Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Don't blame MY "geopolitical obsessions" for Yushchenko's enthusiasm for joining NATO. And if you don't think NATO is a dagger pointed at Putin's throat, then your wide-eyed "idealistic" act is more authentic than it appears.

The Ukrainians, who understandably want to rid themselves of political parasites, are being used as pawns in a geopolitical game. It is one thing to throw out the oligarchs, assert Ukrainian independence from Russia, and introduce free market reforms, but quite another to provoke the Russians into a confrontation by joining NATO. Not to mention the EU -- a socialist bureaucracy and a rising superpower in its own right.

Where, pray tell, did you ge the $61 million figure? Radio Free Europe? Sheeesh! Were you really born yesterday?

And to think that a nation can be bought that cheaply!

What I don't get is the "moral equivalency" drivel. Earth calling Discoshaman: There is no more Communism. Putin is not a Communist. People are free to leave Russia, they have multiparty elections, and while it's no libertarian paradise, that's the problem for the Russian people to decide for themselves.

By the way, don't they have laws in the Ukraine about foreign money being poured into elections. Because we do have them here in the U.S., as I'm sure you're aware, and for good reason. We don't want foreigners manipulating the electoral process -- and one would think that any patriotic Ukrainian would have the same reaction.

Posted by: Justni Raimondo at janvier 4, 2005 08:48 AM

P.S. I am puzzled by your characterization of Antiwar dot com as a "Pat Buchananite" site. While Pat is a friend of mine, whose views I respect, I don't always agree with him: he's a conservative, I'm a libertarian. The two philosophies often overlap, but not always. So, I would question the "Pat Buchananite" label: it is inaccurate as well as ungrammatical. I would give web address of our mission statement, but unfortunately your system won't take anything with "antiwar dot com" in it.

As for the inability of your "content control" system to tolerate the word "antiwar-dot-com" -- somehow I'm not surprised. But I'm not the first to remark on this technical "glitch." Check out the 16th comment on your own thread:

http://www.postmodernclog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=787

Posted by: Justin Raimondo at janvier 4, 2005 09:03 AM

Justin-

How nice of you to drop by again. :-)

" but quite another to provoke the Russians into a confrontation by joining NATO."

Maybe you should spend more time reading the paper, and less time spreading ill-informed opinions. The Russian Foreign Minister said yesterday that "We respect the right of every state, including our neighbours, to choose their partners themselves and decide on which organisations they want to join. . ."

I sincerely doubt that they're happy that Ukraine will eventually join NATO. But it takes a creative exegesis or wishful thinking to come up with a new Cold War from that statement or the conciliatory moves coming from Russia since Yushchenko's victory.

Further, who the heck are you exactly to tell Ukraine whether they should join NATO or not? Let a few million of your own countrymen be killed, have your language systematically rooted out through enforced russifikatsiya, and THEN tut-tut at them for being provocative.

"Where, pray tell, did you ge the $61 million figure?"

Update - Actually, I misquoted. It's a whopping 65 million. My source? Your own website -- antiwar.com. Specifically, Pat Buchanan himself. Am I allowed to consider him a credible source?

"And to think that a nation can be bought that cheaply!"

Actually, it can't. Once again, it wasn't Americans freezing their butts off in the tent city. This argument might have seemed somehow credible in the first couple days of the Revolution. But after watching the dedication and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people over the past month, any thinking person is going to see the basic foolishness of your notion.

"What I don't get is the "moral equivalency" drivel. Earth calling Discoshaman: There is no more Communism."

I didn't say they were Communists. You're the one who seems to have trouble outgrowing a Cold War paradigm. Russia is an authoritiarian pseudo-democracy which has slipped into "Not Free" status according to Freedom House.

Considering that you actually opposed the Tiananmen Square protesters and were an apologist for the crackdown, it's unsurprising that you have trouble telling the good guys from the bad. At least you're consistent in your loyalties.

"By the way, don't they have laws in the Ukraine about foreign money being poured into elections."

Likely they do, which makes Putin's attempts to buy it even more blatant. The American grants were spent by NGOs with the blessing of the Ukrainian government. But you being a real reporter and all, I'm sure you already knew that. You were just testing me, right? ;-)

For the record, the Kuchma-appointed Minister of the Economy has reported that America did not directly finance the Yushchenko campaign. But again, I'm sure you knew that.

"one would think that any patriotic Ukrainian would have the same reaction."

I'm an American who now calls Ukraine home. I feel loyalty and patriotism for both countries. And actually, all the Ukrainians I know were extremely grateful to the United States for the assistance. America's popularity has soared with a majority of the population. Likely you already knew that. I imagine that's what has you so upset.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 09:14 AM

but quite another to provoke the Russians into a confrontation by joining NATO.

No, it's NOT "quite another". Either the Ukrainians are independent or they are not. Either they have the right to join NATO and the EU or they are not.

Your claim that it will be a "provocation" is by itself expression of a dogma: Namely the belief that Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet Union is obliged to show subservience to its imperialist Russian masters. Russia has no say, and has no right to be "provoked" by Ukraine's membership in either NATO or the EU.

There is no more Communism. Putin is not a Communist.

So what? Neither was Hitler. But Putin nonetheless is killing off his opponents, has essentially abolished all free media, and has been variously a butcher in Chechnya, a poisoner in Ukraine, and an all-around imperialist especially as regards his support for the dictators of Transnistria (slicing up Moldova), of Abkhazia (slicing up Georgia) and of Belarus.

