1997-06-03 - Re: McVeigh

Header Data

From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Message Hash: 8e310b4a5a3f109ebc263e010308bf56c36a12c1b16dd621bff659a977a5ba7f
Message ID: <199706031525.LAA07241@muesli.ai.mit.edu>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-03 15:59:10 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:59:10 +0800

Raw message

From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:59:10 +0800
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Subject: Re: McVeigh
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <199706031525.LAA07241@muesli.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> At 08:41 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >Appologists for McVeigh should consider that his actions did not 
> >advance the militia cause an iota, it destroyed it and along with 
> >it much of the right wing fringe.
> "Follow the money" is usually sound advice. More general, ask "who
> benefits". Clearly, the constitutional militias and civil libertarians are
> the losers of the Oklahoma bombing. The sole benefactors are the statists
> and numerous government agencies.

That does not mean that they were the instigators. The militia potentially
stood to gain if the government overreacted and introduced martial law 
type curbs. The objective of terrorism is to provoke a reaction that can be
used as "proof" of the dictatorial nature of the opponent. This is why the
IRA spends its time burning down factories where Catholics work, it can
then blame the state of the Northern Ireland economy on "the British".

The damage done to Newt, Limbaugh and co was because of their reaction to 
the bomb. Limbaugh failed to give the categorical repudiation the act
required. Liddy appeared to be supportive with his "shoot for the head"
statement. It was very easy to pin part of the blame for Oaklahoma on the
people who had made a living out of stirring up hatred and paranoia.

Newt Gingrich got tarred by association with Liddy and Limbaugh. When 
the bombing occured he did precisely what he accuses Clinton of, he
equivocated waiting until the public mood was apparent to condem the
radio extreemists. It was too late for Newt to avoid blame since he had
also made much of his career out of the type of anti-government rant
that led McVeigh to mass murder.

There is a principle in propaganda that people unwittingly accuse others
of their own failings. Hence Newt who began his speakership by seaking 
a $2 million bribe from Rupert Murdoch believes Clinton must also be
on the take. The same principle is at work on the net. McVeigh is found
guilty of murder on the basis of a collosal mountain of evidence. The
reaction from the pro-millitia, pro-McVeigh people is that McVeigh must
have been framed and everyone who believes otherwise is guilty of "knee
jerk" reactions. If that isn't a knee jerk reaction I don't know what is.

There is absolutely nothing that the anti-government ranters contribute
to the pro-cryptography movement. They are a liability at best. Stuart
Baker is even now probably peddling his Clipper chip initiative in
Europe holding up one of Jim Bell's rants as "proof" of his case.