https://newsmakingnews.com

CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2000

Click. Scientists told the mumps measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism. 

Click. AMERICAN INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians says its council members and top executives don't have to file personal-financial disclosure forms required of state and local officeholders and heads of agencies. 

Click. "THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW." A book review.

Click.  A SOLUTION TO THE GULF WAR SYNDROME MYSTERY by Barry Chamish.


Scientists told MMR vaccine can cause autism

By Sarah-Kate Templeton Health Editor
Publication Date: Sep 10 2000

Laboratory experiments have shown for the first time that the mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism, experts gathered at an international conference were told this weekend.

Professor Vijendra Singh, of Utah State University, speaking at the International Public Conference on Vaccination, being held in Virginia, said he has scientific evidence that the controversial jab triggers an immune reaction which damages a protein in the brain, causing autism. Singh first suggested two years ago that exposure to the measles virus could trigger a response in some children which interferes with the development of the myelin sheath which surrounds the nerves in the brain. If the myelin does not develop pro perly, nerve fibres do not work as they should and this could explain brain abnormalities associated with autism.

But now the leading US researcher has carried out laboratory experiments which he believes show that the MMR vaccine triggers an auto-immune reaction in autistic children causing antibodies in the blood to attack the brain. He argues that autism is caused by auto-immunity - an abnormal reaction in which the immune system becomes primed to react against body organs - to part of the brain.

He said: "This study provides the first ever laboratory-based evidence for a causal relationship between MMR and autism. As I made scientific presentation of my initial findings, a vaccine-autism connection became even more apparent. The rapidly accumulating evidence strongly implicates auto-immunity in autism, which in many may result from a vaccine injury."

Singh analysed blood samples from 140 youngsters, 80 of whom suffered from autism, and found antibodies associated with the MMR vaccine in 53% of the autistic children. These antibodies were not found in the blood of any of the control group.

Singh insists his findings, which have been submitted to The Lancet medical journal, are solid evidence of the link between the vaccine and the increase in autism in children.

Dr Scott Montgomery of Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, who also spoke at the conference, said the research highlighted the need for a larger study. "There have been no studies so far that have shown the absolute safety or absolute risk," said Montgomery. "I think the most sensible thing now is that there has to be an epidemiological study comparing a large group which has been exposed to the MMR vaccine and another which has not."

More than 90% of Scots children are immunised with the MMR vaccine. However, growing fear that the jab is linked to autism has prompted some Scottish families to pay a private GP to inoculate their children with separate jabs shipped from France. Dr Peter Copp, from Edinburgh, has imported 200 sets of the three vaccines and is inoculating up to 15 children a day. He is now placing his second order.

The reaction of parents has prompted the government to issue reassurances as to the safety of the vaccine. Last month, Sir David Carter, outgoing chief medical officer, warned that the failure of parents to have their children inoculated could cause epidemics of measles, mumps and rubella.

Last night, David Thrower, who believes his son's autism is a result of receiving the triple vaccine, welcomed Singh's study. He said: "These scientists are not doing this because they don't like vaccines, they are doing this because their scientific research is leading them in this direction. This has got to be an extremely important finding. The scientific community has to respond positively."


Tribe draws line in sand

By Robert T. Garrett
The Press-Enterprise
SACRAMENTO

An Indian tribe in Palm Springs labels state-required political campaign finance reports with this disclaimer, "This report filing is a courtesy from the sovereign nation of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians."

The tribe also says its council members and top executives don't have to file personal-financial disclosure forms required of state and local officeholders and heads of agencies.

Even as casino money has turned the Agua Caliente into a major political donor, the tribe has also aggressively asserted sovereignty, raising questions about whether tribes and their leaders have to follow the same rules that special-interest groups and politicians must obey.

As with all tribes, the Agua Caliente occupy a unique place in American law and government as "domestic dependent nations," a term that defies easy description.

