Establishment Mouthpiece
Will's Call For Mass Moslem
Civilian Killings
From Dick Eastman

BlankGeorge Will, that fastidious "yes-man" prig -- that not-very-bright lap dog full of all of the canards of Rockefeller correctness, has given us his solution to defeating an "intensly motivated enemy" (referring to Arabs and Moslems intensly motivated by our mass-murderings, economic plunderings, and endless instances of hardship inflicting injustices that doom their future generations to misery and debt slavery etc.) I have yet to see a better example of the degeneracy, incompetence and depravity of our deviant soi-disant "elites" than Will's "modest proposal" that follows below-- excluding the stupidities and bararities issuing from our own White House, State Department and Defense Departments.
And Will's essay is of course infinitely more evil and debauched knowing, as most of us do now, that the Moslem peoples have been framed by our very own deviant ruling class, that the WTC crashbombing was not the work of Moslems opposing globalists, that it was the work of globalists seeking control of Caspian oil wealth and continued flows of the investment-bank launderable heroin revenues that depends on the opium crops supplied by the "Northern Alliance" drug lords, a trade that the Taliban had almost succeeded in erradicating when globalism undertook its illegitimate conquest.
Anyone in America's heartland who thinks he is a "conservative" as George Will is a conservative --was he named after George III, as he named his daughter after Queen Victoria?-- is totally deceived. Mouthpieces like WIll, Tony Snow, Limbaugh, William Buckley (who "banished" all anti-CFR thinkers from the conservative movement in the early 1960's) and the rest of the "conservative" panoply are decadent pretending aristrocrats, (aristocracy is traditionally viewed as treason in the, the intended land of the free) referring to themselves as "upper class" (as Snow did in a conversation with me, a caller, on a radio program) and opposed to all of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Jeffersonian ideals of American populism.
Populists are what heartland Americans are and what all Americans can be and are better off being -- no matter how recently they arrived in this country, no matter what color their skin or how and when they pray to the God of us all . Don't let the monopoly media deceive you into thinking that the only choice is between "liberal" and "conservative" -- which is as phony a dichotomy as that of "republican and democrat" -- since the leaders of both the "liberals" and the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats -- are CFR mouthpieces and the CFR is nothing but the interlocking directorate that runs a United States that is in receivership to the investment bankers of Wall Street and the City of London and Shanghai-HongKong.
Here is Will, followed by the brilliant and establishment indicting answer of Thomas J. DiLorenzo author of: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
Thank you Lew Rockwell, whoever you are, for exposing Will and introducing us to DiLorenzo, a true friend of human kind everywhere. ___
In the Washington Post George Will writes: Thursday, December 27, 2001; Page A23
"I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill (the) three hundred thousand I have told you of so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them." -- Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, 1864
America's Civil War provides many analogies by which we measure -- and sometimes misunderstand -- today's military developments, and American ways of waging war.
Because facets of the Afghanistan operations -- real-time intelligence, stealthy aircraft, precision munitions -- are so modern, we miss the fact that the war requires an American tradition of warmaking that has a 19th-century pedigree. And the bloody uprisings by fanatical Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners underscore the pertinence of Sherman's understanding of how to define victory over an intensely motivated enemy.
When military operations in Afghanistan began, just four weeks after Sept. 11 and three weeks after Gen. Tommy Franks was told to begin planning attacks, some critics were quick to say the operations did not begin quickly enough. Then they said the tempo of operations was too torpid. Critics compared Franks -- and Colin Powell, ever mindful of allies' sensibilities -- to Gen. George McClellan. Those were fighting words, because McClellan was a reluctant fighter.
One of President Lincoln's commanders, McClellan was notoriously reluctant to close with Confederate forces, the strength of which he consistently overestimated. This drove Lincoln to distraction, and to sarcasm about hoping to "borrow" the Army if McClellan was not using it.
Sherman, an energetic user of the Army, believed its principal use against the Confederacy was not to occupy territory but to destroy enemy personnel. His reason for believing this has contemporary resonance during a war against fanatics, many of whom come from the privileged strata of corrupt and exploitative societies.
