The Real News of the Month

June 2004
Volume 11, Number 6

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
   trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
   2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print

Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617      Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-281-1609 or
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
   issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
   countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.

  -> Dying in Vain
  -> The Passing Scene (plus electronic Exclusives)
  -> King of the Subneocons
  -> Snow White and Anarchism
Nuggets (plus electronic Exclusives)
List of Columns Reprinted in This Issue


{{ Material dropped solely for reasons of space appears 
in double curly brackets. Emphasis is indicated by the 
presence of asterisks around the emphasized words. }}

Dying in Vain
(page 1)

     In Ernest Hemingway's World War I novel A FAREWELL 
TO ARMS, an Italian soldier says, "We won't talk about 
losing. There is enough talk about losing. What has been 
done this summer cannot have been done in vain."

     This moves the American narrator-hero, Frederick 
Henry, who has deserted the Italian army, to a famous 
reflection: "I did not say anything. I was always 
embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice 
and the expression in vain.... I had seen nothing sacred, 
and the things that were glorious had no glory and the 
sacrifices were like the stockyards of Chicago if nothing 
was done with the meat except to bury it.... Abstract 
words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were 
obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the 
numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of 
regiments and the dates."

     The passage may be taken as Hemingway's deflating 
answer to all official grandiloquence about war, from 
"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the Gettysburg 
Address onward. The words Hemingway mocks never sound 
more threadbare than when President Bush assures us that 
hundreds of brave men and women in Iraq have not died in 
vain. But what else can a man in his position say?

     Denying that any American soldier has ever died in 
vain is one of the perennial tasks of the politicians who 
send young men to die in the course of killing. Physical 
and moral horror must be transmuted into glorious 
sacrifice. Imagine a president saying, "All these young 
people died for nothing. It's all my fault."

     Ever since Homer's ILIAD, frank observers of war 
have been stunned by its sheer waste; that is, the 
overwhelming sense that the great majority of the dead 
*have* died in vain, for other men's causes. The common 
soldier who challenges Shakespeare's disguised Henry V on 
the eve of Agincourt realizes that many (including, very 
possibly, himself) are about to die in agony for Henry's 
flimsy title to the French throne. Later, alone, Henry 
muses, with exquisite self-pity, that kings have a tough 
row to hoe: they try so hard to keep peace, then get 
blamed for starting wars! (This subtly ironic play is 
traditionally mistaken for a celebration of Henry's 
heroism. In his wartime film version, designed to boost 
English jingoism, Laurence Olivier had to invent 
sequences of Henry in combat that weren't in the play, 
where Henry is conspicuously absent from the battle 

     A politician's occupation is to waste his country's 
resources. As he spends its wealth in vain, we should 
expect that he will also spend its lives in vain. What 
have we to show for the trillions of dollars the U.S. 
Government has taken from us in taxes over the last 
generation? But taxes arouse relatively little 
indignation; wars are another matter, and rulers must 
fend off the angry suspicion that they have caused our 
boys to die in vain.

     {{ Surely this suspicion underlay the fury of the 
McCarthy era. After countless boys had died to defeat the 
Axis, Americans realized that these lives had been 
sacrificed for a treacherous "ally," the Soviet Union, 
which had now emerged as a deadlier enemy than Japan or 
Germany. }}

     To put it briefly, is there any reason to suppose 
that our wasteful rulers spend our lives any more 
carefully, or scrupulously, than they spend our money? As 
a Shakespearean character might say, "It doth not 

The Passing Scene
(page 2)

     Which of the world's countries has the worst problem 
with illegal aliens? That's easy: Iraq.

*          *          *

     The War on Terror took yet another remarkable turn 
when the Bush administration decided to let former (that 
is to say, recent) members of Saddam Hussein's feared 
Ba'ath Party help restore order against the New Enemy in 
Iraq. This is getting good.