To tribal leaders, that means they answer to Washington, if to anyone; and that they don't have to follow Sacramento's edicts unless Congress orders it. Sometimes they cooperate as a sort of state-to-state courtesy. Sometimes not.

But a leading conservative Republican, a group opposed to expansion of gambling and a campaign-finance watchdog group have criticized the Agua Caliente's stance, which differs from most other tribes that file the reports without the "courtesy" notification.

Jim Knox, executive director of Common Cause, a campaign-finance watchdog group, said if the tribes are truly sovereign nations and do not have to obey state campaign-finance disclosure rules, they perhaps should be treated as foreign entities and banned from contributing in state elections.

"It is unlawful in California for a foreign national to contribute money to a ballot measure," Knox said. He noted that the tribes poured more than $110 million into two initiatives seeking to legalize Indian casinos, Prop. 5 in 1998 and Prop. 1A last March.

"So it's either one way or another," Knox said -- mandatory compliance with state campaign-finance laws or no involvement in ballot-measure efforts. "You can't have it both ways."

Assemblyman Bruce Thompson, a Fallbrook Republican and critic of Indian gaming, said, "They better just face the music because . . . nobody's going to back off this requirement stuff. The people of California will say, `No, we want to know what kind of influence you are peddling.' "

But the Agua Caliente and their defenders, including other Republican legislators from the Inland area, said the tribe is obeying all rules that the state, for its purposes, needs it to obey; and at the same time is defending precious rights of self-governance.

"We're an individual nation within this nation," said Agua Caliente vice chairman Barbara Gonzales Lyons. "We have to make sure we distinguish all the time that we have our own laws."

The criticism of recent Agua Caliente stands, Lyons said, only shows what an uphill task Indian leaders face as they try to educate both fellow American Indians and the general public about the tribes' special status.

Lyons said the U.S. government broke virtually every promise it made to the Indians, and the tribes can't afford to give away their autonomy by obeying every law or regulation imposed by the states.

The issue of Indian sovereignty also sparks passionate debates about whether tribes should pay the same taxes; be exposed to the same liability from lawsuits; and follow the same environmental rules and building codes as other California citizens and businesses.

The issue of tribes' compliance with campaign-finance reporting rules surfaced in June, when California Common Cause reported casino-operating tribes are now the No. 1 source of money for candidates for the Legislature and statewide offices. Since mid-1997, the Aqua Caliente have given more than $4 million in state elections.

Though Congress has said that in California and 11 other states, criminal codes apply, if it has not specified that the tribes must obey a state law, they don't automatically have to, according to Art Bunce, a Palm Springs lawyer who represents the Agua Caliente.

He said the tribe has asserted sovereignty on two political matters in recent years.

The first involved campaign contributions. In August 1998, Stand Up for California, a group opposed to Indian gaming, complained to the state Fair Political Practices Commission that the Agua Caliente had failed to file required reports on large contributions they had made to the campaign to approve Prop. 5.

The next month, Bunce wrote the commission, offering a detailed argument as to why tribes have no duty to follow a state law that requires big donors of money in state elections to file disclosure reports.

But Bunce said the Agua Caliente would voluntarily comply because it "has nothing to hide." Also, the tribe recognizes state regulators need to be able to use major-donor and late-contribution reports by contributors to confirm the accuracy of reports by candidates and ballot-measure campaigns, he said.

On Sept. 18, 1998, the tribe reported its contributions from the previous 20 months. It has hired a Los Angeles political law firm to help it file timely reports on its contributions since, Bunce said last week.

"Our instructions to them are simply make every filing that would normally be required; do it on time; do it right; and make sure that every one is identified as voluntary and a courtesy," Bunce said.

"The state should be happy. The state is getting voluntary compliance in an area, frankly, where it is not entitled to any compliance."

The Agua Caliente balked last year at following another political rule, however.

