Posted on 02/08/2003 8:19:06 AM PST by Richard Poe
Last Monday, Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo listed me in a rogue's gallery of people he considered to be "kooks," "warmongers" and "nutballs." According to Raimondo, my kookery is confirmed by two facts:
1. I have chided Raimondo for attempting to incite mutiny in the United States armed forces -- a charge which provoked a heated debate on FreeRepublic.com.
2. I have suggested that investigators Laurie Mylroie and Jayna Davis may be correct in their respective claims that Iraqi intelligence played a direct role in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
On FreeRepublic.com, Raimondo admitted to me that he had never taken the trouble to thoroughly familiarize himself with the evidence presented by Mylroie and Davis, but nevertheless felt confident in judging their theories to be "tinfoil hat material" -- FreeRepublic jargon for a conspiracy theory so bizarre and implausible that only a nut would believe it.
As regular readers of Antiwar.com know, Raimondo is trying very hard to discourage Americans from attacking Iraq. To this end he relentlessly repeats the mantra that Iraq has never attacked us -- while dismissing all evidence of such attacks as symptoms of mental illness and kookery.
We know what Raimondo is doing. The question is, why is he doing it?
Raimondo's foreign connections are worth noting. He writes for Pravda.ru -- a Web site loosely associated with the paper or tree-zine version of Pravda, owned by the Russian Communist Party.
In its mission statement, Pravda.ru distinguishes itself from its Communist sister publication in these words:
In spite of the fact that the journalists of both versions keep in touch with each other, they have different conceptions regarding the coverage of the life of our country and abroad. As opposed to the newspaper Pravda, which analyses events from the point of view of the party's interests, PRAVDA On-line bases itself on a pro-Russian approach to forming the newspaper's policy.
What exactly does Pravda.ru mean by a "pro-Russian" approach?
One hint comes from Bill White -- a self-styled "anti-Semite" and disciple of the Italian fascist intellectual Baron Julius Evola. White was once employed by Pravda.ru as its U.S. correspondent.
Following his rancorous resignation from Pravda.ru in February 2002, White published an article on his Overthrow.com Web site, in which he described Pravda.ru as:
...an organization run by a National Bolshevik third-positionist tendency within the Russian Communist Party, who told me, on my retainer, that they were a "red-brown" "communist-fascist / communist-nationalist" organization that wanted to promote anti-imperialism, libertarianism and Constitutionalism in the United States in order to weaken the US role as imperial superpower. Though I didn't agree with their personal politics, their program for America - limited government, an end to war, and the restoration of civil rights and the Constitution, sounded fine to me - and I agreed to write for them...
[emphasis added]
For those unfamiliar with Russian politics, historian Ronald Radosh defines a "Red-Brown Alliance" as "the coming together in post Soviet Russia of right-wing nationalists and unreconstructed Communists."
So, according to Mr. White, he agreed to write for Pravda.ru, with the full knowledge that he was assisting foreigners in an organized effort to undermine the United States as a global power.
Did Justin Raimondo receive a similarly-worded "retainer" from Pravda.ru? Is Raimondo also aware that his Russian editors are attempting to build a "Red-Brown" alliance? Does Raimondo know that his editors view him as a Quisling, an agent of influence, a pawn in their propaganda war against the United States?
To get a taste of the sort of stuff Raimondo writes for his Russian audience, read his article "Terror at Home -- The Price of Hegemony," posted on Pravda.ru the day after the 9-11 attack. Raimondo writes:
The World Trade Center... is but a pile of smoldering rubble. Crashing down along with this symbol of capitalism, modernity, and civilization is the overweening hubris of a government – and a people – who thought themselves immune.... exempt not only from the rules that govern and limit the powers of other nations, but also from history itself. For history... tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No one is immune, and this is the meaning of the horrific events unfolding before our eyes.
According to Raimondo, 9-11 was karmic payback for our sins. But to what sins does he refer? He appears to mean the imposition of U.S. "hegemony" over the rest of the world -- what the editors of Pravda.ru might call America's "role as imperial superpower."
Raimondo concludes his article thus:
A common word we hear in foreign policy circles is "hegemonism." We stand at the apex of power, and the French have even invented a special term for the hubristic heights of the American Imperium: they call us the hyperpower. It was coined to describe a power outside human history, outside the ordinary rules and conditions attached to human existence, a power without parallel or precedent. We were all about actions, and not about consequences: unlike the empires of the past, America was thought to be exempt from any possible reaction to its imperial edicts. Now we know it isn't true: too bad we had to learn the hard way.
Our crime, according to Raimondo, is that we became too mighty, attaining "power without parallel or precedent." The slaughter of 9-11, in Raimondo's view, was a fitting punishment for that sin.
How does one repent of the sin of being too powerful? I suppose the only real repentence would be to become less powerful.
It does appear that Raimondo's writings dovetail nicely with the political goals of his Russian editors -- that is, to "weaken the US role as imperial superpower" in the words of Raimondo's former colleague Bill White.
In the intelligence world, an agent of influence is defined as, "An asset... who is assigned the job of influencing policy, rather than collecting intelligence." Opinion leaders of all sorts can function as agents of influence, from government officials to journalists.