In the whole sphere of the CIS it seems that Russia will either back Kremlin-controlled dictators or (if that fails) will instigate a separatist movement to slice up a country and have *that* part be controlled by Kremlin-backed dictators.

they have multiparty elections,

Tell us another joke.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 4, 2005 09:17 AM

Justin-

Like it or not, Pat Buchanan is the name at that site most readers are likely to recognize. Once you've been a failed presidential candidate a few times, I'll call it a Justin Raimondo site. Sound fair? In the meantime, I'm done discussing trivialities like this.

Thanks for pointing out the other thread. I still have no idea why it doesn't like the URL. My only speculation is that it might have been accidentally added to the blacklist when I converted over to MT 3.12 and nuked about 20,000 spams. Once I've had some sleep, I'll be happy to run through the blacklist and look for it.

Anyway, have a good night. Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 09:19 AM

Aris-

Thanks for the concise, and incisive, comments. :-)

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 09:20 AM

There is no "right" to join NATO -- especially when it is American tax dollars that will be upgrading Ukraine's military to meet Western standards. And especially when there is no longer any need for NATO -- since the Warsaw Pact is no more. And the cold war is over ... although there are plenty who want to restart it.

Russia has no say. But Americans do. Perhaps the final say. And we're doing our best at Antiwar dot com to keep Ukraine out of NATO -- and also get the U.S. out. It's very existence is a provocation. We are at peace with Russia.

Oh yes, it was the "non-governmental organizations" that passed on US tax dollars to Team Orange, they didn't do it directly. What a cynical, tired ploy: is anyone fooled?

Putin has killed off his opponents? He's not Stalin -- he's Hitler. According to you. Gee, I thought Saddam Hussein was Hitler. Or was that Manuel Noriega? Oh, and so was Slobodan Milosevic. They're all "Hitler," right?

Get real. Putin is no more Hitler than an ordinary South American caudillo. He's not even a Mussolini. And whatever he is, it's none of America's damned business.

As for "slicing up" countries: don't Russian-speakers have the right to their own schools, their own autonomy, and the right to self-determination. If Abhazia wants to be independent, then by what right does anyone say they can't be? Or is independence a value to be granted only to US client states?

Yeah, America has multiparty elections, too. Unless you're Ralph Nader, and you're trying to get on the ballot. Or a third party of any sort. At least Ukrainian parties don't have teams of corporate lawyers following their opponents all over the country and getting them kicked off the ballot, as Nader did.

As for "Kremlin-backed dictators" -- it isn't the Kremlin that is propping up Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan. And if I were you, I'd keep an eye on Yulia Timoshenko, the "gas princess" who became an "idealist." There's a dangerous demagogue if ever there was one. We'll see if the Yushchenko forces take out after their opponents the way the other side surely would have if the "blues" had won.

Posted by: JR at janvier 4, 2005 09:43 AM

Raimondo-

I see you drifting further and further afield from your ostensible reason for being here -- debating the Orange Revolution. Reading your last post it says a lot about your particular political hobby horses, and very little about the Revolution. You have your own site for that.

I'm going to boil down your arguments, such as they are, to the one that seems most relevant -- that the Orange Revolution wasn't genuine, but was simply a product of American money.

There are two problems with this argument:

1. You've in no way proven causality.

We all agree that American money was involved. That's a far, far cry from saying it was causative in getting millions of people in the streets for several weeks and overturning an entire power structure.

2. Where is the Blue Revolution?

If we accept your premise that the American investment bought a Revolution (or a "country", in your formulation), then we're left wondering why the much, much larger Russian investment was unable to.

Why is the best they can muster a 50-man processional down main street now? Why during the Revolution were there only small bands of Yanukovych supporters in Kiev, and why did they have to be paid cash to do so (as opposed to the countless thousands of volunteer Orange people who came in from far-off cities)?

I guess money isn't everything.

The lesson Yanukovych learned is that you can buy votes, but you can't buy love or loyalty.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 11:33 AM

Okay, I couldn't sleep after all. Again, rereading your posts I see a lot about Uzbekistan, the US, Russia and the like, but little about the Ukrainian people. Typical.

Here are the salient facts:

1. Yanukovych, Kuchma and Putin collaborated to steal the 2nd round of elections.

2. The people of Ukraine rose up in protest.

3. The Supreme Court reviewed the allegations of over 10,000 election falsifications, found them to be true, and ordered a re-vote.

4. Yushchenko decisively won a fair vote.

5. Yushchenko is now the legally elected president-elect of Ukraine.

You can say what you want about NATO, US money, or whatever. It amounts to blah-blah-blah in light of these facts.

The people of Ukraine successfully resisted a coup, and then democratically elected their new president. That American money assisted in this in no way changes these facts.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 11:40 AM

Justin Raimondo... wait, you commented my site a long time ago, I remember you, you were here:

http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/journal/2004/12/13/hey-cranky-make-up-your-mind.html

trying to convince us that Yushchenko wasn't poisoned (exept possibly by God as retribution for his infamy, according to your, ha-ha, joke)

Never did hear back from you after I pointed out a UPI article (Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, Dec 17, 2004) in which they reported that the "Yushchenko faked it" story was written and directed by a French PR firm hired by Kuchma's son-in-law.

Also, I'm confused, you said "People are free to leave Russia, they have multiparty elections" and then "Putin is no more Hitler than an ordinary South American caudillo". Except caudillo means "a head of state, esp. a military dictator".

So is Putin a democrat or isn't he?