As an associate member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the tribe received state economic interest forms. Each tribal leader who sits on the association's governing board was asked to disclose all income, assets and gifts of $50 or more other than from their families.

The association tries to help its members comply with state conflict-of-interest laws, said Kelly Kennedy, its director of administrative services. The tribe, which has its own conflict-of-interest code, last year would not require its officials to disclose their finances.

Cheryl Schmit, co-director of Stand Up for California, said tribes must comply with state laws.

"I don't see how (the federal law that makes some state penal codes apply on reservations) is an argument for violating the Political Reform Act," she said.

If Californians are to "respect the sovereignty of tribes, . . . tribes must respect the rights of California citizens," she said.

Assemblymen Jim Battin, R-La Quinta, and Brett Granlund, R-Yucaipa, however, said they support the Agua Caliente's position because tribes must protect their special status.

Last week, Battin won passage of a legislative resolution that calls on state agencies to treat tribes "in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner that is respectful of tribal sovereignty."

Robert T. Garrett can be reached in Sacramento at (916) 445-9973 or by e-mail at .


The Enterprise of Law  by Bruce L. Benson
(San Francisco:  Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy,1991)
Book Review (Previously published in Full Context, Feb-Mar, 2000)

Reviewed by Nicholas Dykes © 2000

The longest running debate in Libertarian/Objectivist circles, and at times
the most heated, has been between proponents of  limited government and
those of anarcho-capitalism -- more succinctly, between minarchists and
anarchists.  In 1997/98, for instance, a "Great Anarcho-Capitalist Debate"
raged inconclusively for months on the Internet discussion group
Objectivism-L (now renamed ).

One reason for this inconclusiveness is the hypothetical nature of much of the debate:  discussions of the likely or unlikely behaviour of imaginary 'defence agencies' in societies which have never existed are hardly
persuasive.  It is therefore surprising that the debaters have not had more
recourse to The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson, a treatise packed with evidence about societies which have existed and defence agencies which currently doexist.  Dr Benson mentions neither minarchists nor
anarchists, yet his book bears directly on their debates.

    Dr. Benson's Introduction begins:  "Anyone who would even question the
'fact' that law and order are necessary functions of government is likely to
be considered a ridiculous, uninformed radical ... But even though most
academics do not question the logic of government domination of law and the maintenance of order, large segments of the population do.  Surveys and polls indicate growing dissatisfaction with all aspects of government law enforcement ..." and, in consequence, "privately produced crime detection, arbitration and mediation are growth industries in the United States."(1) It is thus time, asserts Dr Benson, "to question the presumption that law and order must be governmentally provided."(5)

Part I of The Enterprise of Law is devoted to showing that, in fact,
"our modern reliance on government to make law and establish order is not
the historical norm"(2).  The historical norm was customary law which,
spontaneously created and voluntarily obeyed, provided law and order in all
early societies.  Since customary law had precisely the same status and
served the same purpose as the state-created law we take for granted today, the commonly-held belief that law and government develop together is mistaken.

 As an illustration of a stateless, customary law society, Dr Benson
refers us to the Kapauku of New Guinea, who were studied in depth by the
anthropologist Leopold Popisil in the 1950s (15ff).  The Kapauku had no
government, yet enjoyed a prosperous and largely tranquil existence based on horticulture.  All property was private, even strips of forest, and
individual rights were clearly recognised.  Personal protection was provided by kinship groups, and disputes were settled by prominent and wealthy men called tonowi  The tonow had no authority.  They maintained their judicial role solely through respect garnered from wise decisions,
effectively competing with one another.  However, competition did not make the administration of justice haphazard or arbitrary.  All legal proceedings followed well-established rituals and had to accord with memorised precedents.