*          *          *

     Meanwhile, our Reliable Ally continues adding to the 
excitement in the Middle East. Ariel Sharon, a genius at 
causing and capitalizing on turmoil, has ordered the 
assassination of the new Hamas leader (killed after less 
than a month on the job), while announcing that he no 
longer feels bound by his pledge to President Bush not to 
kill Yasir Arafat. Abandoning decades of U.S. policy -- 
including his own father's! -- Bush pronounced himself 
mighty pleased by Sharon's decision to dump Gaza while 
keeping as much of the West Bank as the cunning Israeli 
brute cares to retain. Bush's peace plan for the region, 
such as it was, is now reduced to utter rubble. Once 
again Sharon has exposed this swaggering coward to the 
world. More important, he has the United States right 
where he wants it: isolated, with Israel, against the 
whole enraged Muslim world.

*          *          *

     Has Bush noticed that his neoconservative friends 
aren't lifting a finger to help him with Sharon?

*          *          *

     Despite his floundering, Bush has had one undeniable 
piece of great luck: John Kerry. It seems Electable John, 
after the glory of the primary season, just can't get any 
traction. Even the bad news from the Middle East isn't 
helping him in the polls. No matter how deplorable the 
condition of the country gets, it doesn't seem to think 
the cure for what ails it is an ugly Massachusetts 

*          *          *

     Will the Catholic hierarchy deny Kerry Communion for 
his defiance of Catholic teaching? If it does so, we can 
expect the media to portray Kerry as a persecuted 
dissenter, distorting the issue and making the Church, as 
usual, the villain. But laymen don't have to wait for the 
Vatican or the bishops to act: They can protest Kerry's 
presence anytime he shows up at their churches, making it 
clear that they themselves regard him as a flagrantly 
faithless Catholic who is abusing their religion for 
political profit. True, Catholics don't like to make 
scenes in church. But did Jesus *enjoy* making a scene at 
the Temple when it was profaned?

*          *          *

     Well, as I live and breathe! No sooner had I pegged 
George Will as a "subneoconservative" than he made a 
snide reference to the neocons in his own column -- a 
sure sign he's decided they're on the skids and isn't 
planning to answer their phone calls anymore. I guess 
this makes him the first ex-subneocon.

*          *          *

     In the most ignominious act in its history, the 
"conservative" Philadelphia Society has chosen as its new 
president Midge Decter, Mrs. Norman Podhoretz. Mme. 
Podhoretz, as you may recall, once accused the society's 
most august member, Russell Kirk, of "anti-Semitism." 
Thank God Kirk didn't live to see this.

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     Much has been written against Henry VIII, and I 
don't want to pile on. But it seems to me that when a 
fellow finds himself beheading more than one wife, he 
should seriously ask himself whether some of the blame 
for these failed relationships may lie with him.

*          *          *

     A California scholar contends that J. Robert 
Oppenheimer, one of the brains of the atomic bomb, was, 
as long suspected, a member of the Communist Party at 
Berkeley in the 1930s. A new book, on the other hand, 
argues that Harry Dexter White, Number Two man in 
Franklin Roosevelt's Treasury Department, was not, 
contrary to similar suspicions, a Soviet agent; but Ted 
Morgan, in the WASHINGTON POST, cites a conversation in 
which White (nee Weiss) "insist[ed] that the Russians had 
worked out a system that would replace capitalism and 
Christianity." Other papers, some from the Soviet 
archives, also incriminate White. He died suddenly in 
1948 while under investigation by the House Un-American 
Activities Committee. FDR may not have ended the 
Depression, but he did provide many jobs for Stalinists.

King of the Subneocons
(pages 3-5)

     I was there, at the right place at the right time, 
when it started. I didn't quite comprehend what I was 
seeing, though. By the time I recognized it as the 
movement it was, I'd already decided against joining it 
-- to my lasting ruin.

     You may think the last thing we need is another 
political label, along with "radical," "liberal," 
"neoliberal," "libertarian," "conservative," 
"paleoconservative," "neoconservative," and all the rest 
of the verbal clutter of public discourse. I reluctantly 
offer this one, only because I *do* think a certain class 
of today's "conservatives" is now sufficiently large and 
distinctive to deserve identification. They warrant a 
name of their own more specific than "those guys," even 
if they don't know it.

