my opinion of the War Party's propaganda and tactics has always
been low, I never thought they would stoop to the tactics
employed by Ronald
Radosh, the neoconservative author and frequent writer
for Frontpage, whose recent piece in the Boston Globe
[10/13/02] characterizes me as nothing but a …. faggot. And
a leftist – oh yes, and also a fascist. "The
red and the brown" is the title of this smear job,
and it purports to be an analysis of The
American Conservative, the new bi-weekly magazine
edited by Pat Buchanan,
Theodoracopulos, and our sometime columnnist, Scott
McConnell. In the course of misrepresenting the contents
of the first two issues, and somehow dragging in Charles
A. Lindbergh's infamous quote about the origins of World
War II, he characterizes my contribution to the magazine as
American Conservative proudly roots itself in this past
by publishing Justin Raimondo's ode to 'the Old Right [who]
knew something about the temptations of Empire.' Raimondo
is a gay conservative activist from San Francisco whose chief
claim to fame is his single appearance on 'Politically Incorrect,'
when Bill Maher made fun of him for being one of the few openly
gay supporters of Buchanan."
after writing two books, and helping to found a website that
attracts some 20,000 unique visitors a day, I'm just a faggot
after all. And the neocons used to call us "haters"
and bigots on the campaign trail!
the story of my encounter with the very over Bill
Maher before. Suffice to say that Maher's obsession with my
sexuality and Dweezil
Zappa's vacant gaze made the experience an unpleasant
one. And did I tell you that Maher billed me for the hotel?
Tacky doesn't even begin to describe the guy, as
even network executives eventually realized.
for being a gay conservative activist from San Francisco –
I admit to being a San Franciscan, but that's about it. For
the record, I have always been an out-of-the-closet libertarian,
as even a cursory examination of my writings would reveal.
Radosh brings it up, I'll say this about my personal life:
you wish you had it so good, brother!
very telling how the same obsession with separating out "Left"
and "Right" that permeates Radoshs discussion
of The American Conservative seems to preoccupy him,
on another more personal level, when it comes to me. I have
to be either "gay," or "straight" – as
if the complexity of human sexuality in all its broad range
of expression could be squeezed into these two categories.
I had to explain this to Bill Maher, too, which was odd considering
how his job was to hobnob with the Hollywood elite.
also very odd to encounter this kind of spiteful rhetoric
coming from someone with whom I've always had cordial relations.
I wouldn't normally publish someone's email to me, because
it seems in somewhat bad taste, but in this case it seems
almost classy compared to the utter tastelessness cited above.
rave review I gave to his book, Commies, Radosh
sent me this note:
read your review. Really wonderful. I appreciate greatly the
care with which you conducted your discussion, and your understanding
of what I was trying to do in it. I also appreciate your ability
to distinguish my approach from David
Horowitz and others."
Ron, too bad I can't say the same about you. You don't even
discuss the content of what I wrote in The American Conservative,
a modest little riff on a theme from Garet
Garrett's The American Story. Instead, it's all
Raimondo runs a Web site called antiwar.com, in which he extols
the good old days of the America First Movement. For a short
time, he points out, that movement included not only conservatives,
but socialists like Norman Thomas and, in the period before
the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, the Communist leader Earl Browder."
begin with, Earl
Browder was never a member or even a fellow traveler,
so to speak, of the America
First Committee, and I'm surprised that a scholar of the
Old Right, such as the learned Radosh, would make such a glaring
error. Communists were explicitly barred from membership
in the AFC, and, at any rate, as Radosh pointed out on page
31 of Prophets on the Right, the Commies disagreed
with the America Firsters on a fundamental point:
Communists, in the period before the signing of the Nazi-Soviet
Nonagression Pact, supported the President's sympathetic attitude
toward collective security."
Browder and the Communist Party took the same line that Radosh
is now taking toward toward America First, past and present,
by linking them with Lindbergh's alleged anti-Semitism. The
Communists always denounced the AFC as a "reactionary"
tool of the capitalists meant to deceive the workers – and
after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, they were smearing
them as "fifth columnists" and calling for their
prosecution for "sedition." Who am I to lecture
to the author of Prophets on the Right: Conservative Critics
of American Globalism, a book we give to all our donors,
and which I cite copiously in my 1993 book, Reclaiming
the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement?
Surely he knows better – or ought to.
two faces of Ronald Radosh – which one is real? The public
face, as expressed in his Boston Globe piece, or the
private one, as expressed in his email:
do, however, disagree with you strenuously on foreign policy,
and generally am in the neo-concamp, with some exceptions.
But your discussions are principled and serious, and I welcome
them. I'll try to address these issues in the new introduction
to Prophets on the Right."
I admit to being principled and serious, but, again, it's
a crying shame I can't say the same for Radosh. Having dealt
with my sex life, he then accuses me, incredibly, of being
a Communist with fascist sympathies:
it seems that Raimondo is now attempting to forge his own
Red-Brown alliance, as Europeans refer to the coming together
in post Soviet Russia of right-wing nationalists and unreconstructed
Communists. In August 2001, he even published an article in
Pravda (yes, that Pravda) in which he dismissed the idea that
'America is a civilized country,' and, referring to World
War II, maintained that 'the wrong side won the war in the
really galling is that I have to be red-baited by someone
who was, for a good part of his life, an apologist for the
Kremlin and a convinced socialist. He and his neocon confreres
may have jettisoned their Commie baggage, but they are still
masters of the lowdown tactics employed by that criminal sect.
the burning question of whether I'm an agent
of the Mikado, as well as a right-wing isolationist, I'll
leave it to the curious reader to decide by going here
and reading my original piece. Suffice to say that, having
shed his old Stalinist ideology, it seems Radosh has retained
the humorless character of the species. And of course there
is the obligatory charge of anti-Semitism:
for Israel, last week Raimondo continued to proclaim the myth
that 'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11,' a claim that puts
his Web site in league with the most extreme anti-Semitic
canards coming from the Arab world, not to mention the
poetry of Amiri Baraka."