The non-governmental legal system of the Kapauku was remarkably similar in its guiding principles to that of Anglo-Saxon England (21ff).  Among the Anglo-Saxons, protection was provided by kindred or neighbourhood groups called "tithings" whose members had reciprocal agreements to help each other in times of trouble and to join the hue and cry in pursuit of thieves, murderers, etc.  Groups of tithings formed a "hundred" in each of which was a "hundredsman," a respected individual who was informed of wrongdoing and who organised the hue and cry; and a court presided over by a judicial committee drawn from the men of the tithings.  There were separate shire courts for disputes between members of different hundreds. 

Anglo-Saxon customary law was primarily concerned with protection of
individuals and their property, and with restitution to victims, and/or
their families, in the event laws were broken.  Offences were treated as
torts -- wrongs to be righted by compensation -- and there was an elaborate system of fines covering the appropriate payments for homicide, wounding, rape, indecent assault, theft, etc.  Persons who refused to accept the judgment of the court were declared outlaws and could be killed and their property taken with impunity.  This powerful sanction was sufficient to inspire acceptance of court rulings in most cases.

The Anglo-Saxon system was voluntary:  no one was forced to join it nor
taxed to pay for it.  However, everyone  was involved, and the system was
respected and sustained, because customary law successfully provided both protection and arbitration at minimum cost.  It evolved spontaneously,
without state involvement, for the simple reason that there was no state.

Another commonplace of modern thought is that government is necessary to create a level playing field for trade and commerce.  In point of fact,
government involvement in commercial law is quite recent.  The collapse of
the Roman Empire after 400 AD virtually extinguished European commerce. When trade began to revive, a separate system of customary law arose spontaneously to facilitate local and international commerce (30ff). Merchants set up their own courts to resolve their disputes; effective
procedures were copied; and gradually a common, entirely private and
entirely objective 'Law Merchant' spread, and was recognised, throughout
Europe and beyond.  All the basic principles of modern commercial law,
national and international, are derived from the medieval Law Merchant.

The Law Merchant was also universally obeyed.  Firstly, the judges were
merchants themselves who were intimately familiar with the kind of cases
they ruled upon:  their judgments were sound.  Secondly, no one would deal with a trader who refused to abide by the decision of a merchant court.  The
judges had no means to enforce their decisions, but the boycott sanction was so effective it removed any need for coercion.  The Law Merchant thus
"shatters the myth that government must define and enforce the 'rules of the
game.'" (30)

Why, given the effectiveness of customary legal systems, asks Dr Benson,
have nation-states taken on such a substantial role in the creation and
enforcement of law? (36)  To answer this, Dr Benson takes us back to the
origins of kingship in Anglo-Saxon England.  Kings were originally temporary war leaders.  But because Anglo-Saxon England was in a virtually constant state of war, kingship gradually became a permanent institution. To support it, and to pay for war, kings needed money.  

Customary law fines were a very visible source, and Dr Benson shows how the British monarchy, particularly after the Norman conquest, and using a carrot and stick approach involving both inducement and force (coupled with the heavyweight backing of the Church) -- though not without considerable resistance -- gradually pushed its way into the fields of law-making and justice and slowly replaced Anglo-Saxon torts with 'crimes against the state' so that fines went to the crown, not to the victim.

The monetary objective of state involvement in law is shown most clearly by the royal legal invention of 'theftbote,' which made it a crime to settle an offence privately -- and thus deprive the crown of its profits (62) -- a concept still with us.  In later centuries the crown also forced its way into commercial law (c. 1600 AD) and, finally, but not until the 19th century, took over policing as well.

