"I'm A Contender."

SF Weekly's Lessley Anderson does a very nice profile of Justin Raimondo and the gang over at Antiwar.com. Though Reason has occasionally been dinged in what Anderson describes as the "flamboyant" column Raimondo writes thrice weekly, it's good to see them getting some love from the media in San Francisco, and the following list of people pledging they've never/rarely read/heard of the site confirms my suspicion that reading Antiwar and masturbation are the two most frequently denied activities in America:

Although writer and editor Tom Englehardt, who runs the popular political blog TomDispatch.com, says he reads Antiwar.com every day, Slate.com's William Saletan had never heard of it. Neither had UC Berkeley journalism professor and political columnist Susan Rasky. National Review editor Rich Lowry also claimed ignorance, despite Frum's coverage, as did the Weekly Standard's Kristol.

"I've only logged on to Antiwar.com a few times," writes Salon.com columnist Joe Conason in an e-mail. "I also can't say that I know anyone who reads it regularly, although people sometimes send links to it in email."

Comments

[Gordon Shumway]

Raimondo's writings at antiwar.com and masturbation may be more closely linked than most people realize.

[Steve in CA]

Oh, Christ. If there's one thing all decent people can agree on, it's that we should ignore this jackass.

Tim, I blame you for encouraging me to spend 5 minutes skimming that profile and thinking about Raimondo. I'll never get that time back.

[John Hood]

Tim:

Unless you were trying to be facetious, I think you should take another look at this piece. Quite apart from how much I think this Raimondo nincompoop is wrong on the issues, the piece makes him and his friends out to be, well, pathetic. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it was the result.

Again, not to mention the embarrassment of associating their rhetorical silliness with mainstream libertarian discourse, this article -- including its inaccuracies, incorrect dates, and so forth -- makes libertarians look like adolescent, incompetent geeks who have no clue what is going on and how people live in the real world.

I'd just giggle and move on, except that quite a few Bay area and online readers might get the idea from the piece that this is classical liberalism and draw the obvious conclusion that they should pay no serious attention to it ever again.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

including its inaccuracies, incorrect dates, and so forth

You mean Goldwater didn't run in 1968?

Actually, I was struck by how often the article referred to them as Republicans, "Old" conservatives (do they still say the Tridentine mass?), etc. If Bay Area readers get the sense that such a variety of political ideas can exist, indeed if Bay Area readers get the idea that there are varieties other than left and further left, I say that more than outweighs whatever distorted ideas of objectivism they may come away with.

Did you really think they seemed pathetic? I guess there's something to that, but I got more of an amiable eccentric vibe.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

"(or) He's... willing to coddle up to them to achieve what he sees as a greater good."

What?? "coddle up to them"?? He has attacked anti-Semites in his column at antiwar.com!
Justin Raimomdo is explicitly opposed to anti-Semitism as his writings have evidenced when the subject has come up. Also, Look at his personal interaction with Rothbard and Rand, both Jews.

The "Israeli art students" has to do with the widley documented story of the Israeli governments fore knowledge of 9/11

Anti-Semitism, like all racism, is always wrong...and we give comfort to racists when we throw around false accusations at people who explicitly are anti-racist.

[joe]

Yes, he denounces anti-semitism "when the subject comes up." Then, when the smoke clears, he's back to the cabals and conspiracies and dark imaginings that give actual antisemites woodies. To believe that this repeated use of obviously loaded language is accidental would require an assumption of naivete and an inability to learn from past experience that Mr. R. clearly does not suffer from.

I believe he is in the throes of a modern day version of "no enemies on the left."

[Rick Barton]

Kevin Carson,
It's my recollection that Raimondo was more, rooting for Powell faction then ever predicting them to prevail. But anyway, I think we have to give him much credit in this area, as has been tracking the neo-con's agitation for a war with Iraq long before it came to pass. I do remember, however, when the neo's were chomping at the bit to go after Syria next and Raimondo thought it would come to pass sooner rather then later. The guy always seems honest in his assessments though.

I imagine you enjoyed his Libertarianism in the Age of Empire piece. Right?
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030303.html

[Justin Raimondo]

Well, then, "Joe," I guess Reason magazine is also guilty of "anti-Semitism," since they, too, are reporing the Israeli art students story. See Reason Express, September 23, 2003. "One of the most fascinating espionage stories of the modern era," Jeff Taylor called it. Is he an "anti-Semite," too?

[JDM]

From the article:

"David Frum ... has mentioned the site twice in his column for the conservative journal National Review ? once in a piece titled "The Loonies Are Heard," "

Did anyone read the "The Loonies are Heard" exchange? Antiwar.com came off really badly. They looked not just amateurish, but stupid and crazy. They seemed like exactly the kind of nutty penniless hippies with a website the SF Weekly article makes them seem. Was there ever an explanation, or retraction from AW.com?

["Anon Poster"]

What, is stating that the "Likudnik warparty" is secretly controlling the USA supposed to be anti-Semitism or something?

Next thing you know, accusing Neocons of running the banks and kidnapping children to drink their blood will be considered "anti-semitic."

You warbloggers never cease to amaze me!

[Rick Barton]

Hey: Steve in CA
Your calling Justin Raimondo a "Jackass" is a little more understandable when we recall that you wrote:
"So among the major party candidates, Lieberman and Bush are the only non-statists." in the "Libertarians for Liebermen?" thread.

Raimondo should be complimented by your insult.

[John Hood]

Actually, Rick, I wouldn't get too exercised about Mr. Hood's hostility. I mean, how seriously can we take someone who writes a blog called "The Locker Room"? (Never mind that he thinks LIEBERMAN is a libertarian.....(!))