     I refer to the subneoconservatives. The subneocons 
(let's give them a nickname while we're at it) are the 
largely Christian people who, though usually called 
conservatives, no longer uphold the principles of the 
older conservatism once associated with William Buckley 
and NATIONAL REVIEW, but have become reliable 
fellow-travelers (and in many cases useful idiots) of 
neoconservatism. Their chief enthusiasm isn't the free 
market, private property, or limited government; it's war 
-- especially war for the benefit of the state of Israel. 
In fact, Buckley and his magazine themselves are now one 
of the chief organs of subneoconservatism. Looking back, 
I see that this strange hybrid began at the magazine 
around the time I started working there in 1972. I didn't 
suspect a thing.

     But the first notable subneocon wasn't Buckley. It 
was the young Washington correspondent he hired at about 
the time he hired me. His name was George F. Will. 
Buckley, having been tarred as a crypto-Nazi, was making 
nice with the Tribe and saying all the right things about 
Israel and the Holocaust, but at the core he hadn't 
changed much. Yet. It took George Will to see that a 
whole new style of conservatism might be marketable.

     Will was a few years my senior, but he acted much 
older. He looked like one of Bertie Wooster's odd pals -- 
with the face of a haddock, thick glasses, and bow tie -- 
but he spoke with an air of authority, and he was 
obviously determined to go places even then. NATIONAL 
REVIEW was just a launching pad for his career; it was 
bush-league, in his eyes, and he meant to play in the 
majors. He seemed faintly disdainful of its old-style 
conservatism, of its Christianity, and of Buckley 

     Will saw, early on, that the action was elsewhere, 
and he became chummy with Irving Kristol and Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, who were then close associates and had 
been labeled "neoconservatives" (though Moynihan would 
later enter the U.S. Senate as a liberal, if hawkish, 
Democrat). His also cultivated Senator Henry Jackson, the 
neocons' favorite politician and a compleat supporter of 
Israel, whom he would later salute in an obituary as "the 
finest public servant I have ever known." (In his 11,000 
Senate votes, Jackson almost never voted against Federal 
spending, for any purpose.)

     Will regarded the old conservatism as square, and he 
dropped as useless baggage the books conservatives had 
been reading for a generation: those of Henry Hazlitt, 
James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and the 
like. Among conservatives, he was, or tried to appear, 
the Latest Model. Like many seemingly "bold" and "daring" 
people, he was merely quick to realize what had become 
safe and even lucrative.

     Personally, I got along with him well enough, though 
I thought him a bit pompous and calculating. Buckley 
sometimes found him irritating; he once showed me a 
letter he'd written mildly scolding Will, which Will had 
sent back with a brief contemptuous reply penciled in at 
the bottom. "He wouldn't talk to Irving Kristol that 
way," Buckley complained. Indeed.

     I got another glimpse of this side of Will from 
J.P. McFadden, publisher of the anti-abortion quarterly 
THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, who told me he'd asked Will (who 
had written of abortion disapprovingly) to write an 
article for him. Will preferred not to. He ingenuously 
explained that he was afraid that if he wrote for a 
"pro-life" publication, he wouldn't be invited back on 
the talk shows. "You're kidding!" McFadden had exploded, 
finding this a sorry reason. Will, mistaking his meaning, 
replied that no, he wasn't kidding -- it really might 
hurt his career. Will didn't grasp that McFadden was 
amazed not at the fact, but at his cynical acceptance of 

     In his Washington column Will angered NATIONAL 
REVIEW readers by joining the attack on Richard Nixon and 
Spiro Agnew during the Watergate uproar, but he caught 
someone else's eye: he was hired as a columnist by the 
WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK and was soon a regular on 
television political talk shows. NATIONAL REVIEW was 
eating his dust, and he kept a careful public distance 
from traditional conservatism. A lofty "I never knew ye" 
was more or less his stance. He offered himself as the 
"independent" conservative, willing to join liberals in 
bashing Republicans, and naturally liberals loved him. It 
was a profitable pose.