Long before secession, Sherman despised the South for its caste and class systems. In 1843, when stationed in South Carolina, he wrote: "This state, their aristocracy . . . their patriarchal chivalry and glory -- all trash. No people in America are so poor in reality, no people so poorly provided with the comforts of life."
So why did the Confederate army, composed mostly of poor whites, fight for a social system beneficial only to a tiny landed minority? Partly because of the elan of its martial elite, those whom Sherman called "young bloods" who were "brave, fine riders, bold to rashness and dangerous in every sense."
Sherman, writes professor Victor Davis Hanson in his book "The Soul of Battle," considered the Confederacy "a motley conglomeration of distrustful factions." Sherman thought the really dangerous faction -- dangerous during the war, and potentially afterward -- consisted of what Hanson calls "young zealots, men between 18 and 40 who often formed the cavalry of the South and were led by rabid knights like Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler and Jeb Stuart. These fanatics . . . were the children of the wealthy, excellent horsemen, full of youthful vigor and insolence."
The South, although militarily weak, "fielded," Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called "the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
Donald Rumsfeld says his preference is for al Qaeda fighters to surrender rather than fight to the death: "It ends it faster. It's less expensive." Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says: "This is not a war of extermination." Such statements are perhaps obligatory and even sincere.
However, is surrender really less expensive in the long run? It is a reasonable surmise that a reformed terrorist is a very rare terrorist, and that the rate of recidivism will be high among terrorists who are forced to surrender but continue to believe they are doing God's will when they commit mass murder of infidels. So, as far as is consistent with the rules of war and the husbanding of the lives of U.S. military personnel, U.S. strategy should maximize fatalities among the enemy, rather than expedite the quickest possible cessation of hostilities.
Many Americans will vehemently reject any analogy between Confederate and al Qaeda elites. But Sherman might have felt vindicated by a postwar letter from one former Confederate general to another, D. H. Hill to Jubal Early:
"Why has the South become so toadyish & sycophantic? I think it is because the best and noblest were killed off during the war."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company =====
Here is Thomas DiLorenzo's reply:
Letter to the Editor The Washington Post
Dear Editor:
In his recent article on General Sherman, George Will picked the wrong role model from which to derive lessons for waging the war on terrorism ("Gen. Sherman's Advice," Dec. 27). General Grant would have been a better choice, since he excelled in bringing the war to enemy combatants. Sherman's specialty, on the other hand, was waging war on civilians, as I discuss in The Real Lincoln (Forum/Random House, Feb. 2002).
In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife Sherman explained that his goal was "extermination, not of soldiers alone . . . but the people." Beginning in 1862 Sherman ordered his army to burn the towns of Randolph, Tennessee, and Vicksburg, Jackson, and Meridian, Mississippi after the Confederate army had evacuated. "Meridian no longer exists," Sherman wrote to Grant in the spring of 1863. This was all apparently a rehearsal for the burning of Atlanta after the Confederate army had left the city, an act that Sherman's chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, said was of no military significance at all.
Just three months after Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Sherman was given the assignment of eradicating the Plains Indians from the western territories to make way for the transcontinental railroad. In his memoirs Sherman wrote of how he instructed his army that, during its assaults on Native American villages, "the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." Most of Sherman's raids on Native American villages were planned in the winter months, when families would be together, according to Sherman biographer John F. Marszalek. A year before his death in 1889 Sherman wrote a letter to his son in which he expressed his deep regret that his armies did not kill every last Native American.
Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who lionizes the general, concludes that had the Confederates somehow won the war they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for . . . waging war against noncombatants." George Will contradicts himself by offering Sherman as a role model on the one hand, while urging our military to act "consistent with the rules of war" on the other.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Professor of Economics
Loyola College,
Baltimore Maryland ==========
Source: Of Will and DiLorenzo letters:, as posted to the piml list. ========
I recommend:
Non-CFR news and analysis of the WTC crashbombing frame-up of Afganistan and related matters
Clarification of the political landscape (passages from history kept from you):
My key articles available at: (many helpful discussant/activists archived here)
Solution oriented (good men, good minds, right objective, appropriate means):
Ron Paul for President in 2004 (both a call for reform and a protest in one well-placed constructive best shot)


This Site Served by TheHostPros