Mr. Raimondo, the Locker Room is a staff blog for my organization, and is obviously a play on words. I don't write it and rarely contribute to it. As to your Lieberman reference, I simply don't know what you are talking about. I am obviously in the tank for John Edwards.

As for my "dead-assed" commentary, I'd be glad to respond if I knew what that meant, too. And I didn't throw a "hissy fit." I simply pointed out that there is a robust and interesting debate among libertarians and conservatives about a host of issues, but Mr. Raimondo isn't a part of it. He's too busy drawing all sorts of dotted lines between disparate entities to invent conspiracies to explain why the world isn't as he wants it to be.

Want some more dotted lines? I put in some time at Reason and at The New Republic. I used to work for big-government conservative Fred Barnes and know some of the neocons pretty well. I worked at Heritage and wrote for Cato. I've solicited grants from some national conservative and libertarian foundations, winning some and losing some. I share past and current board members with the ACU, IHS, CSE, NTU, and AEI. I spend most of my time now on state and local issues, but I do some occasional writing for National Review and Reason.

I am hawkish, fusionist libertarian.

Now, in what tentacle of the neocon/Likudnik/New Right conspiracy will Raimondo locate me? Isn't it obvious that this kind of silliness is a rhetorical dead end? We should just debate issues, based on falsifiable facts and philosophical arguments. And we should be willing to disassociate with those unable or unwilling to do so because their excesses reflected poorly on our ideological project. It's not all just an inside-baseball, within-the-family thing. Outsiders looking in need reasons to stay interested, not simply to giggle.

[Rick Barton]

joe,
Oh Right, we should refrain from talking about cabals and conspiracies lest we give actual antisemites woodies. That makes a lot of sense. Instead, why don't you come up with some examples of things that he has written that you think are wrong based on fact instead of your own "imaginings".

"use of obviously loaded language"
Obvious for you, perhaps. So, you think Raimondo should watch his language? If talk of political conspiracy conjures up visions of pogroms for you, that's your problem. Don't assume it has the same effect on the rest of us.

Jeez; look at what were arguing about! The Sharon regime, the neo-cons and others who relish the US military marauding around the globe would be loving this.

[Justin Raimondo]

Oh yes, you're sooo reasonable: like when you attacked a local columnist in your "carolina journal" back in March for having the temerity to oppose the unprovoked attack on Iraq: he was having a "Vietnam flashback," you averred. Yeah, bud, well we're all having a Vietnam flashback these days. I also didn't see any argument, any substantial critique, any ANYTHING but vituperation, and uncritical support for our "decent" President.

Yeah, good luck with your grant applications. I'm sure you'll be amply rewarded for your efforts.

[Justin Raimondo]

WHY I LOVE GEORGE W. BUSH, AND HATE THOSE NO GOOD HIPPIE PEACENIKS

by John "the Smirker" Hood

He's no orator, of course, but he exudes decency, firmness, and confidence.

Compare this, if you have the stomach for it, with the cover screed published in the Triangle's Independent Weekly newspaper this week. Penned by longtime columnist Hal Crowther, the piece is little more than a rant by a frustrated relic of the past who is angry that his misapprehensions aren't universally shared and that a president he despises is about to wage a war against a terrorist state. Frankly, the article is an embarrassment - not only for someone who was once an interesting and talented commentator (though one I rarely agreed with) but also for the publication itself. The article wasn't persuasive. It wasn't reasoned. It was woefully misinformed, as if an aging hippie wandered in from a few years of tripping out at a desert commune, heard America was about to go to war, and started having Vietnam flashbacks.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=139

-------------------------------------------------

Yes, you'll probably get those grants......

[MB]

Hood:
"I used to work for big-government conservative Fred Barnes and know some of the neocons pretty well. I worked at Heritage and wrote for Cato. I've solicited grants from some national conservative and libertarian foundations, winning some and losing some. I share past and current board members with the ACU, IHS, CSE, NTU, and AEI."

What a freedom fighter! The DEA, IRS, ATF, and co. must be shaking in their boots.

[neocon]

That's right, Rick! The cabal is having a meeting tonight, and we'll be laughing about this, over cigars and snifters of baby's blood.

[Project for the New American C]

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscars night?
We do! We do!

[Rick Barton]

Well, at least they aren't government grants.

[Justin Raimondo]

Oh no, they're just grants from people IN the government. Big difference.

[www.zionistconspiracy.org]

You know who controls that grant money, don't you?

[Justin Raimondo]

Al Sharpton?

[O'Brian]

You know whose behind Astroturf? The Neocons. The neoncons hate grass! Always have.

[Justin Raimondo]

Iraq will no doubt look better Astroturfed. It's better than all that messy sand. And I hear it absorbs blood pretty well. Too bad it won't be yours...

[fyodor]

Whew!! Don't know if I'd call it trolling, but the tone of this thread has sure taken some giant steps into the hystericsphere since Justin joined in!!

[Rick Barton]

There is some difference. They aren't funded with
tax dollars, so ethically they are superior to government grants, unless of course the grants result is to increase government power or size. We can, at least, elect not to patronize private grant giving entities if we find them offensive.
.

[Justin Raimondo]

"... unless of course the grants result is to increase government power or size."

Try reducing the power and size of government when we're on a crusade to subjugate a great deal of the rest of the world. It can't be done. Which is precisely why the pro-war "libertarians" -- albeit of the "fusionist" variety -- are now hailing a President who has presided over one of the biggest expansions of government power in decades. What the "fusionist" are trying to fuse is the matter of libertarian "less government" ideology with the imperial delusions of a modern-day Alexander. What you get, however, is not Thomas Jefferson, but a new Napoleon.