Posted by: Dan McMinn at janvier 4, 2005 02:26 PM

Justin-

I found your site on my Blacklist and nuked it. You should be good to go now.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 4, 2005 04:15 PM

Komrad Raimondo is right about Yushenko's people being far from angels: they are politicians, with all the qualities we don't like about politicians. What he is clueless about is the reason for the Orange revolution: it had nothing to do with the US and its money. I've spoken to my numerous Ukranian friends, and they only confirmed the accounts I find on the web. People don't go all the way to Kiev because some American sugardaddy sponsors them. They go because they are fed up with the dictatorship they live under, and because they believe they can have a better government. Yes, the money helped, but to say that the Orange uprising was about American money is simply repeating the lies that originated in Putinistan. To any sane individual it seems rather obvious, and to admit it does not mean restarting the Cold War: as a matter of fact, the opposite is true. If there is somebody who is trying to fight the Cold war, it would be Putin's cleptocrats, who blame America for their every failure, and who keep demonizing it in Pravda and on TV - just like in the good old days.

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at janvier 4, 2005 06:29 PM

First some answers to his specific questions, then in a second post will come some more generic commentary -- because I think I've seen where Justin comes from.

Discoshaman, I apologize that I won't be as concise now as earlier.

"Gee, I thought Saddam Hussein was Hitler. Or was that Manuel Noriega? Oh, and so was Slobodan Milosevic. They're all "Hitler," right?"

Don't play the strawman games. I'm not guilty for the idiocies of others who could not distinguish between minor regional tyrants like Saddam or Milosevic, and huge superpower games of imperialism where a nation subcontracts tyrants (or slices up or controls to a smaller or larger extent) in half a dozen other countries and essentially rules over tens of millions of people outside its borders.

No other country *aligned* itself with Saddam or Milosevic, the way tyrannical Belarus or tyrannical Kazakhstan or tyrannical Armenia or tyrannical Kuchma's Ukraine did with Russia. That's the essential difference between an isolated and trivial Balkan nationalism and Putin's games of establishing a huge axis of subcontracted dictatorships.

Get real. Putin is no more Hitler than an ordinary South American caudillo. He's not even a Mussolini.

I didn't call Putin "Hitler", I simply noted that Hitler wasn't a communist either. Lack of communism doesn't make an imperialist any less dangerous. But when you compare him with a "South American caudillo" it's *you* who needs to get real. No South American has the power to play both the regional and *global* games of imperialism that Putin is playing. Just recently Putin announced his new and improved global nuclear weapons system which can evade any defensive measures that USA could throw at them.

Even as Putin's regional imperialism has been fully revealed, we have the first clear signs of his desire for global power again.

As for "slicing up" countries: don't Russian-speakers have the right to their own schools, their own autonomy, and the right to self-determination. If Abhazia wants to be independent, then by what right does anyone say they can't be? Or is independence a value to be granted only to US client states?

Abkhazia's so-called "independence" (it didn't become independent btw, it simply become a de facto province of Russia, as you would understand if you saw how Russia acted to annul the result when the "wrong" guy won in the latest Abkhazian election) meant that every ethnic Georgian was forcibly expelled from the region. If by "self-determination" you mean the right to expel hundreds of thousands of people for having the wrong genes, then NO, such a right does not exist.

In Moldova, specifically in Transnistria the 20% of the population that was ethnic Russians would have the full right to a democratic vote. Now, in the sliced-up Transnistria piece, both the Russians and the (even more) oppressed Moldovans have no freedoms at all. They live under a brutal dictatorship where they don't have any rights at all.

Your argument about the Russophones' right to "self-determination", becomes nothing but a disguise for the neighbourly imperialism of Russia -- it's the exact same argument that Germany used to throw its armies in Czechoslovakia to "protect" the German populations there.

Next post, a more comprehensive analysis, of where I think Justin comes from and stands up for. I really must thank him because I think his attitude clarified several things for me about how several ideologies have combined themselves to come to the defense of Putin through the use of moral equivalency.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 4, 2005 06:42 PM

Unfortunately, it ain't all the Russians.

Take a look at this site (http://www.future-of-russia.org/about/index.cfm)from the Center for the Future of Russia, a self-described arm of the National Center for Public Policy Research (in turn described by Tom DeLay, according to the site, as "THE CENTER for conservative communications.)

Here's the money quote:
"The bottom line: If Putin is successful in exerting control over the Russian oil industry, the U.S. economy will be directly dependent on decisions made by the Russian president and Kremlin. President Putin, a former KGB operative who has systematically populated the top tiers of Russian government with anti-western members of Russia’s current and former security service, will hold the reins of U.S. oil imports."

If I read that correctly, they're stating that Russian state control of Russian assets is a threat to US national security. If I were a Russian, I guarantee that statements like that would put me on my guard. Furthermore, considering the Center' having listed US national sovereignty as one of its prime interests, it smacks of something bordering on hypocrisy.

Posted by: Castor Borealis at janvier 4, 2005 06:44 PM

As for "Kremlin-backed dictators" -- it isn't the Kremlin that is propping up Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan.

Well, no one is really, he's doing a fine job on his own. The Kremlin has flowed a heckuva lot more money Karimov's way over the last couple years and has been a much more vocal supporter of Karimov's government than has the United States. While we've not been as on Karimov's case as I think we should have been, no reasonable person who knows much about our relationship with Uzbekistan could make the case that Karimov's rule depends on US propping. Out of all the people I know who've spent considerable time living in Uzbekistan or studying it, I don't know a single one who makes your same claim, JR.