Journalists are particularly effective in shaping public opinion. As agents of influence or "propaganda assets," they can be used to disseminate false, misleading or defeatist ideas to confound, bewilder and discourage their countrymen.
Whether or not Raimondo is paid by Pravda.ru for his work, and whether or not he considers himself fully sympathetic with its geopolitical goals, I think it would be hard to argue that Raimondo is not functioning as an agent of influence for a potentially hostile foreign power -- or at least for a foreign political network.
I am not suggesting that Pravda.ru controls Raimondo, any more than it controlled Bill White. I do suggest, however, that the ease and comfort with which Raimondo reconciles himself to serving an overtly anti-American foreign propaganda mill raises troubling questions about his patriotism.
_________________________________
Richard Poe is a New York Times bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His latest book The New Underground: How Conservatives Conquered the Internet is scheduled for April 2003 release. Poe's previous book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control.
Careful there. In Justine's bath house, that may have another meaning.
My agenda is using taxpayer money wisely.
Are you saying it is geographically impossible (or even improbable) that Iraq would "aim" chemical, bacteriologic and dirty nuke weapons at us? That they couldn't get any of this material into the US, along with the people to set it off?
He's editorial director for a site that ran articles supporting Communist China, calling Tibet racist for trying to slow the rape of their country, and praising Mao and Fidel.
Sorry, if he's one of us, I've been at the wrong site for several years.<
Where does Justine stand on:
Abortion? (Reagan wrote an entire book affirming the right to life of innocent infants while president.)
Homosexuality? (OK, Reagan spent a lot of time in Hollyweird and did not want to give offense but he also drew a sharp line between gays not being persecuted and gays being favored by special rights.)
The need for the conservative movement to ever be undergirded by Judaeo-Christian morality? (Was this not a major Reagan priority?)
The desireability of the United States maintaining military power and hardware second to none and far ahead of whatever comes second? (Was this not a major Reagan priority?)
Reducing the tax burdens on anyone without gutting American military strength? (always a Reagan priority.)
Such fraudulent terms as "statist RINO groupthink?" (Reagan, as an actual conservative would reject such "paleo-conservatism" or, more accurately, fraudulent disguised liberalism in conservative drag, knowing, as Reagan did, real conservatism when he saw it: "Bold colors, no pale pastels.")
Purging the GOP as necessary of baby-killing bookkeeper Republicans of the 1930s variety who brought us to the point of 8 allegedly GOP senators out of 96 at the height of their in-party power? (Reagan's embrace was bigh enough to include defecting anti-communist, pro-military, pro-gun, anti-tax Democratic working class boters and Southern Democrats and he had to fight the hereditary green-eye-shade Republicans every inch of the way.)
Reagan's opening of the GOP to freedom-loving blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities insofar as they accepted basic GOP principles of conservatism?
The fact that the isolationist "America First" Committee turned 180 degrees on the occasion of Pearl Harbor, disbanded, and was NOT revived after World War II since isolationism had acquired a permanently bad odor by then?
The fact that Amercans are not willing to join in any attempt to Europeanize the conservative movement or the GOP into the sort of sorry excuse for "conservatism" that, in places like France, puts the welfare state above all else and just wants to be left alone. (Leaving them alone is a very good idea in the event of their next crisis. France and Germany are certainly proving unworthy of one more drop of American blood as Robert Taft the Elder warned after WWII in advocating that we turn our attentions to the Third World in the search for allies.)
BYRON: These leftists in conservative drag like Justine do have loads of energy but NO worthwhile insights. They are not "us." To you, they may be "us" in which case you are not "us." Reagan would have driven these pretentious jerks from his tent in three seconds flat and fumigated the tent thereafter.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Otto Rauch, Ariel Sharon, Nguyen Cao Ky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Pope John Paul II (even disagreeing on the current war but not for the warmed over McGovernism of Justine), Berlusconi, Zbigniew Brzynski, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Kristol, Midge Decter (oh, to see Justine debating Midge Decter, no holds barred), the flyer and hero quoted at length in the article on your home page, and even Tony Blair (may my Irish grandmother forgive me!) are "us."
Apropos, another one of your posts, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy was "us" as Justine will never be. What McCarthy lacked in tact, he made up for in wisdom. A little review of the soviet archives and the Black Book of (c)ommunism is in order, Byron.
George McGovern, Scott Ritter, Justin Raimondo, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ralph Nader, Ramsay Clark, A.N.S.W.E.R.: International or otherwise, the Women's International League for Peace, James Abourezk, Nicholas Rahall, James McDermott, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Sean (I am soooo wasted) Penn, Susan Saranwrap, the feminazis in pink who are at "ground zero" in Baghdad as a "human shield" (how lucky can we be!), and the usual gang of similar suspects are most emphatically NOT "us."
Am I calling anyone names? How can I help it?
Just because Reagan was a nice guy, doesn't mean that his tolerance was infinite. Take your own advice and address the issues raised above. I am one of Justine's detractors and proud of it. He's done such a wonderful job for (on) Pat Buchanan. How can anyone resist being a robot for Raimondo? Think what he can do for (to) our movement or our country as a whole!