[Rick Barton]

A little rude and untrue there, fyodor@2;18

[Mr. Burns, only Jewish]

Ah, I see that Reason's part in the conspiracy is working out just as we planned. Posting a link to an article about Raimondo was a sure way to draw him into the comments, where he was bound to be both abusive and nutty. It's worked! Huzzah!

[Thorley Winston]

John Hood,

I am hawkish, fusionist libertarian.

Well put and well chosen!

[joe]

Rick, destroying the credibility of the antiwar movement by linking it to antisemitism is an important tactic for those who support the war. There are enough openly antisemitic people in the antiwar movement (of both the anti-Zionist and neo-America First varieties) to give this charge a patina of credibility. There are also fine distinctions (anti-Likud vs. anti-Israel, for example) that are sometimes difficult for those who aren't political junkies to make, distinctions that our opponents seek to blur. There are pro-war plants, some acting on their own intitiative and some not, within the antiwar movement who wave antisemitic signs in front of the cameras in order to undermine our public image. A large number of the conspirators behind this war are, in fact, Jewish, which makes calling them on their machinations a dicey, though necessary, maneuver. Bottom line is, the myth that the antiwar movement is a cover for antisemitism is our Achilles heel. Given all of these facts, it is essential that we not give our opponents anything that they can use as ammunition.

And yet Mr. R, who really should know better, can't seem to be bothered to so much as monitor his word choice in order to avoid giving off the wrong impression. It undermines his (and by extension, our) credibility, plays into the hands of our opposition, and provides a ready-made excuse to dismiss the important arguments to be made against this adminstration's military and foreign policies.

Perhaps it's a point of pride for you, and to Justin, not to give an inch to the "ethnic grievance industry." But your (plural) pride at standing up to the PC police is making it harder to get the anti-Bush Doctrine, anti-Iraq War message out.

[B.P.]

What's rude and untrue? Raimondo actually expresses displeasure that the blood of another poster on this board will NOT be spilled. I think he showed his hand there.

[joe]

^Thank you, Captain Literal.

[JDM]

"the myth that the antiwar movement is a cover for antisemitism is our Achilles heel"

Please, for the love of God, stop with this. The fact that people disagree with you on the merits is your Achilles heel. No one, and I literally mean zero people, supported, or still support the war because they think the anti-war crowd is anti-semitic. People may think that there are anti-semites in the anti-war crowd, but it is foolish, sloppy thinking to say that people just looked at the people debating this and simply chose based on the nature of the debate's participants. I imagine it does a lot for your sense of self satisfaction, however.

"If I am for us, and I always reach the right conclusion, who could be against us?"

It's very Randian of you, joe.

[Rick Barton]

Justin,
"Which is precisely why the pro-war "libertarians" ...are now hailing (the) President"

Anyone who supports the Bush foreign policy needs
to figure out something other then "libertarian" to call their own position on these matters. We have certainly had an expansion of the power and size of government during the time of the Iraq war. Civil liberties have suffered as well, but they always do in under these scenarios:

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
James Madison

I think John Hood's use of the term "Fusionist" has got to be different from Frank Meyer's.

[joe]

You don't look more skeptically at the opinions of people you believe to be bigots? I know I do.

[Justin Raimondo]

Look, I never once brought up Israel in the SF Weekly piece, and the subject of Jews was raised by the Isra-bots on this thread, not me. I think, however, that this obsessive focus on Israel by my detractors on this thread speaks for itself. And that is THEIR "Achilles heel."

[Wendy]

Justin dear, nobody here was talking about JEWS. We were talking about your obsessions with Zionists and Neocons.

We all know you didn't slip up and just equate Neocons with Jews. It was just a typo. 😉

[fyodor]

joe,

"You don't look more skeptically at the opinions of people you believe to be bigots? I know I do."

Doesn't that contradict your complaint just the other day that because the Reason blogger (forget who) was wary of someone's position because of who supported it (the food Nazi guy), this made him sound like a Marxist? I agree with your current position, that it's only normal to be affected by the reputations of who takes what position, even if ideally and ultimately we shouldn't let that sway us.

Thanks, BP. In fact, I didn't even blame Justin per se, and I've even defended him on this thread. But the discussion sure deteriorated into a mudslinging match at that point.

[Russ D]

"my suspicion that reading Antiwar and masturbation are the two most frequently denied activities in America"

I thought antiwar.com WAS masturbation.

[MB]

Wendy, sweetheart, accusing someone of anti-Semitism would indeed fall under the general heading "of or related to Jews." I know that's hard to wrap your brain around, but give it a try.

[joe]

fy,

I didn't say I was proud of it. It's something to watch out for, was my point the other day. But it's only human nature, and if politically-obsessed types like me fall into the trap, how much more common is it among normal people?

Justin,

I always considered their Achilles heel to be the whole blowing-up-people-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet-without-a-good-idea-of-what-to-do-next thing.

[Justin Raimondo]

It is clear what you were trying to imply, Stefan, posting under a variety of different names. (How clever!) But I'll tell you one thing: if every Jew was suddenly Raptured up into Heaven, the staff of antiwar.com -- and a great deal of the antiwar movement -- would be gone. And any professed libertarian who is simultaneously anti-Semitic is going to have a VERY hard time of it, since not some but ALL of the founders and leaders of the movment were Jewish. So whatEVER the allusions to David Duke and the victimological whining is supposed to be about, that angle just isn't going to work.

[John Hood]

Rick:

I think John Hood's use of the term "Fusionist" has got to be different from Frank Meyer's.