Posted by: Nathan at janvier 4, 2005 08:03 PM

I can't believe people who call themselves antiwar (supposedly pro-peace and justice), would actually decry and condemn the democratization of Ukraine. Nice answers, Discoshaman. These people do not deserve any mercy.

More evidence of the grand unholy alliance between the illiberal left (antiwar pro-Islamist selective outrage crowds, Stalinists) and the illiberal right (Buchananites, LaRouchites, fascists).

Checkout the revolt in southern Peru. It was led by an alliance of "nationalist ex-army officers, and ex-Maoist geurillas".

More evidence of this grand unholy alliance between the illiberal left and the illiberal right to bring down liberal democracy.

Posted by: Manucher at janvier 5, 2005 12:29 AM

I think Justin has lost his way. He apparently started out as a libertarian. From there he developed a libertarian critique of America. Finally that critique grew so large it entirely devoured the libertarianism it sprang from.

Now he is a "libertarian" who cannot celebrate a people rising up in protest to an abusive government and freeing themselves from an corrupt, dictatorial regime.

It's fair to remember that America "the guarantor of our liberty alone" but a libertarian is also characterized by the first half of that phrase: "A friend of liberty everywhere." Justin isn't any longer. He is it's enemy, opposing it with his arguments, deriding those yearning and fighting for it, an apologist for those that would crush it. He is a libertarian at home but an active proponent of authoritarianism for everyone else.

Posted by: steve at janvier 5, 2005 12:45 AM

Steve-

I was actually pondering the etymology of the word Libertarian the other day, too. I couldn't shake a feeling that "liberty" probably shared a common root with it somewhere back in antiquity, say, the 1950's. Funny how the two words seem to have diverged for some -- "Libertarians" actually acting as witting tools for authoritarian regimes. . .

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 5, 2005 01:09 AM

I'm afraid that Justin Raimondo is doing his level best to give real libertarians everywhere a very bad name. I've discovered quite disturbing links between his nasty little group and some remarkably creepy pro-tyranny shills known as the "British Helsinki Human Rights Group". I blogged on the disturbing history of that group and their relationship with the shrill anti-Yuschchenko writers at antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com at:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016326.php
I fear that the serious work of libertarians to be friends to liberty everywhere is being undermined by the sick cult for which Raimondo is such a loud spokesman.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at janvier 5, 2005 01:40 AM

Walter Duranty, opps I meant, Justin Raimondo, your willingness to believe and propagate Russian authoritarian propaganda says all that needs to be said.

Posted by: Jason at janvier 5, 2005 01:41 AM

This isn't the whole (or even one third) of what I'd been planning to write, but it's the piece directly relating to Justin -- the rest of my planned post, I'll refine a bit further and then probably eventually post on my own livejournal -- a bit too long for here.

----

Seeing Justin's constant focus on whether Putin is a communist or not, as well his focus on libertarianism, and a brief mention of the "socialist" EU -- and combining that with the claim that supposedly he's not an "enemy", and his dismay that people are supposedly eager to start "a new Cold War" where none is needed, I think I've figured where's he's coming from.

Justin's words are correct from a certain (albeit twisted) perspective, if you consider one point. That the imperialism of Putin's Russia, UNLIKE the imperialism of the Soviet Union or even that of Nazi Germany, doesn't seem to have any specific ideology backing it -- other than the desire for the power-grab itself.

So you won't get to see actively organized "We love Thugocrats" parties globe-wide that will support and be supported by Imperial Russia, same as Communists worldwide supported and were supported by the Soviet Union. People will support Putin because they want to share in his power, or because they believe they have common enemies -- not because they love the ideology he represents. He doesn't represent any ideology.

So Putin's Russia isn't an *inherent* enemy to (needn't *necessarily* interfere with) capitalistic enterprises in different parts of the world. Ofcourse within the areas he controls, Putin is consolidating power so that businesses and investments can only be made by those businessmen that submit to his regime (see Yukos) but that's again not a tactic he can use everywhere else.

So unlike with the random communist takeovers in the Third World and the various nationalizations that took place there, the wallets of libertarian capitalists worldwide are more or less secure, atleast if they are clever enough to stay away from the "Russian sphere".

In that context, where Putin (unlike the Soviet Union) doesn't have an *inherent* ideological difference with capitalism, Putin is indeed not necessarily the "enemy" -- of capitalistic investments, that is. And in that context, it makes sense for Justin to urge appeasement and disguise it under a pretense of moral equivalency. Putin has his space to conquer as he sees fit, capitalist investments can go uninhibited anywhere else in the world, everyone is happy -- from Justin's isolationist perspective that is.

Ofcourse, from my point of view Putin is as dangerous as he could be. Because I'm worried about Russian imperialism and tyranny NOT as a threat to my wallet but as a threat to the democratic and individual liberties of hundreds of millions of people.

Justin's the brand of libertarian that cares only about his own liberty, doesn't give a damn about the liberty of others.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 5, 2005 01:56 AM

Interesting comments Steve. I wonder what propelled some of the libertarian right to gravitate to authoritarianism? Another word for "liberties is good for me but not for others" is, nationalism and fascism.

I have had other run-ins with libertarians as well, and it is amazing how they take sides with the local elite and despot. Despite their rhetoric, they are very suspect.

Posted by: Manucher at janvier 5, 2005 02:16 AM

You must have hit a nerve, Discoshaman, looks like Raimondo is having his usual fit.

BTW, here's something I posted about Raimondo today on multiple US websites and blogs:Since Raimondo allows no dissenting opinion or response to disinformation -- he deletes any blog entry that is critical of him or attempts to correct his shoddy research -- on his website, I will post an open response to Raimondo here.