For those who might dismiss customary law as ancient history, irrelevant
to the modern world, Dr Benson draws attention to white settlement of the
American West, in which customary law preceded state law, and which modern scholarship has shown to be much more peaceful than is usually thought: "some long-cherished notions about lawlessness, violence, and justice in the Old West ... are nothing more than myth." (312)

    What emerges most clearly from Dr Benson's account is that the evolution
of state involvement in law had nothing to do with lofty goals of promoting
justice for all, preserving freedom, or protecting citizens:  it was
entirely concerned with raising money to pay the upkeep of the state, which
in turn rested upon a royal imperative to wage war.  War isn't just the
health of the state, as Randolph Bourne observed;  it is the state's raison
d'être. (fn 2)

    Dr Benson's survey of the transition from customary to authoritarian law
takes up less than a quarter of the book.  In Part II, he examines the
actual functioning of state provision of law and justice in the USA today.
Using public choice analysis, he describes this as a 'political market.'  In
Part III, he examines resurgence of private policing and arbitration in the
face of widespread failure by the state to provide either.  Part IV looks at
topics such as logical deficiencies in arguments for the state monopoly on
law; and the corruption of state law enforcement officials, including
judges:  "organised crime cannot function without organised justice." (161)
The study concludes (Part V) with speculation about an entirely private
system of law in which Dr Benson echoes David Friedman's observation that "the most effective way to demonstrate that these things can be done
privately is to do them." (344)

It is not possible in a short review to comment on all the challenging
ideas and observations in The Enterprise of Law.   Every section of the
book is enlightening, supported by solid evidence, and closely reasoned.

Part II does seem especially important however, for here Dr Benson shows
that state lawmaking invariably turns into a political process;  one
dominated by pressure groups and self-serving bureaucracies whose prime motivations diverge sharply from their ostensible purpose of protecting the public.  The oft-lamented inefficiency, tardiness and callousness of state legal proceedings are shown to be, not accidental, but systemic.

The selfsame political process also creates powerful incentives and
disincentives for law enforcement officials which either have little to do
with justice, or work actively against it.  For example, police success is
measured by arrest rate. (131)  This gives officers a strong incentive to
focus on 'soft' targets such as vice and drugs -- where arrests are numerous and easy (136) -- and to avoid the vastly more important field of crime prevention, which yields no arrests at all.

Similarly, state attorneys are rewarded on the basis of successful
prosecutions.  This has led them to rely more and more on plea bargaining
which, while often allowing villains to get off more lightly than their
offences warrant, takes much less time and effort and hence produces the
politically desirable or career-enhancing statistics more rapidly. (137ff)

Virtually all the incentives and disincentives driving the state legal
system work against the original subject of law, the wronged victim, who has to "fend for himself every step of the way." (147)

Chapter 12 is a good illustration of the logical power of the book.  It
begins:  "Two conflicting monopoly arguments are presented to justify state
provision of police, courts, and law.  First, a single law-and-order firm
will naturally emerge to monopolize the entire industry, which means that
this firm will be able to dictate citizens' behaviour.  A benevolent
government monopoly, therefore, is presumably necessary to preserve freedom.

Second, there must be a single centralized authority of last resort (e.g.,
a supreme court) to prevent the development of the conflicting (competing)
systems of law and the inefficient duplication of services that
privatization would generate.  If one argument is correct, then the other
cannot be -- privatized law and order either leads to a monopoly or to a
competitive arrangement." (291)  Dr Benson then proceeds to demonstrate that "neither argument is valid" but this review will not spoil the reader's
pleasure by revealing how.

Problems with the book are few and minor.  There is no bibliography,
which makes chasing up references difficult.  Rather, citations are given
anew after each chapter.  Since many sources are quoted frequently, this
results in much needless repetition.  At least 30 pages could have been cut
from the book by a single set of notes and/or a bibliography.

Dr Benson also adopts the academic practice of referring to his peers as
if they were household names:  "Peltzman  observed ... Hirshleifer pointed
out." (91).  Such references would be more persuasive with some personal
information:  e.g., 'Harvard sociologist Peltzman,' 'noted legal scholar
Hirshleifer' (or whatever they may be); for when one does come across a
reference such as "Lawrence Sherman, director of the Police Foundation"
(134) the gentleman's position, and his achievement in reaching it,
immediately lend weight to his quoted remarks.