Why? I'm defending the war, not Bush's spending spree or anyone's willingess to diminish domestic liberty. Meyer was not an isolationist or a pacifist. Here's an (typically over-the-top and unfair) characterization of Meyer's position by Murray Rothbard:

"Frank not only disagreed with the Old Right foreign policy of isolationism, his major interest was to reverse it, and he was the most pro-war of all the myriad war hawks of National Review and the conservative movement. Being militantly pro-war also meant being in favor of U.S. imperialism and of all-out military statism in the U.S."

[Wendy]

Dustin: I am not Stefan. Just someone who googled your name and found out about your pet sock-puppet.

[Justin Raimondo]

"I'm defending the war, not Bush's spending spree..."

And where are you going to come up with the $87 billion to pay for what you're defending?

[hey]

1 group says: to be a libertarian you must come to the same conclusion on the case for war

other side says: we were attacked and should do unto others before they do unto us

now which is the more libertarian approach to this argument? hahahaha

now where exactly did being a libertarian mean be a pacifist (since that seems to be what happens when you call yourself antiwar.com)

when one group of people declares a global war against us and tells us they will kill any of us where they find us, why are we supposed to say that the only appropriate place to fight is in the us, and here we need to extend full civil rights to them (aka we can't fight them here, either)

good analysis guys... and screaming over likudniks is a great way to look less anti-semitic

[John Hood]

Actually, Justin, I thought the $87 billion (which involved both Iraq and Afghanistan and both military and civilian items) was an inflated number and included a lot of unnecessary spending. But with regard to Bush's spending spree, I had other things in mind -- Medicare, for example.

As for how to fund the war, there is no shortage of obvious places to start hacking at the federal government -- fighting our enemies being one of the few legitimate and constitutional functions of said government.

[Justin Raimondo]

We aren't fighting our enemies, we're helping them. Al Qaeda is stronger, now, than ever. OBL, not Saddam, was behind 9/11. But you knew that.

A war to conquer the Middle East and "drain the swamp" is a futile and ultimately self-destructive strategy. And the price tag is going to be a LOT higher than a mere 87 billion. That's just to start. The idea that you can have this "split screen Republicanism," with government shrinking at home while the Empire expands abroad is a delusion. You are going to have to choose, eventually. Every "great leap forward" in govt' power has come about in wartime, and this is no exception: the Patriot Act and its progeny are part and parcel of this endless "war on terrorism," so don't try to separate yourself from the consequences of your beliefs and actions.

[Not Stephen]

Wow, Dustin just made a point without ranting about the Neocon Word Order or the Likudniks.

I don't agree with it, but at least I can read it without holding my nose. See how easy it is to debate instead of trolling or spewing kookery?

[John Hood]

We aren't fighting our enemies, we're helping them.

Yes, we are helping them determine whether their religious beliefs are true.

Al Qaeda is stronger, now, than ever.

Preposterous. They no longer have a safe military base from which to operate, they are in the midst of an international crackdown on their affiliates, their sources of state subsidy, intelligence, weapons training, and well-wishing have been diminished, and their ability to replicate a 9/11 attack in the U.S. has, so far, been thwarted.

OBL, not Saddam, was behind 9/11. But you knew that.

Iraq was an accessory before and after the fact. It doesn't matter if Saddam knew about 9/11 itself ahead of time. The Taliban leadership may not have known, either, but as accessories were a legitimate military target, as was the Ba?athist regime.

Were you in favor of attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban? If you had come to believe the assertions of linkage between al Qaeda and Hussein, would you have favored attacking Iraq? If not, if you are against waging war per se, then why bring any of this up?

[Matt]

What an entertaining thread!

Justin, I wouldn't waste time arguing with somebody who calls themselves a "hawkish, fusionist libertarian." I don't even see how somebody could utter such words without wanting to kick their own ass and take their lunch money.

Antiwar.com is an outside-the-beltway news site, and I think that's the main reason so many of us like it. It's a great news source, but suitably irreverent to the powers-that-be. And, of course, that's why all the news sources that want to be popular and respectable (by the people in Washington, that is) hate it so much. Except Reason, that is.

[Rick Barton]

joe,
I agree with you that we have to be cognizant of all the weapons that our pro war opponents would use against us,(of course, the left has played the "anti-Semite" card against conservatives and libertarians just the same as the neo-cons have) but I just disagree that Raimondo and antiwar.com is committing any big lapses in this area. And the contribution of antiwar.com to a case for a more non-interventionist approach to foreign matters is so substantial.

Would we really want Justin to soft pedal his criticism of the brutal, thieving, Israeli government occupation and the racist and anti-capitalist policies of the Sharon regime, because someone might make unfounded charges of anti-Semitism?

Or, would we really want him not to expose the lies of the neo-cons in support of the Iraq war because some of those guys are Jews and well, you know. Shouldn?t we be glad that he published his book The Terror Enigma about Israeli government fore knowledge of 9/11, even though unscrupulous opponents will use that against him.

Justin Raimondo seems to have lived his life in the tumultuous world of political debate making both friends and allies of persons who are Jews. That should be enough to deflect unfounded charges of anti-Semitism from the enemies of peace and freedom.

Hey joe, you kinda scared me for a while there. I
thought you switched sides on this one.

[Rick Barton]

fyodor,
I misconstrued your comment as a personal attack. I'm Sorry.

[joe]

"Would we really want Justin to soft pedal his criticism of the brutal, thieving, Israeli government occupation and the racist and anti-capitalist policies of the Sharon regime, because someone might make unfounded charges of anti-Semitism?"

