I would trust more than him to hold that power, to restore the Bill of Rights and bring this empire home in a soft landing instead of catastrophe.
Also, I am ashamed that my last vote on earth was not for Harry Browne. Now I will be proud to cast my last for the good doctor. Lysander Spooner makes a decent case for anarchists voting in self defense in No Treason, but, no, ultimately it's important for people to understand that Alexander Hamilton was a fascist who led an evil counter-revolution against the results of the Great Secession from Britain, that his Constitution has been a disaster and that the state should be abolished - yesterday.
Q: Do you really believe that Ron Paul could get elected and, even more importantly, that if elected the political elites who run this country would let him change anything? It not the real problem the fact that the USA is no more a democracy but that it is in fact a country ruled by an elite which has turned any real democracy into a sham? In your opinion, does the current political process have any legitimacy left and do you believe that this system can still be reformed?
A: Democracy sucks. It is based on the collectivist myth of popular sovereignty and majority rule. We do have a democracy. That's why our system sucks so bad. The minority with the power can always manipulate a majority into thinking whatever they want them to think. Even when the majority disagrees with the elite, they're usually wrong then too.
I think that if Paul were elected president that he could do a great many things to restore the structures of the law which somewhat serve to protect our liberties. He could immediately rescind hundreds of executive orders, order torturers brought up on charges, repudiate the unitary executive theory, bring the army and navy home, unsign treaties, ask Congress to pass an omnibus restore the Bill of Rights Act, veto any budget he wished, and he could teach people that the president ain't liberty, liberty is where the president ain't. Q: coming back to anarcho-capitalism, can you name a society in history which has ever implemented this kind of socio-political system or which came as close as can be to what you want?
A: These are questions best left for Roderick T. Long, I'm afraid, but I do know that Iceland had a system much like the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard and his successors. There were cops, but no territorial monopolies on their jurisdiction. It worked great for 350 years. A hell of a lot longer than Hamilton's constitution, maybe even this society, will. Also, in Conceived In Liberty, Rothbard writes of anarcho-Pennsylvania which was out of the control of the crown for I guess about 100 years or so and worked things out in a very private property anarchy kinda way. And, of course, the old west had may examples of stateless people working things out themselves just fine. Though obviously that didn't last very long with the national government set on dominating the whole continent.
Q: if I understood you correctly you believe that government regulations are a highly ineffective way of resolving differences in a society and that the best way would be to litigate differences in a court of law. Is this correct and, if yes, how would the courts force anyone to accept their jurisdiction and how would the courts enforce their rulings absent a police force? Also, in your society what kind of penalties could the courts impose of offenders? Would there be jails and who would be in charge of them? Would there be fines and who would collect them? Lastly, who would pay for the costs of creating and maintaining a judiciary?
A: Yes, the regulations exist to protect the the regulatees from the people. Always have. I'll duck the how exactly would the anarcho-libertarian court system
might work and direct you to those much more qualified to answer, such
as http://mises.org and http://praxeology.net/molinari
Q: what is your analysis of who has the real power in the USA? The most often mentioned are the Oil Lobby, the Israel Lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex. Do you agree and, if yes, how would you rank them. Do you rather agree with Greg Palast who says that oil is the key force, or would you rather agree with James Petras who believes that the Israel Lobby has become the overwhelming force in US politics.
A: Don't forget the money men, though it looks to me like the banking/oil establishment has been largely supplanted by the MIC-Neocon-Israel Lobby groups, though these things are fluid. They're all still in there fighting it out. As Lew Rockwell once wrote: "It's a heck of a note... to have to root for the Rockefellers."
Q: the future looks very bleak and, barring some kind of miracle, Hillary will become the next US President. What do you think will happen if she is elected? Give us your sense of what 4 years of a Hillary Administration would bring?
A: Death. Pain. Tyranny. Blood. Just like when her husband was president. Just like now.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Saker interviewed by Scott Horton's radio show on KAOS 95.5 in Austin, Texas
Today, I had the pleasure of being interviewed by the anti-war talk show host Scott Horton for his daily show on KAOS 95.5 radio in Austin, Texas. Our conversation covered topics such as the Israel/Neocon Lobby in the USA, its role in getting the US in wars in the Middle-East, its struggle against what I call the "Old Anglo Guard" and Russia's relationship to the developments in Iran.
