Replies

What Justin Raimondo Really Meant

Who cares?

He's just another pipsqueak leftist anti-freedom antisemite psychopath.

And those are his only claims to fame. He's not even a David Duke. Pretty pathetic to be a big-loser wannabe.

He tried to parasite off of this web site, and still is apparently.

Moron Hollywood stars at least made millions of dollars etc...

Justin Raimondo used to be a FREEper. I'm assuming he's been banned. If so, he's unable to defend himself from hysterical attacks like this. A bit of overkill, however, in the ludicrious charge that he isn't much of a writer. Like him or not, he's a hell of a writer, and everyone who can read knows that.

I agree with Raimondo most of the time. Like other rabble- rousers on the internet, he provides a rational alternative to the idiots on Fox News, CNN, CBS, etc.

I'm absolutely, totally not a gay basher. What consenting adult hommaseckshuals do in the privacy of their home is none of my business. Also, having encountered quite a few of them in the course of my life, I know that you can't sum them all up in one characterization.

HOWEVER --

this Raimondo guy is the concentrated essence of everything that I dislike about catty, effeminate homos: The insinuation, the passive-aggressive behavior, the hit-and-run, the badmouthing, the swivel-wristed "Oh I'm so cute" denial.

Bah.

I can't defend Raimondo, except by saying that once upon a time he did some fairly good work. He was important in organizing the Republican Liberty Caucus, and has written a couple of well received books. That having been said, it appears he has gone over to the Dark Side these past few years. Many of his more recent articles are incomprehensible and take positions I can't imagine a decent person adopting.

But Schwartz has permitted his animus to spill over onto targets that don't deserve it, notably Garet Garrett and Murray Rothbard.

Garet Garrett was a prominent economist, New Deal critic and author of The People's Pottage, a set of essays on the expansion of Federal power through economic centralization and militarism. Though he strongly favored an America-first foreign policy, to the best of my knowledge he never advocated the defeat of the United States once the country had involved itself in war. Schwartz's statement to the contrary, notably free of any references or citations, seems to be pure slander.

Murray Rothbard was a brilliant economist and author. For a long time, he was regarded as one of the elite of Austrian neoclassical school of economics. His Man, Economy and State is probably the best "principles of economics" text available today. He's anything but obscure among the economically literate.

If you're going to go on the warpath against a particular target, you should at least try not to wound the uninvolved. Inasmuch as Schwartz seems to have gone out of his way to cast a wide net of aspersions, I question his motives, to say nothing of his decency and good taste.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

Poor Stephen Schwartz, a.k.a. Ahmed Suleyman, a.k.a. "Comrade Sandalio." He seems to have gone over the edge. No doubt the FReepers will be fascinated by his defense of unionism and Trotskyism, and his contention that he is the most learned scholar of all time. I see he has taken my attempt at humor -- pining for a world without Eminem -- and blown it up into a full-fledged delusional theory about ... something or other. He seems awfully mad about the "Israel knew about 9/11 and didn't tell us" theory promulgated by those well-known anti-Semites at Fox News. Perhaps he should write an article about how Carl Cameron, the reporter who did a four-part series about it.

Gee, since I changed my (first) name at the tender age of 16, I haven't been called "Dennis" in decades: reading Schwartz's rant, I get the eerie feeling that I'm being upbraided by my own mother! "Dennis, put down that 'Man in the High Castle' garbage and DO YOUR HOMEWORK!"

What I don't understand is why anyone would bother with Schwartz's unreadable attack on me, when they could've posted David "Axis of Drivel" Frum's jeremiad against myself, Lew Rockwell, Bob Novak, Buchanan, etc. -- which, believe it or not, is going to be the COVER STORY in National Review. At least Frum tries to make some distorted kind of sense. Schwartz is just bloviating about how wonderful he is, which, as anyone who has met him can testify, is nothing but a cruel joke.

I see all the usual Isra-bots are at the same old stand, exuding hate as naturally as a squid exudes dark clouds of splooge.

I don't know a thing about the author of the article (he's a SUFI? Really???), but I appreciate the message.

I would ask Mr. Raimondo just why he is so opposed to the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East but he won't answer me. I'd ask him why "good conservatives" who opposed the PLO's comrades in southern Africa and Latin America support the PLO, but all I will receive is smirking silence. I'd ask him why a homosexual libertarian opposed to the prosecution of "victimless crimes" feels he belongs on the Right just because he hates Israel, but he doesn't understand the question, since to him it is self-evident that hatred of Jews and Israel is the very essence of rightwingery. So since his spite and cruelty make a dialogue impossible I won't even bother to "ping" him.

However, what I'd really like to ask Dennis is from where he derives his worldview to begin with. If we are all just accidents of random chance, then why have any value system of any kind? Alas, the world is so accustomed to the "tyranny of the immediate" that such a question--and the implication that only ultimate things ultimately matter--is not welcome. Who cares if there's any meaning to it all? What does that have to do with our day-to-day life? I suppose this Hellenistic mindset is just part of his mania.

I suppose he would consider me a "religious fanatic" anyway (funny, I thought it was the LEFT that was opposed to "religious fanatics"), much as he employs that term on his website for people he fears might destroy this ultimately meangingless, random, coincidental world out of some misplaced belief that somewhere something might actually matter.

How can you argue with someone who is so cock-sure that the primary mission of the right wing is to oppose Zionism that he feels comfortable flaunting his homosexuality while calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "neocons" simply because their Biblical Fundamentalism leads them to support Israel?

I hope he dies in the collateral damage of the next domestic terrorist attack (G-d forbid) by his "anti-Communist" PLO buddies.