No, I'd just like to see him demonstrate some awareness of the tactical problem, and choose his words more carefully. I do not believe that avoiding terms and imagery that is remeniscent of antisemitism makes the case against Likudnik expansionism weaker; I think it makes it stronger.

[Thorley Winston]

And where are you going to come up with the $87 billion to pay for what you're defending?

A better question might be where were the anti-war people going to get the $380 billion necessary to contain the Iraqi regime for the next 50 years since they found that a preferable option.*

These sorts of decisions do not exist in a vacuum and there are costs either way. As we are seeing now with the decision made to liberate Iraq there are the costs of the initial military operation in terms of blood and treasure as well as the costs of rebuilding and the clean up.

On the other hand, containment is not free either. We were spending about $19 billion a year (see my link for the calculations) to keep troops in the Middle East just to maintain the status quo which was a dictatorship who sponsored and harbored terrorists and was most certainly trying to reconstitute his WMD programs at the first opportunity. Even assuming that none of this would ever have harmed us personally (a dubious presumption IMNHO), when you figure that both Cuba and North Korea ? far poorer regimes than the Iraqi one ? were able to exist for about fifty years, it?s pretty clear that in terms of dollars alone, it is far more costly to try and keep the status quo than to go in and remove the problem.

TW

* I?m giving them enough credit to assume that the idiots who wanted to lift the sanctions, remove our troops, and let Saddam Hussein do whatever he wanted including building whatever weapons he wanted were a minority and not typical of the ?libertarians? who opposed the liberation of Iraq.

[atta]

"reading Antiwar and masturbation are the two most frequently denied activities in America"

The third most frequently denied activity is admitting that one or two of al-qaeda's beefs with US foreign policy are valid.

[Kevin Carson]

Rick,

I'm sure I've read it, since I've read all his pieces for the last couple of years--but I'll check it out again.

joe,

What is your objection, on the merits of the evidence itself, to the Israeli art students story?

Jesse,

My own inclination is to downplay the Trot angle on the neocons--and for that matter, the Jew angle, before the Isra-bots (Isra-bots. Heh heh, good one) get started. IMO the main current in neoconservatism is Art Schlesinger's "vital center." The Scoop Jackson Democrats were saying basically the same thing as the New Republic liberals in 1917, and Adolph Berle and Daniel Bell in the 1950s. Neoconservatism is just warmed-over corporate liberalism.

[lol]

"A better question might be where were the anti-war people going to get the $380 billion necessary to contain the Iraqi regime for the next 50 years since they found that a preferable option."

The logic of that position, since spending $380 billion is what would have happened had al qaeda not attacked us, is that we ought to be glad that al qaeda attacked us because they saved us money.

[Smokey]

Funny it doesn't mention Raimondo's online activities as far as habitually trolling blogs and generally being an asshole on comment boards.

Even his more cultish followers have to admit that this weird habit really detracts from his legitimate opinions as a colunmist.

Oops, better stop before he trolls over to this board and outs me as an evil neocon....

[Mark A.]

Isn't "evil neocon" redundant? 🙂

[Ruthless]

One of the most convincing arguments that Dubya's war is "evil" is the speed with which hawks swoop down on threads like this.

[joe]

Oh man, with friends like these...

[Jesse Walker]

There's a lot of silly errors in this piece, of which the Goldwater/1968 thing is only the most obvious. The rap on neocons is that they're former Trots, not former Stalinists. There may be "renewed interest" in Raimondo's work, but being reprinted in one of those point/counterpoint books is not a sign of it. And I'm pretty sure Raimondo has spoken at the John Randolph Club many times before.

But yeah, it's interesting to see the piece out there.

[Thorley Winston]

Funny it doesn't mention Raimondo's online activities as far as habitually trolling blogs and generally being an asshole on comment boards.

Are you certain that it is actually him doing the trolling and posting on the message board rather than just someone using his name>

[Starbuck]

He is not a troll. Saying that Likudniks are secretly running the US Corporate Empire and probably paying bloggers to spread propaganda is not trolling! It is the TRUTH!

[John Hood]

Guys, come on. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with advocating foreign noninterventionism as a libertarian principle. I don't agree with it, but the notion has some currency, some history, and some plausibility.

But Raimondo's clownish and conspiracy-minded rantings do not constitute effective advocacy of this position. There are plenty of other writers, including Reason folks, far better suited to this role in that they don't come across as a cartoon character or a pathetic 50-something adolescent humming the Simpsons "We Do" song under his breath.

And, yes, while I think that the article in question condescended while also trying to treat the subject with some degree of sympathy, the result isn't an amiable introduction to an interesting guy or movement. It's very much a joke at Raimondo and Co.'s expense.

The inaccuracies go beyond the incorrect date for Goldwater, though that matters quite a bit because the late 60s anti-war movement had nothing to do with the Goldwater campaign. They include the idea that "libertarians" believe "there should be no environmental regulations" (the real debate is between legislation or litigation in how best to protect individual rights within a commons), that the founding of the Libertarian Party was chiefly about drugs and Vietnam, and the mischaracterization of Randolph Bourne as a libertarian.

I still think that if you were an average reader with uncertain philosophical views who happened upon this, you would be most likely to conclude that however vaguely appealing some libertarian ideas might sound to you, libertarians are too silly to be taken seriously as a political and ideological force in American life.

[Angus Jung]

"Are you certain that it is actually him doing the trolling and posting on the message board rather than just someone using his name"

Plausible deniability, kids!

[Smokey]

"confirms my suspicion that reading Antiwar and masturbation are the two most frequently denied activities in America"

Something tells me Rick does both at the same time.