     As years passed, Will made a safe niche of his own 
in the liberal media, continuing to contrast himself 
favorably with lesser conservatives. He had none of their 
square old prudery about the welfare state, which he not 
only accepted, but lauded as a necessary and desirable 
feature of modern society. Above all, he never found 
fault with the state of Israel, except when its Labor 
governments made concessions to the Arabs; his positions 
were identical with hard-line Zionist propaganda; Israel 
was America's "only reliable ally" in the Middle East. At 
the time, though I was strongly pro-Israel myself, I 
wondered how Will squared his own position with his 
proclaimed conservatism. I was still assuming that he was 

     I caught on slowly. I tended to assume, like a 
child, that everyone was sincere. At the same time, I was 
beginning to notice, even in my innocent thirties, a 
general edginess about Tribal matters, and I vaguely 
wondered why so many intelligent people -- Buckley as 
well as Will -- had such an exaggerated fear of the Jews, 
which usually expressed itself in the form of exaggerated 
praise and sympathy, especially for Israel. It seemed to 
me a baffling loss of proportion, as if such people 
believed anti-Semitic notions of ubiquitous Jewish power. 
It was as if Will had staked his whole career on 
believing in, and truckling to, that imaginary power.

     When I myself ran afoul of that imaginary power and 
found it rather surprisingly real, I confided in 
Buckley's nominal publisher, William Rusher, who smiled: 
"Now you're getting close to the white-hot core of this 
whole thing." Again I was baffled, though the scales were 
starting to fall from my eyes. It was as if I'd been 
blind to something that was perfectly obvious to everyone 
else. And they were trying to tell me something, though I 
couldn't make sense of it. It sounded as if they thought 
a few Jews really did control the world! But ... *how?*

     Whatever the explanation, George Will seemed to have 
a much better operational grasp of it than I did, at 
least if celebrity, media exposure, book contracts, 
income, and things of that sort were any measure. With 
all due respect for his poise and talent, his tireless 
cultivation of Tribal favor seemed to be a critical 

     As for me, I had trouble getting any attention at 
all until I wrote a few columns arguing what I thought 
was an at least tenable position: that the alliance with 
Israel had been unduly costly, and posed future dangers, 
to the United States. Suddenly I was the most dangerous 
man since Hitler. I was attacked in various Tribal or 
Tribe-controlled publications, including NEWSWEEK. 
Buckley felt he had to disown my offending columns; he 
did so in an article that Hugh Kenner described to me as 
sounding "as if it were written with a gun to his head."

     What astonished me about all that was the sheer 
*centrality* of Jewish issues in the media. Why were a 
tiny Mideast country and even events of the Hitler era 
always on the front pages, on the evening news, and in 
the forefront of public consciousness? Why were these 
matters always so infernally *touchy?*

     I just didn't know what to make of it, but George 
Will clearly did. To me the exasperating thing was that 
it seemed reasonable to suppose that there might be two 
sides to a controversy. Yet when it came to Tribal 
issues, Will (like many others) always wrote as if the 
Jewish side were self-evidently correct. To this day, as 
far as I know, he has never so much as suggested that 
Israel has ever done wrong to the United States or to the 

     Will's special genius is for playing it safe 
belligerently. This is the key to all the subneocons, in 
fact. They take the side of the Jews because they 
perceive the Jews as strong, while pretending to take the 
Jewish side on moral principle. It was obvious to me long 
ago that if the odds were different, the same people 
would be on the Arab side or even, if it came to that, on 
the Christian or American side. For the time being, 
however, there is little danger of that.