For those of you who don't know who Dennis Raimondo is (calls himself Justin Raimondo), he is proprietor of the Bush-bashing, Jew-baiting neo-Nazi website http://www.antiwar.com/. For a thorough explanation of Raimondo's endless attacks on Michelle Malkin, the Pipeses (father and son), Schwartz, the "sheer existence of Ann Coulter" (Raimondo's phrase) and David Frum see "What Raimondo Really Meant" in FPM Archives at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6775. To call http://www.antiwar.com/ a legitimate website and Raimondo an honest journalist is tantamount to calling Michael Moore a legitimate documentary film maker. Raimondo turns a good phrase, and Moore makes an entertaining film, but there's no honor to it.

Raimondo must have been delighted when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq gave him such good material with which to work. The classic "historical vampire," Raimondo had never emerged from the category of "ranter" (usually against the dead as they're so silent about criticism of themselves) and sycophant to Susan Sontag, in relationship reminiscent, at least on an intellectual level, of that of Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand.

During the 1990s Raimondo tried to rise out of obscurity into the "A Circle" by attempted to becoming involved in the Balkans debate, for which he was intellectually completely unprepared. He tried first to bully his way into the circle of international diplomats and knowledgeable journalists who tried to prevent an humanitarian disaster -- and who were only partially successful -- and late, only when NATO entered the conflict late in the last decade. That failed. Then, career ever on his mind, Raimondo, had already changed his name from the pedestrian Dennis to "Justin" (sex'ier, I suppose) and demanded that internationally-recognized journalists debate him. They all refused, including Stephen Schwartz, who declined to include Raimondo in a debate in San Francisco, exposing Raimondo as unqualified and humiliated Raimondo on his own turf. Resulting personal attacks not only on Schwartz but on other neo-cons reflect personal affronts in most cases -- or follow the theme of siding with those who hate Israel in nearly ever other case.

Schwartz, referenced above: Dennis Raimondo and his cohort would like Americans to believe that their affection for people like Milosevic and Saddam has nothing to do with their own natures. That is, they claim to merely oppose "empire," and stand for an America that stays out of other nations' business. But Raimondo seems particularly obsessed with protecting the sovereignty of the enemies of Israel.

A few pertinent Raimondo quotes: "Just think: if we all woke up one day living in some alternate history, as in Phillip (sic) K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, our cultural malaise would disappear overnight. Instead of listening to the latest loutish lyrics of Eminem, American teenagers would be contemplating the subtle beauty of the Japanese tea ceremony. If contemporary Japan is any clue... the literacy rate would skyrocket. Certainly everyone's manners would improve. All in all, life would be far more civilized." Quoth Schwartz: "Frank Frink is the key here, of course. The main character in The Man in the High Castle is a Jew, a very distinguished Jew, as a survivor. In the alternate universe, Jews have vanished from the North American continent."

In Raimondo's latest piece he attacks the notion, proffered by Malkin, and with extensive variation by Schwartz, that internment is sometimes a solution preferable to waiting until the enemy within tears up your country and kills a bunch of your people. Calling Dr. Daniel Pipes "evil," and railing against every neo-con from the beginning of time -- and, as usual dredging up as "supporting documentation" the long-disavowed political orientations of everyone from David Frum.

Schwartz continues: "But he engages in numerous other forms of perverse political quackery. One fairly recent example was his attempt to exploit the past writings of the historian Ronald Radosh on isolationism, while denouncing Radosh as a "Bolshevik," even though Radosh departed from the radical left a quarter century ago. Another, in which he has numerous imitators (including his mentor Patrick Buchanan and Buchanan's longtime companion Robert Novak) consists in the mendacious use of a brief and essentially innocuous 1996 document on Israeli security, "A Clean Break," claiming it is a virtual blueprint for the U.S. effort against Saddam. Note that Raimondo never actually quotes from the document, because "A Clean Break" deals with Iraq in a complicated context that does not lend itself to slurs against the Bush administration. "A Clean Break" recommended action against Iraq to affect outcomes in Syria and Lebanon. ... The Lebanese threat to Israel diminished considerably after the Jewish state withdrew its forces from the south of that country in 2000. Nevertheless, Raimondo and other conspiracy junkies continue to spout about "A Clean Break," and even falsely assert that deputy defense secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz coauthored it, although his name does not appear there."

Raimondo does not deal with the present, because he cannot. His sworn enemies, hailing from diverse backgrounds, emerge as the sanest, best-education, most solution-oriented group in American political life today. The neo-con legacy contains at least two brilliant ex-Trotskyists who are responsible for much of the countering of the screed of the American Communist Party: Horowitz and Schwartz. But Raimondo refuses to deal with their present-time contributions but digs around in the past to claim that opinions held due to fact they are *BORN* into communist families. And good they were: since disinformation and propaganda are taught to teenagers from communist families, Horowitz and Schwartz can spot it a mile away -- and know how to counter it, something it the rest of us years to learn.

And Raimondo can certainly be credited with a lot of political "sleeping around." A gay man at war with the Christian right on all occasions, Raimondo nonetheless fronts Pat Buchanan, who stands for everything Raimondo actually hates, purely for political clout. Raimondo, who claims to be on the side of peace and freedom routinely entertains, supports, and gives voice to radical Serbs like Nebojsa Malic (Mike from DC who posts on this board) who was forced to leave the Balkans ONE DAY after the Dayton Accords that ended the conflict and Srdja Trifkovic, who duped Robert Spencer, who was exposed as a Serb agent of Milosevic at the war crimes tribunals at The Hague, and whose testimony *as a defense witness* was so damaging to Mladic that the judge had to throw it out.