Taking bets on how long until You-Know-Who shows up to start trolling...

[Mark Fox]

Sign me up for a summer at the Bourne Institute. I could use some time in somebody else's fantasy world. And it has a pool!

[Jean Bart]

Wasn't Justin the idiot claiming that Reason was controlled by "dark forces?"

[joe]

Dark forces with a great deal of interest in protecting Israel, if I recall.

[Rick Barton]

"Saying that Likudniks are secretly running the US Corporate Empire..."

Of course, Raimondo contends no such thing.

John Hood,
When you debase conspiracy analysis, you're throwing out an invaluable tool for understanding real politic. Political power is often transmitted via the machinations of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Raimondo seems to have a grasp of this
as it plays out in the world of state foreign intervention. This is why antiwar.com was, for example, able to expose the poorly plagiarized grad student thesis, which Powell presented at the UN as "valuable intelligence" while many others were buying it.

Also, when you characterize Raimondo's advocacies as "clownish" and "rantings" you're sort of assuming your conclusion; are you not? If instead, you provided examples we could then debate them. I think that this animosity toward Raimondo might have more to do with your disagreement with the foreign noninterventionist component of libertarianism.

[MB]

Speaking of Hood's hissy fit: Have you seen this smirking twerp's mug at Carolina Journal? Have you read his dead-assed commentary on that site and at Reason?

[fyodor]

Okay, can someone define "troll" for me? Previously I thought it referred to posters who signed anonymously or misleadingly. But those accusing Romando of trolling seem to think it would be bad if he posted on this thread even if he acknowledged his own name! If that's the case, I sure can't tell what's wrong with that. Or do people *suspect* posts are Romando's when they're not signed by him? If that's the case, then I wonder what makes you so sure it's him, though I suppose he may have a certain style or something...

[Brendan]

In my ongoing commitment to public service I am providing quotes attributed to Raimondo on the Medved Losertarian thread from Nov. 4th.

?We can always count on Matt Welch -- and, increasingly, Reason magazine -- to barf up the neocon-GOP party line. Now, uh, why IS that? Just follow the money: $50,000 per year from the Scaife Foundation, more from the Bradley Foundation, and yet more from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation. The big neocon moneybags have bought what used to be a libertarian magazine, and turned it -- mostly -- into a mouthpiece for the Busheviks.?

?Follow the Money, Part II: For documentation of the above, just go to mediatransperency.org, and type "Reason Foundation" into their search engine. Or email the editors and ask: Who's paying your salary??

?Wendy: "Useful work," indeed. But on whose behalf? The Israeli "art students" you so tenaciously defend are no doubt grateful for all the "useful work" you've done for them. By the way, your claim you we "stole" your translation of the Die Zeit piece on Israeli spies in the U.S. who were following the 9/11 hijackers is false. Do you think we'd depend on YOUR translation to be accurate? I don't think so....
I see you've moved to Seattle. That's one good thing about San Francisco's high rents: it drives out the trailer trash.?

?To Mr. Anonymous: I have some very VERY bad news for you: you can't be a libertarian and be for the war. It's like being a Catholic and worshipping the Devil at the same time.?

?To R.C. Dean: You sound so ... disappointed. But this "top" and "bottom" business is soooooo over (except in Britain, of course, where even the str8 guys act like fags).?

I?m always glad to help.

[Smokey]

troll ??? v.,n. ??? 1.?[From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2.? An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

[Rick Barton]

joe,
Antiwar.com carries many Israeli writers. Raimomdo opposes the Israeli government, especially the Sharon regime, not Israel.

[See Above]

"that's what libertarians always get - single-issue friends and enemies from across the spectrum."

[Justin Raimondo]

Actually, Rick, I wouldn't get too exercised about Mr. Hood's hostility. I mean, how seriously can we take someone who writes a blog called "The Locker Room"? (Never mind that he thinks LIEBERMAN is a libertarian.....(!))

Thanks, Tim, for linking to Lessley's article. Like any good piece of journalism, it examines the object of attention from different angles, but I thought it was generally favorable. Of course the best part was the opening paragraph, where I am described as having "the lithe body of a much younger man"! Way to go, Lessley!

And she really captured the essence of her subject when she portrayed a typical conversation between me and my boyfriend: "Yoshi, shut UP!"

Sure, she got a few details wrong, but, contra Jesse Walker, I have noticed some "renewed interest" in my work: "Reclaiming the American Right" is going into a new edition and certainly antiwar.com's readership is rising.

[fyodor]

Thanks Smokey. I must say that while Raimondo certainly tosses around the accusations and insults, I'd be surprised if he really made posts just to be gratuitously disruptive without any interest for "the topic at hand."

[joe]

He also writes things like "The Israeli "art students" you so tenaciously defend are no doubt grateful for all the "useful work" you've done for them."

He's either an actual anti-semite (unlikely); willing to coddle up to them to achieve what he sees as a greater good (more likely); so eager to get a rise out of people that he doesn't mind if he makes it easy to dismiss his ideas as anti-semitic ravings (quite possible); or too stupid to realize, again and again, that he is using language loaded with allusions to classic antisemitism (extremely unlikely, given the way the debate has been carried out over the past two years).

I stand by my comment: with friends like these...

[Rick Barton]

MB wrote:
"Speaking of Hood's hissy fit..."

Iv'e got to come to John Hood's defence here. His Reason article on state spending was excellent and his John Locke institute looks very interesting. One can be very wrong on some things and very right on others. Truth is where you find it!

[cabalist]

Hey, there he is!