The only other problems with the book are occasional lapses into jargon.
When he is describing facts, or reasoning from facts, Dr Benson's writing is
concise, and his meaning crisp and clear.  However, as soon as he starts to explain fact by means of economic theory, clarity fades.  Even after three
readings this reviewer still has difficulty understanding "multivariate
analysis reinforced the zero-order correlation results" (108) and a
scattering of similar statements.  As already noted, though, such minor
inconveniences do not diminish the overall power and importance of the work. (fn 3)

The implications of The Enterprise of Law are at least as intriguing
as its content. (fn 4)  For example, the origins of the USA appear in quite
a different light.  The country did not spring fully formed from the brows
of the Founding Fathers, but is rather the result of a gradual process of
state creation which began with the Norman Conquest of England.  Most of the governmental institutions and legal principles hallowed by the various US constitutions were devised long before 1776 or 1787:  not by Jefferson or Madison, but by British monarchs, Parliaments and state-appointed judges; and not to secure liberty, but to preserve or extend state power.
Unsurprisingly therefore, the growth of state power has continued as
relentlessly in the New World as it did, and does, in the Old.

Other reinterpretations spring to mind.  One is Ayn Rand's insistence on
the importance of philosophical ideas in human history.  For instance, she
asserted that in the Middle Ages "Wealth was not earned on an open market... wealth was acquired by conquest" (For the New Intellectual [FNI] p. 13), and that "The prelude to the Renaissance was the return of Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas." (FNI, p. 23)  But when one examines the medieval era more closely, it becomes plain that it was the recovery of trade and the
spontaneous creation of the Law Merchant which was the prelude to the
Renaissance.  Private trade, protected by private law, created the wealth
which generated the 'great rebirth.'  It was rulers who acquired their
wealth by conquest, not merchants.  The merchants' wealth, and the
Renaissance it led to, had much more to do with private law than with
Aristotle.

Similarly, Rand maintained that the Industrial Revolution (IR) was the
result of Aristotle's influence. (FNI, p. 23)  In so far as it can be
shown that science and conscious devotion to reason played a part in 18th
century industry, her assertion may be partly true; although very
indirectly, and although many historians and philosophers of science would
dispute it.

In point of fact, however, the IR came about due to a happy accident.
The Norman invaders of England had grabbed all the land, because at that
time land was the prime source of wealth.  Later, as trade grew more
important, the Norman state moved to control and profit from this new form
of wealth with regulation, tariffs and monopolies.  Thus the IR did not
begin in London, because trade in the capital was governed, and innovation stifled, by state regulation and state-sanctioned guilds (as it was all over Europe).  The IR began rather in English villages like Birmingham, and in small towns like Manchester and Glasgow, because the tentacles of the growing British state had not yet reached them.  Their factories created
another new form of wealth, one unknown to the state, and hence not yet
exploited by it.  The cotton millers and metal bashers, and the nail makers
made famous by Adam Smith, were not following Aristotle, they were simply free!

It is self-evident that philosophical and other ideas do influence history, but not always in the manner Rand thought.  Human needs are constant, regardless what intellectuals may think or say, and the need for freedom is born again with each generation regardless what tyranny men may suffer under.  What Dr Benson's book leads one to realise is that freedom under customary law is man's true natural condition.  Here one can indeed quote Aristotle:  "For men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law -- they are themselves a law." (Politics 1284a13)  Any study of stateless societies
reveals the truth of that, for only in a genuinely stateless society is each
individual truly sovereign.  It is not until states and organised religions
arise to curtail freedom (fn 5) that the kind of intellectual influence Rand
had in mind comes to the fore.

Locke's Treatises, for example, were written to defend individuals and
their property against the growing power of the British state.  But Locke's
efforts would have been thought most curious by 10th century Anglo-Saxons, Medieval Irishmen and Icelanders, 16th century Iroquoians, or the 20th century Kapauku, for all of whom individual rights and private property were as natural and necessary as breathing, and for all of whom domination by a state lay in the future.  Rand's evocative analysis of history using the symbols Attila and the Witch Doctor is fascinating and important, but its prime concern is with political and religious power.  There are wide and equally vital areas of social, economic and legal history, and of
anthropology, for which her analysis is not germane.