Please click here to listen to this interview (in mp3 format)
(Note: I misspoke during the interview when I said that most members of the Iranian Majlis are women. While women are well represented, they are not, as far as I know, the majority of the representatives. I confused this with a recent report that most Iranian students are females).
Please click here to listen to this interview (in mp3 format)
(Note: I misspoke during the interview when I said that most members of the Iranian Majlis are women. While women are well represented, they are not, as far as I know, the majority of the representatives. I confused this with a recent report that most Iranian students are females).
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Saker on Scott Horton's radio show for KAOS 95.5 in Austin, Texas
Dear friends,
Today I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Scott Horton for the second time (click here to listen to my first interview with him after the Hamas takeover of Gaza) for his radio talk show. Scott asked me to call his show to discuss my recent article about Iranian options in case of a US attack.
Click here to listen to this interview (the interview proper begins after a 25 minutes monologue by Scott).
Let me know what you think, ok?
Cheers,
VS
(audio in ogg format available here)
Today I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Scott Horton for the second time (click here to listen to my first interview with him after the Hamas takeover of Gaza) for his radio talk show. Scott asked me to call his show to discuss my recent article about Iranian options in case of a US attack.
Click here to listen to this interview (the interview proper begins after a 25 minutes monologue by Scott).
Let me know what you think, ok?
Cheers,
VS
(audio in ogg format available here)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Have We Forgotten 2003 Already? Statement on H Con Res 21 by Ron Paul
This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
source: Scott Horton's Stress Blog
Saturday, June 16, 2007
My conversation with Scott Horton about the Middle-East
Yesterday I had the true honor and pleasure of being interviewed by Scott Horton, the fantastic Libertarian radio talk show host from Austin, Texas. His shows for Radio KAOS 95.5 in Austin are also streamed live the Internet through Antiwar Radio and are available on Scott's excellent blog.
I highly reccommend Scott's show (his list of guests is simply fantastic) and his blog to all those who want to listen to a different, truly American and freedom-loving, perspective on political events inside the USA and the US Imperial policies aborad.
Listen to my conversation with Scott here.
(For those who might not now about it, I also want to highly reccommend the website Antiwar.com which provides both excellent original contents (check out the list of columnists) and reprints of intersting information found elsewhere)
(audio in ogg format here)
I highly reccommend Scott's show (his list of guests is simply fantastic) and his blog to all those who want to listen to a different, truly American and freedom-loving, perspective on political events inside the USA and the US Imperial policies aborad.
Listen to my conversation with Scott here.
(For those who might not now about it, I also want to highly reccommend the website Antiwar.com which provides both excellent original contents (check out the list of columnists) and reprints of intersting information found elsewhere)
(audio in ogg format here)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The value of the lone dissenter
Originally, this was posted on Scott Horton's blog
For all its intrinsic merits - and God know they are numerous - it is unclear how big an audience Scott's show reaches and, even more importantly, how much of an impact it has on anyone. Surely in a country which re-elected, scratch this, which elected Bush the Lesser in the midst of two lost wars any voice for reason and decency is lost in the ocean of stupidity? Not so. Here is why:
Social psychologists have done a lot of work on the issue of conformity. In particular, the experiments of Sherif, Asch and Milgram have looked deeply in the the mechanisms which make people agree to seemingly obviously mistaken and outright evil concepts and actions. One of them (Asch) centered on the effect of the group on an individual's judgment. Basically, he showed that most people tend to agree with other's obviously wrong judgments usually to the point of kidding themselves in to sincerely believing whatever the group says. That's the bad news. The good news is that it only takes ONE dissenter to dramatically decrease this phenomenon. In fact, if ONE sole dissenter's common sense makes him openly challenge the unanimity of the rest of the group members the number of people who choose to conform against their best judgment falls by 75%!