Where does Justine stand on:
Abortion? (Reagan wrote an entire book affirming the right to life of innocent infants while president.)
Homosexuality? (OK, Reagan spent a lot of time in Hollyweird and did not want to give offense but he also drew a sharp line between gays not being persecuted and gays being favored by special rights.)
The need for the conservative movement to ever be undergirded by Judaeo-Christian morality? (Was this not a major Reagan priority?)
The desireability of the United States maintaining military power and hardware second to none and far ahead of whatever comes second? (Was this not a major Reagan priority?)
Reducing the tax burdens on anyone without gutting American military strength? (always a Reagan priority.)
Such fraudulent terms as "statist RINO groupthink?" (Reagan, as an actual conservative would reject such "paleo-conservatism" or, more accurately, fraudulent disguised liberalism in conservative drag, knowing, as Reagan did, real conservatism when he saw it: "Bold colors, no pale pastels.")
Purging the GOP as necessary of baby-killing bookkeeper Republicans of the 1930s variety who brought us to the point of 8 allegedly GOP senators out of 96 at the height of their in-party power? (Reagan's embrace was bigh enough to include defecting anti-communist, pro-military, pro-gun, anti-tax Democratic working class boters and Southern Democrats and he had to fight the hereditary green-eye-shade Republicans every inch of the way.)
Reagan's opening of the GOP to freedom-loving blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other minorities insofar as they accepted basic GOP principles of conservatism?
The fact that the isolationist "America First" Committee turned 180 degrees on the occasion of Pearl Harbor, disbanded, and was NOT revived after World War II since isolationism had acquired a permanently bad odor by then?
The fact that Amercans are not willing to join in any attempt to Europeanize the conservative movement or the GOP into the sort of sorry excuse for "conservatism" that, in places like France, puts the welfare state above all else and just wants to be left alone. (Leaving them alone is a very good idea in the event of their next crisis. France and Germany are certainly proving unworthy of one more drop of American blood as Robert Taft the Elder warned after WWII in advocating that we turn our attentions to the Third World in the search for allies.)
BYRON: These leftists in conservative drag like Justine do have loads of energy but NO worthwhile insights. They are not "us." To you, they may be "us" in which case you are not "us." Reagan would have driven these pretentious jerks from his tent in three seconds flat and fumigated the tent thereafter.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Otto Rauch, Ariel Sharon, Nguyen Cao Ky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Pope John Paul II (even disagreeing on the current war but not for the warmed over McGovernism of Justine), Berlusconi, Zbigniew Brzynski, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Kristol, Midge Decter (oh, to see Justine debating Midge Decter, no holds barred), the flyer and hero quoted at length in the article on your home page, and even Tony Blair (may my Irish grandmother forgive me!) are "us."
Apropos, another one of your posts, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy was "us" as Justine will never be. What McCarthy lacked in tact, he made up for in wisdom. A little review of the soviet archives and the Black Book of (c)ommunism is in order, Byron.
George McGovern, Scott Ritter, Justin Raimondo, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ralph Nader, Ramsay Clark, A.N.S.W.E.R.: International or otherwise, the Women's International League for Peace, James Abourezk, Nicholas Rahall, James McDermott, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Sean (I am soooo wasted) Penn, Susan Saranwrap, the feminazis in pink who are at "ground zero" in Baghdad as a "human shield" (how lucky can we be!), and the usual gang of similar suspects are most emphatically NOT "us."
Am I calling anyone names? How can I help it?
Just because Reagan was a nice guy, doesn't mean that his tolerance was infinite. Take your own advice and address the issues raised above. I am one of Justine's detractors and proud of it. He's done such a wonderful job for (on) Pat Buchanan. How can anyone resist being a robot for Raimondo? Think what he can do for (to) our movement or our country as a whole!
Well, I can.
'Where's Bin Laden?' seems much more pressing, to me. But the core issue is that, out of all the enemies of conservatism against which you could have directed your pen, you chose Raimondo, who is on all the major indices himself a conservative. Can't someone of your capabilities find a lib to lead the charge against? And you did it in a rhetorical and rabble-rousing manner. If you really think Raimondo's an 'enemy agent' then go tell the FBI, Richard.
I read a lot of JR's stuff in a daily e-mail newsletter sent around over here. And I've never seen anything even vaguely approximating those charges. So I'm going to ignore that unless and until you front up with some links. Cheers, By.
Then you must have missed his Communist China Wing; it's quite a large wing, part of the Communist Apologist Section, easy to find; I'm surprised you never noticed it:
"Today, the Communists – in Russia, China or Cuba – are heroic fighters. Almost alone they are resisting the relentless juggernaut of the United States and its mindless "market democracy" ideology."Mao Tse-tung freed China from its century-long submission to foreign powers. Fidel Castro restored dignity and pride to an island…"
The Red Tide Turning?
…the Dalai Lama is a racist.
Peruse this area a while and let me know if you still think the editorial director is still "one of us."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.