Rand also spoke of "the rise of Statism in the Roman Empire" (FNI, p.
23, her italics).  In point of fact, the whole history of Rome is about th growth of a state, Rome was always statist.  And it thrived, as states always have, on wealth taken by force from its citizens and neighbours. When that wealth ran out, the Roman state collapsed.  But Roman concepts of state-imposed law and empire -- whether copied from Ancient Greeks or homegrown -- were preserved by the Roman Church, reinforced with the notion of Divine Right, then re-introduced when powerful warriors such as Charlemagne
and William the Conqueror began to emulate their Roman predecessors.

What reflection on Dr Benson's book makes clear, is that modern Western
political history consists of a series of re-runs of the history of Rome, on
larger or smaller scales.  The Roman state was reborn in various guises in
the Middle Ages and later, and each modern clone has grown through
exploitation of its citizens and neighbours in exactly the same manner as
its ancient progenitor.

The genius of modern wealth creation has thus far outstripped state growth, so the fate of Rome is unlikely to be repeated soon (although it has been in the British and communist Russian empires).  But if state power continues its present (domestic) acceleration, one can reasonably predict the collapse of the USA and other countries in the not-too-distant future.
Like causes produce like events.

The Enterprise of Law is challenging reading for proponents of limited
government.  For when one has digested the historical facts that stateless
societies were once the norm; that law and order, including commercial law, arose spontaneously without state involvement; that this customary law was clearly objective; and that the origin of states was war:  it becomes
difficult to maintain that the state's purpose is to protect rights; that
only a state can create objective law; or that a state is essential.

Notes:

1. From Laissez-Faire Books, San Francisco, paperback, $14.95.  Numbers in brackets in this review refer to pages in the 1991 hardback edition.

2. Cf Franz Oppenheimer, The State: "The State ... is a social institution
forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group ... [for] no other
purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.  No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner." (San
Francisco:  Fox and Wilkes, 1997), p.9.

3. All these problems have been eradicated in Dr Benson's later book, To
Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice
(New
York: NYU Press, 1998) which amplifies Part III and other aspects of The
Enterprise of Law.  The later book also contains a fascinating account of
the spontaneous emergence of customary law in Old West mining camps, pp. 102-7.

4. A more detailed examination of the ramifications of Dr Benson's ideas,
and of other topics touched upon in this review, will be found in Nicholas
Dykes, "Mrs Logic and the Law: A Critique of Ayn Rand's View of Government," Philosophical Notes # 50 (London: Libertarian Alliance, 1998), available at http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/philosophical/randlaw.txt
or at Thomas Gramstad's website.

5. "There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men." Ayn Rand, Anthem.


A SOLUTION TO THE GULF WAR SYNDROME MYSTERY
by Barry Chamish © 2000

      The Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) struck tens of thousands of American, British, Canadian and Australian troops. One fact that has not been properly investigated is why French troops were all but unaffected by the disease. Those who have tried to explain this seeming paradox, have reached the conclusion that vaccinations given the English speaking troops and not the French, must have been the culprit. I have reached a far more sinister conclusion: the French troops were immunized specifically against GWS.

Personal Background

      I am considered the leading researcher of the Rabin assassination. My book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin is an Israeli bestseller, now in its seventh edition after barely a year since its release in Hebrew. The book is having a profound influence in Israel, as I indisputably prove, utilizing leaked police, hospital and court records, that the man convicted of Rabin's murder could not have physically  carried out the act and that
Rabin was murdered in a plot centered within his own political circles.