Unanimity is what the Imperial rulers need from their population. This is one of the mains reasons why most authoritarian and all totalitarian regimes spend a truly phenomenal amount of resources trying to silence even a very small minority. For example, in the Soviet Union the so-called 'dissidents' had very little popular support, if any. But the KGB had an entire Main Directorate (the 5th if I remember correctly) only to deal with them. Often this is explained away as "paranoia", and sometimes it is so. But it is also a reflection of an acute understanding by those in powers that only a unanimity (even only a seeming one, an external one - that's all that's needed) can secure the passive compliance of a population.
So this is why Scott's work is truly invaluable: it allows anyone listening to his shows who would otherwise nod his/her head and shut up to think "yeah, that makes sense, and its the others who are full of shit!" and break the psychological barrier of the need to conform.
Even Scott's "rant shows" are hugely valuable because he shows that somebody can get on the air not just somewhere, but in Texas of all places, and speak freely without fear or self-censorship.
I strongly encourage everybody to *totally* cut any contacts with the corporate media. Don't watch TV, don't read the paper, don't listen to the (non-pirate) radio. Not ever, not once. Get all your information ONLY from independent and free media (God knows with the Internet you can get enough of top quality info and analysis - see links poster on the lower left of this page) and re-direct ALL the money you would be spending on corporate propaganda to truly free and independent media. And then - spread the word, tell all your friends, download sample shows and burn them unto CDs and give them out. That will be *your* way of puncturing the ugly bubble of unanimity.
A huge 'thank you!' to you Scott - you are the real patriot ;-)
For all its intrinsic merits - and God know they are numerous - it is unclear how big an audience Scott's show reaches and, even more importantly, how much of an impact it has on anyone. Surely in a country which re-elected, scratch this, which elected Bush the Lesser in the midst of two lost wars any voice for reason and decency is lost in the ocean of stupidity? Not so. Here is why:
Social psychologists have done a lot of work on the issue of conformity. In particular, the experiments of Sherif, Asch and Milgram have looked deeply in the the mechanisms which make people agree to seemingly obviously mistaken and outright evil concepts and actions. One of them (Asch) centered on the effect of the group on an individual's judgment. Basically, he showed that most people tend to agree with other's obviously wrong judgments usually to the point of kidding themselves in to sincerely believing whatever the group says. That's the bad news. The good news is that it only takes ONE dissenter to dramatically decrease this phenomenon. In fact, if ONE sole dissenter's common sense makes him openly challenge the unanimity of the rest of the group members the number of people who choose to conform against their best judgment falls by 75%!
Unanimity is what the Imperial rulers need from their population. This is one of the mains reasons why most authoritarian and all totalitarian regimes spend a truly phenomenal amount of resources trying to silence even a very small minority. For example, in the Soviet Union the so-called 'dissidents' had very little popular support, if any. But the KGB had an entire Main Directorate (the 5th if I remember correctly) only to deal with them. Often this is explained away as "paranoia", and sometimes it is so. But it is also a reflection of an acute understanding by those in powers that only a unanimity (even only a seeming one, an external one - that's all that's needed) can secure the passive compliance of a population.
So this is why Scott's work is truly invaluable: it allows anyone listening to his shows who would otherwise nod his/her head and shut up to think "yeah, that makes sense, and its the others who are full of shit!" and break the psychological barrier of the need to conform.
Even Scott's "rant shows" are hugely valuable because he shows that somebody can get on the air not just somewhere, but in Texas of all places, and speak freely without fear or self-censorship.
I strongly encourage everybody to *totally* cut any contacts with the corporate media. Don't watch TV, don't read the paper, don't listen to the (non-pirate) radio. Not ever, not once. Get all your information ONLY from independent and free media (God knows with the Internet you can get enough of top quality info and analysis - see links poster on the lower left of this page) and re-direct ALL the money you would be spending on corporate propaganda to truly free and independent media. And then - spread the word, tell all your friends, download sample shows and burn them unto CDs and give them out. That will be *your* way of puncturing the ugly bubble of unanimity.
A huge 'thank you!' to you Scott - you are the real patriot ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