In his latest, Raimondo tries to rewrite the history of Generoso Pope and his son. Why? Because Raimondo's philosophy and political orientation were modeled on Pope, and anyone who shines the light of historical fact on the Popes must be struck down immediately. The truth about the Popes is this:

Generoso Pope, the father, was owner of the daily newspaper IL PROGRESSO ITALIANO-AMERICANO, and he was a notorious Mussolini-supporter. He died in 1950.

Generoso Pope, Jr., took over IL PROGRESSO when his father died and ran it for two years before using its capital, plus money from the mafia, with whom his father was also associated, to purchase the old NEW YORK WEEKLY ENQUIRER, a pro-Hitler sheet in the late 1930s, and turning it into the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

Pope, the elder, supported the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in which tens of thousands died, and in which countless others were tortured and otherwise suffered in far-ranging atrocities.

Raimondo's response to the exposure of these facts about his heroes is to write a column damning Pipes, Schwartz, Malkin, Frum et al. (as he has done also with Wolfowitz, Horowitz, and Emerson in the past) calling them "fascists."

Schwartz: "Being called a fascist by a defender of Milosevic, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Yanukovych, Buchanan, and, to boot, a promoter of the line that the Jews did 9/11, is pretty rich."

An understatement.

But perhaps most specious of all is Raimondo's meddling in current political events -- and twisting clear statements by reputable journalists in Stalinist disinformationalist style -- in the current Uzbek situation.

Far from giving Karimov or the current Uzbek government a free pass on their current election process, Schwartz has made the clear point that Uzbek elections are good first step, but leave much to be desired. However, they are infinitely better than the position taken by Putin (whose repressions Raimondo consistently defends), who tried to fix the election of Yanukovich in Ukraine, whose mismanagement of Chechnya has turn a local independence movement (caused in no small measure by Russia's previous abuse of the Chechen people) into an Al Qaeda event, and whose consolidation of power in Russia itself is cause for grave concern in all the lands of the former Soviet Union.

However, in deference to his Serb "friends" (who shelled a defenseless Sarajevo for three years after boycotting a free election which they would have lost -- from which the Sunnis in Iraq seem to have taken a lesson), and consistent with his habit of attacking those who tell the truth about Putin, any comment by Schwartz that disparages the great new czar wannabe will incur Dennis' wrath, which will be poured forth on a website the blogspot of which allows no free speech and deletes the posts of those all who dissent (how very American).

Antiwar.com is probably the worst political website in America. It is a beyond-the-pale vanity website of confused focus and bottom-dwelling journalist standards which routinely publishes articles of poor journalistic standards (including Raimondo's own), gives stage to war criminals and those who defend them, and attacks neo-con philosophy on personal terms, because that is where Dennis Raimondo lives: in a matrix of personal vendetta based on a bruised ego that he was never able to attain an A-level status legitimately. There is no character and no honor to be found here.

Again from Schwartz, referenced above:

This is the individual who, almost single-handedly, conflated a mass of disconnected rumors into the theory that Israel stood behind the atrocities of that terrible day (9/11). Since then, this Dennis-the-wannabe-Menace has remained best known for selling that product, while traveling back and forth across a no-man's-land of neofascist bizarrerie.

So, let the buyer beware.

Posted by: Morgana at janvier 5, 2005 02:35 AM

There is no "right" to join NATO

In the sense that it requires mutual consent, sure. Similarly, I personally don't have a "right" to enter into a contract with the Wall Street Journal if the WSJ doesn't want to sign me up.

On the other hand, I do have a right to enter into a contract with the WSJ in the sense that the New York Times doesn't get to say I can't, whether or not it antagonizes the Times.

Me, if I lived in a country next door to a nationalizing dictatorship, established by quasidemocratic means, that uses the rhetoric of protecting a national minority to interfere with neighboring states, and claims mine as a historical part of their dominion . . . wait, I forgot, Putin isn't Hitler. Of course, American security guarantees aren't likely to be as hollow as French ones were in 1938, either.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at janvier 5, 2005 02:41 AM

And if you don't think NATO is a dagger pointed at Putin's throat

Hmm. Wasn't "dagger pointed at the heart of Germany" what was said about Czechoslovakia's alliance with France?

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at janvier 5, 2005 02:44 AM

Aris, you might be looking for Napoleon. He had no ideology to speak of, except for being French.

Life is not a zero-sum game. The wealth and freedom of others does not diminsh mine, and often increases and safeguards mine.

While isolationists might let "them come for the Ukrainians", I would rather not face "them" alone. Conversely, I have a hard time believing JR values my freedom (or yours) any more than that of the Ukrainians.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -B. Franklin

Posted by: Dishman at janvier 5, 2005 03:10 AM

Lest Disco get the idea that all libertarians (or all of those who self-identify as such) are ignorant blockheads who believe that anything on which our overextended empire touches MUST fail simply so that a point is proven, I'll chime in from my own perspective. Just because our government chips in $65 million in unconstitutional contributions, and just because NATO may have expansive designs for a member on Russia's doorstep, and just because the socialist bureaucracy that is the EU is far from a libertarian ideal of a limited government with an emphasis on personal and economic freedom DOES NOT mean that the Ukraine's 40 million people should live indefinitely under autocratic repression.