In all semi-seriousness, libertarians should disown Raimondo for the same reason Republicans should disown David Duke. Don't be distracted because you agree with his conclusions on the war -- hell, I agree with David Duke on affirmative action -- look at where he's coming from. I don't have the stomach to actually seek out any of Raimondo's anti-Semitic conspiracy-mongering, but feel free to look for it yourself if you doubt me.

[MB]

Cabalist:

I agree. Libertarians should also disown Tim Cavanaugh and Jesse Walker for saying anything favorable about Raimondo/antiwar.com. They're obviously anti-Semites, as is anyone who opposes sending his or her taxes to Ariel Sharon.

[Justin Raimondo]

I see the Israel First crowd, which seems to buzz around Reason's blog like (well, YOU provide your own analogy), is screeching about the Israeli "art student" affair. It's strange, but somehow these guys never attack the original source of the contention that Israeli intelligence was watching the 9/11 hijackers and had foreknowledge of their plans: Fox News. Carl Cameron, Fox News reporter, did a 4-part series exactly two years ago, in which he opened by saying:

"There is no indication the Israelis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it."

Salon did a very good story on this, and the German weekly Die Zeit -- edited by a prominent Jewish scholar -- did an article that went into even more detail, claiming that Israeli spies were living "next door to Mohammed Atta," as the title of the piece put it. Are all these people "anti-Semitic"?

Puh-leeze. Cut the ethnic victimology. You people sound like Al Sharpton. The Israeli government is not exactly shy about spying on the U.S., or indeed anyone else if it serves their purposes, and if that bothers you, then tough.

[Rick Barton]

Antiwar.com is the 38th most frequented web site extant, making it the most frequented libertarian site with ease. It's a consistent source of libertarian analysis and advocacy. The journals on the "right" that that have attacked antiwar.com seem do so in proportion to their resident anti-libertarian bias.

Antiwar.com is an invaluable resource in understanding and resisting our governments hyper-interventionist foreign policy with all it's attendant tragedies. Raimondo's site was way ahead of the curve on the war. It was often the first place to call into detailed question, with a jeweler's eye, those ridiculous whoppers that the Bush administration used for pretext for the attack. Go back and reread the antiwar.com's critiques of the war, the site seems absolutely prescient.

Antiwar.com is the best place for information concerning our government's counter productive interventions with regard to the Israeli government and the Palestinians.

Justin Raimondo is at once a scholar (don't miss reading his books) and an activist. The libertarian movement would do well to have more like him.

[Kevin Carson]

Look, I usually take Raimondo's stuff with a grain of salt, especially since his analysis can change 180 degrees in a relatively short time. I can remember when he was almost certain an Iraq war wasn't going to happen because Bush had sided with the Powell faction and been distracted by Korea.

But despite the "flamboyant" rhetoric and occasional lashing out at badly chosen targets, Raimondo's stuff is usually well deserving of consideration. Everything he writes is heavy on background and links. After you follow the trail, you may well wind up disagreeing with him; but it's a good starting place.

I'd think libertarians would be comfortable with the idea of digesting a variety of sources, taking what they can use, and leaving the rest. I mean, I've occasionally found good stuff at FrontPage, for cryin' out loud.

[joe]

Hey, look at me, everyone! I'm a Fox-loving, Israel-firster!

[fyodor]

Joe,

I don't see how Justin called you a Fox-lover, but he certainly did imply that you're an Israel-firster. Justin, this is the kind of crazed vitriol that makes you look bad.

[Kevin B. O'Reilly]

Raimondo's a little bit nutty, but what good libertarian isn't? The idea that we need to somehow disclaim him is ridiculous. The group of people who actually give a shit about liberty in the world is small enough that we can't afford to go around kicking people out because they're a little too radical, too moderate or whatever.

As for the article, the only actual error I spotted was the 1968 Goldwater campaign. All the other stuff was right, including the repeated references to the Old Right, which Raimondo, et. al. clearly and correctly see as the forebear to their current work. The tone of the article was both condescending and admiring, which I think accurately reflects the subjects of the story.

Raimondo, along with Ivan Eland at the Center for Peace & Liberty and Ted Galen Carpenter at the Cato Institute, are carrying the torch for a defensive, noninterventionist American foreign policy. For that they should be applauded, not denounced or ignored.

[John Hood]

Rick:

The fact that Al Qaeda no longer has a safe military base from which to operate and the other items you listed which are less verifiable have not seemed to slow them down. BBC just reported that the frequency of attacks attributed to them is at an all time high.

Basic problems in statistics lie in interpreting trends from a small number of observations. The casualties from al Qaeda attacks are down over two years, even if the number of attacks is flat. What does that mean? Are we better prepared, lucky, or dealing with an enemy less able to plan grandiose crimes?

Basically, feel free to continue to fantasize that al Qaeda is better off now that it has lost its base and much of its supply. I'll stick to reality.

Speaking of, if your position really is that there is "no evidence" for al Qaeda-Ba'athist linkage, then I would recommend you pay closer attention to the issue you appear desirous to debate. If you would like to debate the truthworthiness, provenance, or meaning of the significant evidence that has already been presented on this point, I'll be happy to.

The overwhelming evidence is that then 9/11 happened as a direct result of our governments hyper-interventionist foreign policy, Vis a vie the Mid-East. . This is quite evident as Bin Laden told us these were the reasons for 9/11 in his Fatwa.

Actually, contrary to the position of some hawks, I do not discount the possibility that the U.S. might not be a target of the Islamists at all if we were simply absent from the Middle East and its troubles. Bin Laden is engaged in a messianic type of project to rebuild the Caliphate, overthrow most of the governments of the region, eject or kill the Israelis, Christians, and Muslim apostates, etc. American policy has nothing to do with why his ilk want to do all of this. But because American policy conflicts with their goals, they are our enemies.