      A year ago, I began receiving powerful evidence that French Intelligence and members of the Israeli General Security Services (Shabak), planned and carried out the Rabin assassination with the goal of placing a French agent, Shimon Peres, in power. This evidence is overpowering but this is not the place to detail the proof. For those interested in the details, Brookline Books will be publishing an updated edition of Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin in late September. Call 1 800 666BOOK or write
.

      The point is, I discovered an immoral French government, using murder to advance its agenda in the Middle East. The French sphere of influence which includes Lebanon, Syria and Iran differs from that of the Anglo-Americans, whose focus is Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. The genesis of this rivalry begins at the San Remo Conference of 1922 when the Middle East was divided between the French and British, with the latter acquiring the prime properties, including the rich oilfields, and the holy sites of Jerusalem. The French, with their imperial pretensions, have been trying to redress, what they perceive as an injustice, ever since. Mostly, they have suffered setbacks, such as American pressure removing them from the Suez Canal in 1956 and the defeat of their Christian allies in Lebanon in 1985.

       Nonetheless, French mischief-making resulted in the fall of the American-backed Shah of Iran by the Paris-based Ayatollah Khomeini, and the building of an Israeli nuclear bomb factory at Dimona. Their current goals are to wrest the Old City of Jerusalem from the Israelis and place it under Vatican control and increase its share of the region's oil resources. These and other aspirations can only be achieved by drastically undermining American/British influence in the region.

       The murder of Rabin, for instance, was approved only after Peres agreed to transfer Jerusalem's Old City to Vatican control. The elimination of Rabin, who despised the French and was solidly in the Anglo-American camp, paved the way for the furthering of French religio-national policy. By joining the Gulf War coalition, the French saw an opportunity to advance their economic and strategic interests. This too, would require murder on a far uglier scale.

The Disease

    GWS is clearly a genetically engineered malady, a close relative of AIDS. It attacks the immune system and clears a path for any virus, germ or cancer with the opportunity to sicken and destroy its host. Like AIDS, it requires an incubation period before it strikes and it constantly mutates, making the development of a cure highly unlikely. Such a disease was not and could not have been caused by spent uranium, or any chemical reaction. This is a biologically-generated disease.

     If GWS resulted from the bombing of Iraqi chemical or biological warfare sites, the civilian population would have been affected in proportional numbers to the coalition forces. This did not happen though radiation poisoning from spent uranium, a very different and perhaps equally agonizing sydrome, is reportedly widespread.

     GSW is almost certainly genetically engineered and very few nations have acquired the technical  sophistication to have deliberately manufactured it. France boasts the Pasteur Institute, the leading AIDS research center on the planet, and if there is one facility which could have cooked up GSW, this is the number one candidate.

      GWS victims and their supporters are convinced the US Army and Pentagon is covering up the true cause of the malady. Indeed, it looks that way since one possible cause after another has been dismissed as the culprit. One possibility has not been examined nearly enough; perhaps the DOD, Veteran's Administration, and the Pentagon are telling the truth. They really can't identify the cause of the disease because the American military didn't produce or administer anything which caused GWS.

       And no combination of vaccines, spent armor, bombed factories or poison gases will ever produce the right solution because they are not the real cause of GWS. In short, the researchers are looking in all the wrong places. They should be looking, instead, in the direction of France. 

       It boggles the mind to think that France's traditional resentment of being left out of the Middle East goodies would lead them to a sadistic massacre. Nonetheless, French troops were not  profoundly affected by GWS and try to find an explanation why not. The most logical explanation remains that they were vaccinated against the disease before it was targeted against the English-speaking soldiers.

       The French had ample opportunities to transmit the malady to its allies. They shared facilities, they participated in joint planning sessions, they landed at the same bases. A capsule in the soup or any other similar act would start the transmission process.

       The result would be a deep demoralization of  the Anglo-American armies leading to the ultimate takeover of France as the leading military influence in the Middle East. France hasn't the power to win a fair fight and may well have decided that mortal cheating was in its long term strategic interests.