truth is that "La
Boca Grande," as the columnist Westbrook Pegler dubbed
Eleanor, shut up about the abominable persecution of the Nisei once
her husband ordered the roundup, and, in a newspaper article,
wrote that "unfortunately in a time of war many innocent
people must suffer hardships to safeguard the nation."
After California had been virtually emptied of Japanese-American
citizens, she visited
the Gila River internment camp, and promised to deliver
a report on her findings to the nation. Instead of exposing
the worst crime in the history of American jurisprudence,
she whitewashed FDR's draconian edict. As Alida M. Black put
it in Casting
Her Own Shadow: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Shaping of Postwar
wrote glowing accounts of the internees' attempts to beautify
their small plots of land. She also avoided discussing the
concerns about racism and resettlement the internees raised
during her meeting with them. She tempered her discussion
of the efforts the internees made to 'take part in the war
effort' with the reassurance that their 'loyalty' must be
authenticated by both the FBI and the War Relocation Authority
before they could begin work."
Kearns Goodwin, a liar by omission and commission,
owes her TV gigs to her one undeniable talent: she does it
with a straight face.
KNOCK ON THE DOOR IN THE NIGHT
worldwide roundup of suspected terrorists has reeled in
you guessed it, Pierre Boulez.
The world famous conductor, asleep at his five-star hotel
in Basle, Switzerland, was dragged out of bed by police who
told him he was on a list of suspected terrorists. Aside from
his long association with the obviously subversive Cleveland Orchestra,
Boulez, it appears, had bared his terroristic soul during
the 1960s, when he remarked that all opera houses ought to
be dynamited. As to whether this was a political statement
or a purely aesthetic judgment, hardly mattered: clearly the
authorities weren't taking any chances. The 75-year-old Boulez
had his passport confiscated and was allowed to leave after
Australia, Phillip Adams, a columnist for The Australian,
has been charged
with a "hate crime" on account of a piece he
wrote criticizing the US. Adams, whose name is a byword for
the sort of lefty political correctness encoded in "hate
crime" laws, enumerated the familiar litany of US wrongs:
Pinochet, the bombing of Cambodia, a past alliance with Saddam:
"If Australia is to be a true friend of the American people,
we must try to rein them in, not urge them on," he wrote.
"The US has to learn that its worst enemy is the US."
unidentified American filed a complaint with Australia's Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission charging that Adams
had engaged in "racial vilification" of Americans.
The Australian Thought Police are now conducting an "investigation,"
and the News Ltd. newspaper group, publisher of The Australian,
has been asked to submit a response. That News Ltd. must trouble
itself to point out the obvious indicting the American
government is not the same as vilifying the American
people illustrates the essential horror of life
not only in wartime, but for the past 20 or so years.
sounds too strange to be true," says the Sydney Morning
Herald, but the Wall Street Journal's James "No
Talent" Taranto, who writes their online "Best of
the Web" commentary, can hardly contain his glee: "We
agree; freedom of speech ought to protect even hateful speech,"
he solemnly declares, but then confesses that "it's nice
to see hatred of America being labeled for what it really
is another form of bigotry." Does Taranto, or
anyone, really believe it is "bigotry" to point
to the crimes of America's rulers, not only in Southeast Asia
and the Balkans but also at Waco and Ruby Ridge? If so, then
I'm sure Taranto will agree it was also "bigoted"
to expose the crimes of Bill Clinton, who bombed an aspirin
factory in the Sudan to get l'affaire Lewinsky off the front
"hate crime" laws may not be to his taste, Taranto
wants to start cracking down, right here at home, in other,
far more effective ways. National Review Online reports
that the White House has broken all relations with the Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), but the WSJ still
isn't satisfied: "If true," barks Taranto, "why
doesn't the White House put its money where its mouth is and
freeze CAIR's assets?" This is what the rabidly pro-Israel
WSJ really wants: to close down each and every Islamic
and Arab-American institution in America, so that Israel's
amen corner will have the field all to itself. In preparation
for a final solution to the "Palestinian problem"
the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestine the
Israeli lobby is going on an all-out offensive against any
person or group that dares stand in its way.
THEY CAME FOR BOB BARR
with a conscience, and pro-war liberals who never had any,
think they can put up with the mass roundup, the increased
surveillance and the crackdown on alleged "pro-terrorist"
organizations in the US because all these people, they aver,
are foreigners: American citizens, they believe, are safe.
But for how long? CAIR is an American organization, of course,
way Attorney General John Ashcroft is talking, it won't
be long before the feds start coming after the American Civil
Liberties Union, Rep. Bob Barr, and, indeed, anyone
who dares look askance at his junking of the Constitution.
a few Senators tried to question some of Ashcroft's methods, albeit
quite mildly, he roared: "To those who scare peace-loving
people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this:
your tactics only aid terrorists." And we all know what
happens to those who give aid and comfort to terrorists: they
themselves will be branded terrorists, and dealt with accordingly.
general tenor of the times was well-expressed by David Keith, star
of Behind Enemy Lines, a grade-C movie that tries to
valorize our Balkan bullying, aboard an aircraft carrier in
the Arabian Sea, where he told the troops: "You
are the fists to smash their mouths, and our teeth to rip
off their throats!" Yeah, and our tongues to suck
of bloodsuckers, Hillary
Clinton is back in the news, aiming her fangs at Yasser Arafat's
neck. The US, she warned him, would "root out"
the terrorists in the Palestinian Authority, and, in the process,
the PA might meet the same fate as the Taliban for "harboring"
terrorists. "The same message," she averred, "must
be sent to the Palestinian Authority and to Chairman Arafat:
Anyone who harbors or turns a blind eye to terror in their
midst will be held accountable." It
didn't matter to her that Arafat had already arrested a dozen
Hamas militants, just as it didn't matter to Ariel Sharon.
the Israelis bombed the very institutions that would interdict
the suicide bombers the Palestinian police Mrs.
Clinton made it plain who was to blame: "This rests squarely
on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. No one is safe because
the leadership of the Palestinian Authority refuses to take
responsibility for the acts of terror that have occurred with
increasing frequency." Knowing perfectly well that Arafat
has lost control and can no longer contain the desperate anger
of an occupied people, she utters this lie with the same cynical
disregard for truth that allowed her to dismiss the charges
against her husband as the result of a "vast right-wing
wants to capitalize on 9/11: Hillary Clinton, mobilizing her
New York base with visions of a presidential run dancing in
her head; the American Taliban-types in the attorney general's
office, reaching for power; the Israelis, eager to equate
Arafat with Bin Laden and, yes, even the pathetically
ineffective antiwar movement, or at least that section of
it owned and operated by the International Socialist Organization
(ISO). I made the great mistake of attending a "Town
Hall" antiwar "teach-in" held at San Francisco
State on Saturday and came away muttering "What
was I thinking?"
A FALSE FLAG
missed the morning session, but got there in time to hear
a panel discussion with the fascinating title of "Why
the US was Targeted." Who could resist such a topic?
The room was packed, and we had to trot across the hall to
a larger space. The first speaker, one Phil Gaspar, a professor
of philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University, immediately
disclaimed any intention of speaking on the topic, and, true
to his word, went on to give a pretty mundane history of the
US as seen through Marxist eyes. My heart sank: did I really
have to sit through 20-minutes of shopworn leftist clichés?
We had, in effect, been corralled in this room under false
pretenses. I thought maybe this might be the time to go out
and have a cigarette, but then thought better of it, and got
out my notebook….
US, we were told, is controlled by "a very small minority"
who monopolize political power and hog all the wealth. There
was no mention of elections (not even to disdain them), or
the Constitution: the Bill of Rights was completely disappeared.
This country, he averred, was founded by racist murderers,
whose program of ethnic cleansing didn't stop until they had
reached the Pacific Ocean and not even then. For they
went on to attack and annex the Philippines, and then rampaged
through Central and South America.
explained that World War I was all about the evils of capitalism,
quoting Woodrow Wilson the man responsible for dragging
us in to that effect. Not surprisingly, the Professor's
synopsis of World War II a war supported by Communist
Party members at the time, and one that split the Trotskyists
was very brief, and his own position left vague.
The irony is that our "new war" is often compared
to World War II in its projected scope and grave consequences,
but clearly Professor Gaspar was in no mood to address these,
and, at any rate, was naturally more interested in the cold
the Socialist Professor failed to mention the antiwar opposition
prior to World War II. The anti-Roosevelt right-wing America
First Committee, the biggest antiwar movement in our history,
wouldn't have fit into his capsulized Cartoon History of
the US. Nor did he mention the anti-imperialist opposition
to our Philippine adventure, with their politically incorrect
argument that the conquest of an alien land would corrupt
the integrity of the American Republic: the anti-imperialists
of that era were decidedly not multiculturalists.
peroration ended with an indictment of capitalism as a system
that is inherently warlike and not a peep, not even
a giggle, from a glassy-eyed audience that didn't remember
(if they ever knew) about the Soviet annexation of Eastern
Europe. When the Red Army marched into Afghanistan, in the
1980s, it wasn't capitalism they were exporting, now was
woman, Noura Erakat, got up and declared that Arafat was a
sellout, who didn't represent her: what was novel about
her diatribe, however, was that she mentioned the two forbidden
words Bin Laden which Professor Gasper could
not bring himself to utter once during the 20 or so minutes
of his lecture.
was struck by what Cristina Vasquez, a Colombian woman identified
as a former member of M-19, said during the
course of her talk. Speaking with a quiet passion, and with
the kind of conviction that reflected a lifetime of struggle
visible in the lines of her face clearly, this woman
had been through a lot she said: "I love my country
dearly, but I am here, now." There was wistfulness
and authenticity in her voice, a realness lacking in
the others, and I wondered looking around the room
if the "antiwar" movement could make the
QUESTIONS, AND ALL ANSWERS
they love their country? I made that query out loud
during the bizarre question period and was met with an embarrassed
silence. Bizarre because there were no real questions, for
the most part, only two-minute canned speeches, during which
representatives of various Trotskyoid grouplets got up to
make their stereotyped pitches: "We need a revolutionary
workers' party!" said a robotic kid with thick glasses
as he held aloft a copy of Workers Vanguard. One older
man rose to remind us that "we need to remember the lessons
of the Russian Revolution." It was clear that he did
not mean the revolution that overthrew the Commies
and I had the eerie feeling that he had yet to hear
the news that the heirs of the October Revolution are no more.
WE DESERVE IT?
no one really addressed my question: their eyes glazed over,
and they went back into their time-warp, safe in the knowledge
of their own irrelevance. My plea to not turn the antiwar
movement into just another socialist-sectarian front group
fell, I'm afraid, into a void. Turning to Professor Gaspar,
I asked: "So, your argument on the question of why the
US was targeted is: we deserved it? That's what you're
going to take to the American people with 90 percent
approval for the war in the polls? I don't think so!"
but I'm afraid so: The San
Francisco "Town Hall Meeting" group is, after
all, just a shill, a Potemkin Village built by the International
Socialist Organization, a Trotskyist outfit that cynically
believes it can recruit impressionable youngsters by mouthing
tired clichés and being more politically correct than
their competitors in the shrinking left milieu. Arguing with
these people is impossible, and a waste of time: they are parasites on
the antiwar movement, and quite well aware of their own
role as bloodsuckers. They don't want to be effective,
they don't care about the war the bigger war that is
coming except in terms of how they
can build up their pathetic little organization.
SPIRIT OF 1776
of this war and, don't kid yourself, it has just begun
and those who fight to preserve the Constitution against
Ashcroft's Raiders should see themselves as the real patriots.
Proudly flying the Gadsen
flag "Don't Tread on Me!" they
should take the initiative and take to the streets,
boldly proclaiming that the Founding Fathers didn't want an
Empire, and wouldn't have stood still for Ashcroft's police
state. Let the Commies and other authoritarians have the blood-soaked
legacy of the Russian Revolution: the patriots of 1776 were
indigenous authentic American radicals who made a real Revolution,
one that lives on in our hearts (and in the Bill of Rights)
today. Unfortunately, those who believe the Founders were
"racist murderers" have stolen the banner of the
antiwar movement and that movement, if it wants to
exist at all and have a voice, must either reject them or
the horror of it all! The Right is marching blindly off to
war, and the Left is marching off a cliff, while the nation,
unawares, takes the road to Empire. Am I really alone, then,
sitting here in my study, surrounded by books and the ghosts
of anti-imperialists past? Randolph
T. Flynn, Murray
A. Beard, Harry
Elmer Barnes, Lawrence
Garrison Villard, Robinson
Jeffers their literary remains line my shelves,
standing shoulder to shoulder, their voices stilled
yet ready to speak at the first sign that someone, somewhere,
may yet listen.
lessons they have to teach must be learned by a new generation,
and that is where the horror of it all begins to recede, and
hope a brightness in the foggy San Francisco morning
lightens our dark prospects. For as long as human civilization
lasts, and these dusty volumes remain unburned (albeit unopened),
there is always that hope: the promise of a new generation
and a new day.
prospects for peace and liberty, in modern times, have never
been worse, and I'll admit it: I'm afraid. As we descend into
the darkness all I can do is hold up the flickering torch
and hope that, someday, someone will re-light it.
of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print
classic study of Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the
Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or Contribute Via
our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
are now tax-deductible