     I sometimes wonder which gentiles were defending the 
Jews when it was a bit risky to defend the Jews. Will has 
written scathingly of Pius XII's "silence" during World 
War II, accusing the entire Catholic Church of 
anti-Semitism. From this, even assuming that Will has his 
facts straight, we may gather one of two things: Either 
Will, in Pius's place, would have shown more courage than 
that Pope did; or it's safer to denounce anti-Semitism in 
America today than it was in German-occupied Rome during 
that war. Will's record under very different contemporary 
pressures leaves me in no doubt as to the answer.

     In 1982 Will tried his hand at political philosophy 
with a little book called STATECRAFT AS SOULCRAFT. To say 
that it failed as philosophy is almost beside the point. 
It was Will at his worst, but also at his most typical. 
He has a thousand opinions, all magisterial, but no 
convictions. He is forever quoting the classics while 
counting the house. Once again he berated other 
conservatives ("soi-disant conservatives," as opposed to 
the One True Conservative) for stubbornly rejecting the 
New Deal and other additions to the welfare state. He 
also praised Israel.

     A cynic might suggest that Will wrote about 
"soulcraft" because he'd learned the cash value of 
selling one's soul. But whatever the reason, the theme 
has completely disappeared from his subsequent writings. 
Soulcraft must have seemed like a hot idea at the time.

     In NATIONAL REVIEW I ridiculed Will's "toothless, 
coffee-table conservatism," but I needn't have bothered. 
His book had no impact. And this is curiously true of his 
whole career. He has won great success without having any 
visible influence. After more than thirty years in the 
public eye, as America's most respected conservative 
between Buckley and Limbaugh, there is no such thing as a 
Will disciple. He has added nothing to the idea of 
conservatism; he has merely set a pattern for opportunism 
in the guise of conservatism. Maybe in that respect he 
has, if not disciples, at least many imitators. At any 
rate, his book reinforced my growing suspicion that he 
took his positions only for advantage. I've never known 
him to take a position that cost him anything. He saw the 
paleocons as losers, and he was determined never to be 
one of them. Under all his fancy talk, it really came 
down to that.

     The old conservatism made a surprising comeback in 
1980, when a longtime subscriber to NATIONAL REVIEW was 
elected president of the United States. We at the 
magazine rejoiced, but we were also caught off-balance 
after so many years in the wilderness that we hardly knew 
what to do with the actual political triumph of our 
fantasies. Will was ready, though: He and the neocons 
moved right in to capitalize on the situation. Their 
agenda was not to repeal the welfare state, of course, 
but to convert Reagan's anti-Communist hawkishness into 
more American military intervention in the Middle East. 
Will also became a frequent luncheon companion of Nancy 
Reagan; meanwhile, Bill Buckley and his wife savored 
their own friendship with the Reagans. "We" had 

     During the Reagan years, neocon infiltration of both 
the Reagan administration and conservative institutions 
changed the nature of the conservative movement. The 
conversion of conservatives into subneocons became the 
greatest mass movement since the Okie migrations of the 
Great Depression. The Soviet Union was dying and the Cold 
War with it, but "national defense" became the movement's 
top priority, even as the Federal Government continued 
its mad expansion.

     Led by Congressman Jack Kemp, Republican subneocons 
made their peace with big government, Federal spending, 
and budget deficits on a scale Franklin Roosevelt himself 
never dreamed of. Conservative think tanks became all-out 
neocon (the American Enterprise Institute) or, more 
often, subneocon (the Heritage Foundation, the Ethics and 
Public Policy Center). The presidency of the first George 
Bush found them eager for war with Iraq, though 
disappointed when it stopped short of "regime change."

     During these years, a new generation of allegedly 
conservative pundits appeared, almost all of whom have 
been, in truth, subneocons who fawn on Israel, support 
the Likud party to the hilt, and hunger for war on Arabs: 
Rush Limbaugh (of course), Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, 
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the late Michael Kelly, Mark 
Steyn, Richard Lowry (Buckley's anointed successor at 
NATIONAL REVIEW), Jonah Goldberg, and on and on. Even 
clergymen, Catholics as well as evangelical Protestants, 
have joined the ranks: Richard John Neuhaus, Jerry 
Falwell, Pat Robertson. Then there are such newspapers as 
DIGEST has gotten in step. All fervently support the new 
George Bush and the War on Terror, uninhibited by old 
conservative scruples against unconstitutional 

     At the same time, once-prominent conservatives who 
have refused to go subneocon -- Pat Buchanan, Sam 
Francis, and myself, for example -- have been 
marginalized. I wasn't surprised when Will joined the 
1996 media assault on Buchanan, hinting that he was a 
"fascist." If there is anything a coward hates, it's any 
display of courage.