I think that American policy should conflict with those goals, that our interests in commerce, peace, and freedom would be imperiled by such a project. Contrary to myth, ou country has had an assertive policy along these lines for our entire history, and I don't foresee us transforming into simply a populous Canada anytime soon.

Actually, that's part of my point. The U.S. is not going to withdraw from the world. It will not allow Israelis, Christians, secular regimes, and other potential victims of bin Ladenism to be massacred or exiled, nor will we allow a significant share of the world's oil to fall into the hands of fascists. You may want the U.S. to do so, but it is simply not going to happen as long as we have a representative form of government.

Therefore, we are left with questions of how to proceed against an enemy that already exists and cannot be wished away.

[joe]

"I met (meant) switch sides on just the foreign intervention-war issue. Yeah; I figured you often reach for the "D" lever in the voting booth."

The "D" that most closely correlates to my voting choices stands for "Defeat." THAT'S why you'd be better off. 🙂

[Rick Barton]

Smokey,
You should be somewhat reticent to bring up "logic?
after offering the responses that you did in your first two paragraphs.

You work on fixing first one yourself. As to the second: It does not follow that Bin Laden was disingenuous in his 9/11 Fatwa just because Stalin concerning some of his mass murders. Also, Also, Stalin would have reasons to lie, that the concealed Bin Laden would not.

It is indeed the apprehension of the truth and morality that leads me, and I assume Justin, but he can speak for himself, (that was an understatement if there ever was one) to take the political positions I do. It's really all about promoting capitalism. The neo cons are just one of a number of groups opposed, albeit a very powerful group.

[Rick Barton]

Smokey,
Make that: "just because Stalin was, concerning some of his mass murders."
and of course, it should be sans one "also"
Sorry about that.

[Rick Barton]

"The casualties from al Qaeda attacks are down over two years, even if the number of attacks is flat. What does that mean?"

The BBC report I saw didn't say the number attacks were "flat". It said their frequency was at an all time high. This, coupled with your conjectures as to why the casualties from al Qaeda attacks are down over two years, certainly
makes your response of:"Preposterous" to Justin's contention that: "Al Qaeda is stronger, now, than ever.", inappropriate, to say the least.

feel free to continue to fantasize that al Qaeda is better off now that it has lost its base and much of its supply. I'll stick to reality.

I'm afraid what you're "sticking to" is the line that is consistent with Bush administration posturing. I find that, in your case, to be a waste of good time. BTW, did you really say Bush was ?decent?? That devalues the term on a number of counts.

I want to respond to the rest of your points but probably won't be able to until Sunday night, or Monday.

[Rick Barton]

"The "D" that most closely correlates to my voting choices stands for "Defeat." THAT'S why you'd be better off. :-)"

LOL; Yep, Now, that's a "D" lever I've had more recent experience with.

[Steve in CA]

Here's a fun question for you Raimondo defenders (and for the man hisownself, if he's still reading): Are there any fascist dictators that Justin hasn't defended when they've come under attack by America?

I'm thinking of Milosevic in particular, and an article Justin wrote headlined "Go, Slobo, Go!" in Pravda. I don't know if that was the original headline, but it's a pretty accurate description of the piece ("piece" being the operative word).

So I guess Justin's not anti-Semitic, at least not primarily. He likes people who kill Muslims too, as long as they're anti-American.

I find the fascist sympathies among some alleged libertarians to be quite confusing. I always figured fascism and libertarianism were polar opposites. But then, I'm a bloodthirsty neoconservative mercantalist warmonger libertarian, so what do I know?

"Go, Slobo, Go!"

[joe]

Rick, given my voting record, you'd probably be better off if I did switch sides.

Kevin, my problem with the story is the incautious manner in which it is often described, which leaves our side open to charges of antisemitic conspiracy mongering. I don't know enough to judge it on its merits.

[Rick Barton]

joe,
I met switch sides on just the foreign intervention-war issue. Yeah; I figured you often reach for the "D" lever in the voting booth.

[Rick Barton]

John Hood,
Al Qaeda might well be stronger then ever.
The fact that Al Qaeda no longer has a safe military base from which to operate and the other items you listed which are less verifiable have not seemed to slow them down. BBC just reported that the frequency of attacks attributed to them is at an all time high.

"as was the Ba?athist regime".

No evidence for that. Let alone sufficient evidence to justify carnage.

"Were you in favor of attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban?"

What about addressing the cause of the problem?
The overwhelming evidence is that then 9/11 happened as a direct result of our governments hyper-interventionist foreign policy, Vis a vie the Mid-East. . This is quite evident as Bin Laden told us these were the reasons for 9/11 in his Fatwa.

[Smokey]

"The overwhelming evidence is that then 9/11 happened as a direct result of our governments hyper-interventionist foreign policy"

The Neocons are very evil if they were able to decieve us into thinking that terrorists deliberately flying airplanes into buildings were the direct cause of 9-11.

"This is quite evident as Bin Laden told us these were the reasons for 9/11 in his Fatwa."

And Stalin claimed that he Kulaks were stealing from the People as justification to murder them. Who gives a fuck what he said?

Remember to leave the Truth, Logic and your Morals at the door when you join Rick & Justin's Excellent Crusade Against Neocons.

[Dowsett Morgan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/26/2004 06:18:12
Only the hand that erases can write the true thing.

[Sanner Paul]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 193.251.169.169
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 01:41:57
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.