I didn't know Carl
Cameron was Arab, and correct me if I'm wrong I could've
sworn Fox News was based in New York, not Riyadh. For the
idea that Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11 was first broached
on Fox in a
four-part series narrated by Cameron, in which he said
is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11
attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may
have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and
not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are
quote – 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly
refused to describe them, saying, – quote – 'evidence linking
these Israelis to 9-11 is classified.'"
is rabidly pro-Israel Fox News spewing "the most extreme
anti-Semitic canards coming from the Arab world"? And
I have another news flash for Radosh: Die
Zeit, a generally pro-Israel German weekly of some
repute, is now
reporting that the Israeli spy operation I've been detailing
in this space since last year was indeed watching
the hijackers, which is precisely what I've said all along.
You can go
here for articles in the "mainstream" media
– including Salon,
Intelligence Digest – reporting the facts Radosh thinks
he can disappear by calling them "canards."
I now forced to comment on the "poetry" of Amiri
Baraka? Good lord, am I to be spared nothing? Oh
well, here goes: From what one can glean from his ravings,
Official Poet of New Jersey is saying that 4,000 Israelis
didn't show up for work because they knew the attack was coming.
As I pointed out to a black gentleman on a call-in radio interview
during my recent appearance at Washington University, in St.
Louis: what makes anybody think 4,000 Israelis worked at the
World Trade Center? Has anyone ever tried to keep a secret
by telling only 4,000 New Yorkers? Fuggedaboutit!
I never said that 4,000 people had foreknowledge of the WTC
attack, or anything close to it, and Radosh knows it. To even
have to deny it is an obscenity, and Radosh owes me a public
misconstrues the rest of the writers in the first issue of
TAC in a similar vein: he simply ignores what Kevin
Phillips has to say about the dangers of "Wall Street
socialism" and blithely accuses him of being a "leftist."
He also ignores Stuart
Reid's paean to American culture – not to mention his
American wife and son – and crudely smears him as a "blame
America first conservative." It doesn't count that Reid,
a deputy editor of the Spectator,
supported the Vietnam war: what the War Party wants to know
is "what have you done for us lately?"
in short, is a liar. That is the only way the War Party can
win: they're lying to the American people about a nonexistent
"threat" to the United States, just as Radosh is
lying his head off about me, without regard for either decency
or plain common sense. And they aren't even very convincing
W. Bush tells us that Saddam is going to send
drone planes over the U.S. – a technology so advanced
that we don't even have it! Now that was a whopper,
and about as believable as the wacky idea that my secret plan
is to raise Communism from the grave. Now that is a
real canard! I was working for Barry Goldwater for
President when Red Radosh was campaigning for Gus Hall.
opponents of this rotten war are being attacked on several
fronts: the print edition of National Review features
a piece on the alleged "split" in libertarianism
over the war question, by that noted expert on all things
Ponnuru. Our sister site, Lewrockwell.com,
comes under fire, along with Harry
Browne, but the job of smearing Antiwar.com was left to
Radosh, since we don't even merit a mention in NR.
Oh boo hoo hoo.
I've always found wonderfully funny, however, is the
rave review the online National Review Book Service
gives to my last book, An
Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard,
a major theme of which is the evil role played by National
Review and specifically Bill
Buckley over the years:
these dark days of ever-encroaching statism, we need Murray
Rothbard more than ever! An Enemy of the State is an engrossing
introduction both to this dynamo of thought and action and
to his incisive writings, which are still as fresh as they
were when he wrote them.
the course of economist
and political writer Murray N. Rothbard's tumultuous life,
as detailed by Justin Raimondo in An Enemy of the State
he took up the cudgels for the anti-New Deal Old Right,
the anti-war New Left, the Libertarian Party, and for a newly
revived Old Right. But in all of these wanderings, Rothbard
as Raimondo demonstrates here remained absolutely
consistent: he was an indefatigable advocate for the freedom
of each individual. He dedicated his life to defending this
freedom against all attackers (whatever ideology they professed),
and he did so with brilliant insight and trenchant wit."
we absolutely do need Rothbard more than ever. It's
too bad he is no longer with us. His spirit, however,
is laughing somewhere – at the transparent viciousness of
the attacks, and at all the fun we're having fighting his
old enemies, the neoconservatives.
He fought the neocons when they were Trotskyists, when they
were social democrats-turned-Scoop Jackson Democrats, and,
finally, in their final incarnation as right-wing neo-imperialists.
Today, we're fighting them in his absence, and, inspired by
Rothbard, we're doing a damn good job of it. Why else the
recent flurry of drive-by shootings? As Rothbard once wrote:
the libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to
… discover who his friends and natural allies are, and, above
all, perhaps, who his enemies are."
are hated by all the right people – and that is an achievement
worth boasting about.
Please Support Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
contributions are now tax-deductible