     Critics observe that the neoconservatives are much 
the same people they always were: Cold War liberals, 
mostly Jewish, who have merely changed their emphases. 
There is much truth in this, though I'd say that Irving 
Kristol, the Founding Father of neoconservatism, has a 
genuine and strong conservative streak.

     But it also means that the deeper metamorphosis has 
taken place among Christian conservatives, who have 
forsaken their ancestral principles. George Will led the 

     If he hadn't done it, someone else, cowardice being 
what it is, inevitably would have. That's why it's so 
easy to forget to give him the credit he deserves. But I 
was present at the creation, and I am happy to set the 
record straight. He was, and remains, the king of the 

Snow White and Anarchism
(page 6)

     The other night I watched Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE 
for the umpteenth time, still feeling a bit of the 
enchantment it gave me as a small boy more than fifty 
years ago. This time it gave rise to a thought that had 
never occurred to me before.

     The Seven Dwarfs, I noticed, seem to live happily in 
the forest with no formal government to speak of. Though 
they mine diamonds for a living, their modest home 
suggests either extreme frugality or a certain lack of 
business sense. Nevertheless, they enjoy a harmonious 
existence until Snow White inadvertently brings the 
government into their home, in the form of the wicked 

     Nearly everyone in our age agrees that government is 
necessary to social life. As Thomas Hobbes wrote, life in 
a state of nature is "a war of every man against every 
man," bound to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and 
short," until a power arises to "keep them all in awe." 
What kind of government? That seems to be secondary. The 
main thing is that there be some Top Dog to maintain 
order: a king, a dictator, or whatever, with an absolute 
monopoly of coercive power.

     By this reasoning, plausible at first sight, the 
Dwarfs owe their happiness to the sovereignty of the 
Queen. But that hardly seems to be the lesson of the 
story; the opposite seems nearer the truth. I should 
mention that I disagree with the Queen's magic mirror; I 
find her better-looking, and more interesting as a 
person, than Snow White. The sadder but wiser girl for 
me. Still, she is definitely trouble.

     The assumption that social life depends on the state 
-- a monopoly of force with the authority to use it -- is 
curiously stubborn. To most people the proposition that 
we'd be better off without it seems counterintuitive, 
even baffling. They can hardly imagine a stateless 
society, despite the dreadful record of the state over 
the last century especially. Not only have the collisions 
of states produced colossal wars; even within their own 
borders, states have proved oppressive, inefficient, and 
often murderous. Yet it's hardly an exaggeration to say 
that we are all Hobbesians now.

     Would Hobbes say that it's better to be ruled even 
by a Saddam Hussein or a Stalin than to have no Top Dog 
at all? That seems to be the logic of his position. Most 
readers have found Hobbes's naked statement of this 
position repellent, but they accept it in principle. 
Today, for example, the Bush administration deems it 
insufficient to topple Saddam; it feels it must replace 
him with, as it were, a kinder, gentler, "democratic" 
Saddam, a Top Dog with broad popular support. {{ The 
alternative would be an intolerable vacuum. }}

     Brilliant men -- Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Hayek, 
and many others -- have labored to solve the conundrum of 
the state. But all attempts to limit it have finally 
failed; the U.S. Government today is the best proof, 
since it is vastly remote from, if not opposite to, the 
vision of its Founders. But this rather obvious fact is 
lost on Americans today, including their muddle-headed 

     One objection to Hobbes is that states have been of 
so many different kinds. One state professes to protect 
private property; others have tried to abolish it. One 
state seeks to enforce one religious orthodoxy; others 
seek to establish another religion, or even atheism, on 
the plausible view that human society requires some basic 
unity of belief. Such conflicting purposes of states, 
each supposedly necessary to any social life, seem to me 
to show that no state is necessary. True, some states are 
more destructive than others, but the fact that human 
society, however impaired, seems to survive them all 
suggests that society continues to exist in spite of 
states, not because of them. What keeps society going, 
under even the most despotic regimes, is whatever is left 
of free human energies {{ (as in Communism's black 
markets). }}

     In a way, Jefferson offered the most seductive 
justification for the state. He rightly asserted that all 
of us have inalienable rights, but he added that 
governments -- monopoly states -- are established to 
"secure" these rights. This too is plausible but 
paradoxical. How can freedom depend on force? The 
American Founders thought they'd solved the problem posed 
by Hobbes, but they accepted his premise, and by now the 
results are all too clear.

     The Dwarfs are better off without the Queen, and 
that would still be true if they elected her themselves. 
If states are created in order to secure our rights, they 
all fail spectacularly and always have, including the one 
expressly established for just that purpose. We can only 
begin to secure our rights by eliminating that damned and 
damnable thing, which Albert Jay Nock called "our enemy, 
the State."


THE BIG PICTURE: The returns on the sexual revolution are 
now in, and they are beyond what even pessimists foresaw. 
White Westerners are reproducing themselves below 
replacement levels; thanks to low birth rates and 
immigration, Italy and Spain are well on the way to 
becoming Muslim countries. Islamic terrorism is a trifle; 
the real story is demography. As the churches empty, 
mosques spring up, full of ardent believers. Muslim calls 
to prayer ring through the cities, from Madrid to 
Hamtramck, Michigan. Note: Islam hasn't joined the sexual 
revolution. (page 8)

FRIENDS: One of the creepiest Republicans in the U.S. 
Senate, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has narrowly won a 
primary victory over a conservative challenger, 
Congressman Pat Toomey, thanks to, yes, two of the 
party's leading conservatives. One, of course, was 
President Bush, who dropped by to endorse Specter, 
allowing that "he's a little independent sometimes -- 
nothin' wrong with that." The other was the state's other 
Republican senator, the allegedly anti-abortion Rick 
Santorum, who campaigned hard to help the pro-abortion 
Specter keep his seat. Truly, the party is dearer than 
life itself. (page 10)

generation, liberals have accused only two men of 
producing pornography: Ken Starr and Mel Gibson. 
(page 12)

Exclusive to electronic media:

OUR FIGHTING WOMEN: Pfc. Lynndie England, of Fort Ashby, 
West Virginia, is the girl you've seen posing, all 
smiles, in those photos with naked Arab prisoners in Abu 
Ghraib prison. Lynndie, who has been fired, is pregnant 
by a man she no longer sees, and faces a court martial, 
is now the most famous female American soldier since 
another West Virginian, Jessica Lynch.

ALL IN GOOD FUN: Rush Limbaugh likens the torture of 
those Arab detainees to college fraternity pranks. Pardon 
me for splitting hairs, but if college boys inflicted 
their little jokes on involuntary subjects for six months 
or so, they'd wind up doing time for kidnapping, assault, 
and other crimes.

LESSONS OF THE MASTERS: Some of the interrogation 
techniques used at Abu Ghraib -- such as keeping 
prisoners hooded for months -- go beyond frat-boy humor 
and suggest coaching from a Reliable Ally whose agents 
are eager and experienced in these matters. Expect any 
congressional inquiry to avoid this angle, however. 

(pages 7-12)

* Taking the Bait (April 6, 2004)

* Waste Your Vote (April 20, 2004)

* Conscience and Terrorism (April 8, 2004)

* Alex Revisited (April 22, 2004)

* The Tragedy of Iraq (April 27, 2004)

* Sympathy for the Savage (April 29, 2004)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran

You may forward this newsletter if you include the 
following subscription and copyright information:

Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package. 
or for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2004 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.