For God's sake, get some perspective there, bud. By being such a dogmatic contrarian you invalidate whatever legitimate points are at the heart of your libertarian positions.

Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 5, 2005 03:30 AM

rox_publius -

You're one of the good ones, man. ;-) And no, the Libertarians I've known along the way have been cool. I cut my teeth in high school on Hayek and Rothbard, started subscribing to The Freeman when I was 15, and even attended a couple Ayn Rand Society discussions in Uni. They might be a bit eccentric, but blockheaded is a word I would never associate with the average libertarian.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 5, 2005 03:37 AM

Disco you rock! Morgana thanks for the info. There is a little circle that has been active - BHHRG (pls. see for more info. on this Non-Helsinki group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Helsinki_Human_Rights_Group ), Laughland, Raimondo, Steele, ... No surprise that it seems that every pro-Moscow author in BB or groups, posts their articles. And when you speak of the 'unholy alliance' you are right. But right now it seems that the media is too involved in attacking the US for supposedly being less than forthcoming with monetary aid to the Tusnami stricken parts of Asia. But I am afraid that this is only a temp. reprieve for Ukraine.

Posted by: Hello at janvier 5, 2005 03:48 AM

Any ideas on where BHHRG is getting its funding? Could there be a major donor in, say, Minsk? I'd appreciate any leads anyone might have on the BHHRG. (I found out about them from their association with the nasty gaggle of anti-American and antilibertarian folks at antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com.)

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at janvier 5, 2005 04:21 AM

I think the entire debate can be summed up in the Bizarro World viewpoint expressed aboved:

"Even as Putin's regional imperialism has been fully revealed, we have the first clear signs of his desire for global power again."

Yeah, right: Putin and his ramshackle "empire," with a third world economy and a declining population, is reaching for "global power."

Don't make me laugh. You don't really believe you're going to sell that to the American people, are you? It may play in Kiev, but not in Peoria.

I note also the dismissive contempt for the national aspirations of the Abhazian people, and all the Russian-speaking peoples of the region. This is "moral equivalence" according to those who believe Russians have no rights: no wonder the UNO-UNA neo-Nazis and other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists of dubious provenance have found such a warm welcome in the ranks of the "orange" revolutionaries.

As for Tom Palmer, I can only note that the British Helsinki Human Rights Group gets its funds from private sources -- unlike the Yushchenko campaign, which received either directly or indirectly close to $60 million from the American taxpayers. And you have the nerve to question where BHHRG gets its relatively tiny budget? Some "libertarian" you turned out to be. Tell us, Tom: when are you going to apply for a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy? Surely the Cato Institute is interested in expanding its funding base.

Posted by: Justin Raimondo at janvier 5, 2005 07:58 AM

Yeah, right: Putin and his ramshackle "empire," with a third world economy and a declining population, is reaching for "global power."

If you don't see it, well, like I've implied multiple times, performing well in your line of work doesn't require knowing what you're talking about. When a country uses its "peacekeepers" to fan conflict in three countries its used to rule to make those countries reliant on the presence of those same troops to survive, I'd say we have a problem with an imperial power, weak economy or no. Each time Tajikistan, Georgia, or Moldova has moved towards resolution of a conflict that would result in Russia's presence no longer being needed, Russia makes sure there's suddenly a reason for its troops to stay put. This was going on under Yeltsin as well. The only upshot to Putin is that he's probably been better behaved than any other serious contender for Russia's presidency in the past 15 years.

I note also the dismissive contempt for the national aspirations of the Abhazian people, and all the Russian-speaking peoples of the region.

I wonder what the heck the Abkhazians would think of you calling them a "Russian-speaking people," implying they're part and parcel of that culture. They have no chance of sovereignty specifically because they have turned to Russia (though they really didn't have many options).

Abkhazia's a much stickier situation than "homogenous population that ended up in the wrong place by accident of history wants to be free." The population was at least half, if not more than half, ethnic Georgia before the Abkhaz drove them out at the barrel of a gun. Sure, nobody was an angel in that civil war, but Russia's "we saved the Abkhazians from certain death" narrative is a load of bunk. Abkhazia will never be independent the way things stand now. They'll either be a beach resort/citrus colony for Russia or they'll be Georgian territory. If Russia was actually willing to put on the table the possibility that Abkhazia would be truly independent, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But we know that's not in Russia's plans--something that the region's ubiquitous posters of Vladimir Vladimirovich and easily-obtained Russian passports [not good in case of Russian blockade of your country] makes extremely evident.

Posted by: Nathan at janvier 5, 2005 08:20 AM

Justin-

I know you're busy, but I did hope to chat with you a moment about this --

You said:

"Where, pray tell, did you ge the $61 million figure? Radio Free Europe? Sheeesh! Were you really born yesterday? And to think that a nation can be bought that cheaply!

My response:

"My source? Your own website -- antiwar.com. Specifically, Pat Buchanan himself. Am I allowed to consider him a credible source?

When I went to your online journal, you have a regular column and everything. They do actually make you do things like research and fact checking, right? I mean, you aren't some pajama-clad blogger. Are you really just allowed to pull opinions out of your fourth point of contact and then present them as fact?

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 5, 2005 02:28 PM

My point is that the figure admitted by the U.S. government is no doubt actually higher. And of course it doesn't include all the "foreign aid" promised after Yushchenko comes to power.

Posted by: Justin Raimondo at janvier 5, 2005 07:36 PM

So Justin's 'point' then, is that it is ok for other countries to have influence in the Ukraine, just not the United States. That about sum it up?

Forgetting, of course, that the 'influence money' went to grants programs designed to help advance freedom rather than remove it.

Posted by: Defense Guy at janvier 5, 2005 07:52 PM

Justin-

"My point is that the figure admitted by the U.S. government is no doubt actually higher."

I'm honestly confused by this statement. The foreign policy analysts are quoting the 65 million figure because that's the aggregate of the various grants "admitted" by the government and Soros.

Do you have a government source that "admits" a higher number? Given the sarcasm with which you greeted my quoting of the figure earlier, I assumed you had some contrary data.

"And of course it doesn't include all the "foreign aid" promised after Yushchenko comes to power."

No, I imagine it doesn't. Because only a supremely foolish person would imagine that hundreds of thousands of people disrupted their lives for a month and braved threatened militia crackdowns for the sake of "foreign aid" which none of us ever heard mentioned or promised to begin with.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 5, 2005 08:02 PM

As usual, the motives of the rank-and-file and those of the leadership are quite different.

No one blames the people of Ukraine for wanting "regime change." But it is quite another matter for the U.S. government to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign country. I'm sure you'll agree -- being a man of God and all -- that the last thing the world needs is another military stand-off between the U.S. and Russia.

Posted by: Justin Raimondo at janvier 6, 2005 12:19 AM

Justin-

"As usual, the motives of the rank-and-file and those of the leadership are quite different."

Saying it don't make it so. I don't see any need to disprove a point you haven't given evidence to support.

"I'm sure you'll agree -- being a man of God and all -- that the last thing the world needs is another military stand-off between the U.S. and Russia."

As a man of God, in your phrase, I'm also against the senseless slaughter of puppies. I just don't see, in any sort of real world, how grants to train judges or teach college kids about open societies is going to cause an increase in either US-Russia military conflicts OR puppy abuse.

Once again, I'll need you to provide evidence for your point that US grants to foster democracy are leading us to a military standoff with Russia.

It's amazing to me that you imagine that grants for palliative care, Muskie grants to business students, and multi-party seminars on constituent outreach are going to cause one.

Because that's the sort of thing this 65 million dollars went to -- whatever shadowy slush fund you're imagining never existed. It's all online for anyone who cares to research it.

And again, Ukraine is an INDEPENDENT country. This is forever being lost in your writing. If the government of Ukraine, which is sovereign, chose to allow US NGOs to operate, then that is the business of the country of Ukraine. You seem to imagine that Russia has some veto power over Ukrainian internal affairs. On what basis?

And you sound incredibly alarmist when you start talking about military standoffs. An exit poll is not the Bay of Pigs. What do you imagine a military standoff would look like, exactly?

NOTE: I edited this to correct my misreading of your earlier post.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 6, 2005 01:01 AM

Justin - Nothing wrong for a democratic country (US or EU) to interfere in the affairs of an authoritarian country, such as former Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Your sense of nationalism is grossly misplaced, and hopefully nationalism will be dead and gone someday and we will not get the fascistic drivel from your quarters upon the demise of nationalism and the ascendency of internationalism and globalism.

I am from the ME, and 90% of Iranians wish for the US (or some western democratic coalition) to invade and boot out the dictators, restore security, and allow a fair, liberal, and democratic Constitutent Assembly to get elected.

This all to you, and your illiberal left/right alliance's chagrin. No such thing as sovereignty for an illegal state. Sovereignty must be earned, and only through legal and democratic means. No nation is entitled to sovereignty unless it has liberal democratic legitimacy. Cheap and primitive words such as "independence" and "interference" have no meaning (and are so abused by people like your ilk), unless the state has put the civil and individual rights of its citizens ahead of its own rulership.

Posted by: Manucher at janvier 6, 2005 01:07 AM

Hey guys, can I join in or is this a private grenade tossing match! As a former oppressor of the masses from the US Army, I would like to say HOOORAAHH. Congratulations!!!!! The people of the Ukraine are well on their way. Freedom ain't always pretty, but it beats the hell out of the alternatives, as our brothers&sisters in eastern Europe know all to well. As for PMC, keep up the good work, and try not to grind your teeth while the wife is listening to"that" group, they can always see the muscles bunching up in your jaw and know what you are thinking. Later on, Bro.

Posted by: 2Hotel9 at janvier 6, 2005 04:13 AM

2H9-

Thanks for the congrats! Good to have you here, man. I spent some time as an 11-bang-bang, back when I had knees.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 6, 2005 04:20 AM

Justin's position on encouraging democracy in the Ukraine only makes sense if he has already accepted Putin as an expansionistic/imperialistic authoritarian. Justin opposes giving any offense to the rising danger he sees. He'd rather surrender preemptively.

I reject that.

To my mind, Putin can still be salvaged. He may yet become a modern Napoleon, or he might bring "rule of law" to Russia. I don't know, and in this context, I don't think it really matters.

If we can, for a mere $65M, help ensure that the Ukraine is free and not a breadbasket to some rising new threat, then that is money very well spent.

Pat Buchanan does not and did not understand what made Reagan great, even has he tries to emulate him. He is still stuck in the Cold War, without realizing that the world has transformed into something far more complex, dangerous and promising. His capacity for learning new patterns is pathetic. As near as I can tell, he pines for the simple red/blue world he once knew.

Justin follows, though he came from another camp within the US. I suspect he, too, misses the Cold War. ".. getting laid every night.." - Phelps.

It's over. Freedom is the surest way to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Posted by: Dishman at janvier 6, 2005 10:30 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: