Posted May 10, 2003

Regarding "Whose 'Road Map'?" by Justin Raimondo:

It is disheartening to see Mr. Raimondo applying the same smear tactics to Dr. Peter Duesberg he so rightfully decries when others use them against him. Duesberg is listed alongside Benny Elon and Amiri Baraka apparently to highlight his supposed crazed theories of AIDS-HIV. Then his name is linked to a factually challenged AIDS.org article by government science apologist and gay "reporter" Bruce Mirkin. The analogy here is way off base.

Elon and Baraka want to use the total state to further their own crazed agenda. Duesberg is a dissident pitted against the state, refuting the official government line that a certain virus or viruses are the cause of the AIDS diseases. While Elon would like to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and Baraka probably wouldn't mind ethnically cleansing all those who employ private capital, Duesberg has absolutely no agenda regarding gays other than to help them know the real causes of their illnesses to lead them on the road to recovery.

Mirkin, who vainly attempts to dismiss Duesberg as a "denialist," and AIDS.org never deviate from the official CDC and government science fallacy that AIDS diseases are caused by HIV, for to do so would be to destroy the government war-on-AIDS programs off which they feed. Just as the neocons agitate to spread war over the Asian heartland to feed their insatiable appetites for taxpayers incomes, the AIDS-cons agitate for a war on AIDS to feed their own insatiable appetites for government funding.

Dr. Duesberg may be right or he may be wrong, but his credentials are impeccable. He is a full professor of Biochemistry with numerous books and seminal research to his credit. He was the first person ever to isolate a cancer gene. He knows that the truth is never determined by a counting of heads or an appeal to the CDC. He has paid for his views professionally but has steadfastly defended his ground. I happen to think he is dead on the money. In any case, after reading his book Inventing the AIDS Virus it is inconceivable that one could come away with the impression that he is a "denialist," or that he has any similarities to an Elon or Baraka.

~ DW

Justin Raimondo replies:

The Duesberg theory is a crackpot theory, whether or not the government approves or disapproves of his ideas. The AIDS virus has been definitively shown to be the cause of AIDS, and I'll retract this when Duesberg agrees to a test. Let him inject the AIDS virus into his own body, and let's see if he gets sick. He has been challenged to do this, and has, so far (to my knowledge), wisely refrained from testing his hypothesis.

I am a big fan of your work and site, and enjoy your columns even when I disagree with you – which is not more than 10% of the time.

However, I see some of the recent proposals for peace in Israel, whether subscribed to by neo-fascists or not, as positive.

Why shouldn't there be a formal separation of the two peoples? Hoppe has asserted that societies and/or statelets work best when homogeneity exists, religious or otherwise.

Surely the annual $3-billion spent on Israel, the $3-billion given to Egypt and the billion more given to the PLO/PA, could be used to purchase land from Palestinians inside Israel and to acquire property and build infrastructure for them in Jordan – as a one-off proposition? Surely Israel could be persuaded and or pressured to redirect a portion of its military budget to Palestinian relocation to Jordan?

Jordan possesses virtually no legitimacy as a state and none as a nation per se – and can rationally be thought of as a, if not the, Palestinian state.

The financed transfer could be coupled with the canton model for Palestinian communities inside Greater Israel – they could have autonomy and federation with the Palestinian state of Jordan.

Borrowing from the Swiss, surely Palestinians, enjoying free trade with Israel and federation with Palestine-Jordan, could prosper as would Jewish Israel. ...

~ John Collison, Calgary, Canada

Justin Raimondo replies:

If homogeneity is inherently a virtue, then why not enforce ideological homogeneity? There is nothing wrong with the scheme you propose, except that it must be accepted by the Palestinians voluntarily, absent the threat of U.S.-financed and supported force, i.e. the IDF. And that will never happen: why should the Palestinians give up their claim to land that was, after all, stolen from them? Some might agree to sell off their claims, but surely not all, or even most. Then what? I'm afraid that, in spite of your admirably strenuous effort, the attempt to represent Benny Elon as a libertarian fails. Good try, though.

Regarding "After 'Liberation,' Democracy" Nebojsa Malic:

I wonder if Mr. Malic has read the latest article by Michael Parenti in "The Justice Express." In it, Mr. Parenti speaks of Yugoslavia as the European nation the U.S. considered too independent to be tolerated. I had not thought of it in exactly that way, and I would love to read Mr. Malic's critique.

~ Phyllis Guest, Dallas, Texas

Nebojsa Malic replies:

I haven't read Prof. Parenti's newest article, but I'm familiar with his work. I'm not so convinced that Yugoslavia was destroyed because it represented a danger. To me, it seems rather that an internal process of disintegration was seized upon by outside factors as a way to increase their power and influence not only over Yugoslavia's inhabitants or territory, but over the Big Picture as well. Richard Holbrooke openly writes in his memoirs that his mission was to 'reassert American leadership' in Europe. Parenti is right in that the outside powers largely determined the way in which Yugoslavia was destroyed, which was basically murder. And the subsequent interventions definitely had the subtext of suppressing any sort of dissent from Imperial Law. But Yugoslavia itself was never a threat to the West. Indeed, it embodied what the Empire strove to promote as its End-of-History ideal: a multiethnic, managerial state. Its savage collapse threatened the West only by unmasking the truth behind the ideology and propaganda. But I don't think that's exactly what Prof. Parenti had in mind.

Regarding "Iraq's Cultural Catastrophe – and Ours" by Christopher Deliso:

I am always amazed at how naive our brightest minds can be. We have a man in the White House who, under his pappy, was the liaison to the Christian Right. Junior has stated that Billy Graham saved his life and turned his life to Jesus. Frank Graham, Billy's son, has called Islam an evil religion and gave the benediction at Junior's inauguration. Ralph Reed was critical in helping Junior win the (take over) the Presidency.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dobson, etc. were all equally instrumental in Junior's political coup d'etat. In other words, this administration is run by Christian Fundamentalists, primarily Southern Baptists.

Part of the belief of these fundamentalists is that Jesus will not return until certain things happen. One of those things is the opportunity for all people to have the opportunity to become Christians. One way to make people become Christians is to destroy their history and ties to the past. This form of Christian colonization was done throughout the America's during the conquest.

It's no coincidence that nothing was done to protect Iraqi antiquities. What made this even more telling was, a week after the pillaging of the Iraqi museum with all the attendant outcry of disbelief by the world community, the US military stood idly by as looters ransacked Iraq's National Library and Iraq's principal Islamic library nearby which contained priceless old Qurans. Gone. All gone. To dismiss this as an oversight is to believe that this president won the last election by nothing more than good luck. The present leadership of the United States knew exactly what it was doing. They believe they are carrying out god's will. And the destruction of Iraqi history is part of his divine plan. The only difference between these Southern Baptist boys and the Taliban (who destroyed Buddhist imagery not too long ago to the same type of world outcry which proved to be of no avail) is the size and quantity of their guns.

~ Eric Lane

Christopher Deliso replies:

Word. You will enjoy my latest article ["America's 'Conservative' Christians – and the Middle East's" on this very topic – the Christian conservatives helping steer this war. But are they the real Christian conservatives? Methinks not. In fact, the real Christian conservatives are the ones who speak the same languages, follow the same customs, and maintain the same pure faith as the original Christians of the first century.

Ironically, all of these folks – whether in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Palestine – live in the countries we would like to bomb or at least control, so that Christianity 2.0 can bring some real American edification about the Good Lord Jesus Christ.

Regarding "America's 'Conservative' Christians – and the Middle East's" by Christopher Deliso:

I recently read your article on "America's Conservative Christians and the Middle East". In your article I feel that you unfairly targeted Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) when you compared them to a 'quasi-spiritual cult." I strongly disagree with this characterization. I feel it is prejudicial and demeaning. Do you know any JW's? Have you read any of their literature, or associated with them in any way other than perhaps what you see on television? Do you know anything about there history and how they have been fighting for freedom of speech in the United States and around the world? Their court victories are basically what allows people like yourself to print insulting and erroneous material without fear of litigation.

Generally speaking cults are very secretive in their activities. This is not a model that fits with the Witnesses or their way of life. Their meetings are free and open to the public. Their beliefs solidly supported in the bible. What's more, why is indoctrination in the bible something you see as a characteristic of being a cult? When people from a certain geographical location do things a certain way its called "culture", but when people of a religious group, especially one that is small, do things a certain way, it tends to be called a "cult". One sounds positive and of course the other negative.

I ask you, since you think so much of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox "Christians" as being the "true Christian conservatives" where does the bible teach that Christians should celebrate Easter or any other so-called holy day? I do not ask this question to debate religion. I ask it only to show that just like most people in the world you are ignorant when it comes to what the bible teaches, ignorant about JW's, their practices and their beliefs.

JW's have respect for all people no matter what their beliefs or way of life. Nor would they seek to cause harm to anyone in anyway. I would like to know why it was necessary for you to print such things in your article? Who said that JW's are an "American" religion? However, if you are more open minded than the "American Conservative Christians" you speak about in your article please feel free to follow these links to learn about JW's and what they stand for: Watchtower.org and jw-media.org.

~ Randy Lemons

Christopher Deliso replies:

Thanks for the edifying words. However, I must disagree. I do know and have known several Jehovah's Witnesses, and over the years I have read several copies of the "Watchtower," while waiting in various dentists' offices.

As I have said, you and everyone else are free to believe whatever you want, provided you don't attempt to aggressively spread your beliefs on others. Maybe you yourself don't do this. But in general, in this practice the Jehovah's Witnesses are among the world's worst.

Typically preying upon the poor, weak and hopeless in destitute countries, JW missionaries promise all sorts of miracles to converts, and then win "religious minority" status for bringing in a religion that no one had asked for in the first place. And the same holds for missionaries from other religions and cults. When children die of curable diseases because their parents are brainwashed into believing in "faith healing," as has happened several times, people become understandably upset. However, when this happened in the Republic of Georgia, irrational "Orthodox mobs" were blamed for oppressing helpless religious minorities.

Significantly, Orthodox denominations surely have many flaws, but in general they are not known for their proselytizing. They instead allow the believer to come to them if so attracted – which is the way it should be.

Yet how can American (and other) proselytizers, representing religions sometimes less than 100 years old, be accorded the same status as religions native to a specific area? How can a handful of people indoctrinated into a modern religion be equated with religious minorities of long-standing tradition?

And please, don't feel singled out as a JW. When it comes to religion, I'm an equal opportunity offender.

Interesting article. But I think you are painting some groups with too broad a stroke. As a practicing "Mormon" and a former missionary, I can say that not all (in fact not most) Mormons fit into the description you say. Here at BYU (the biggest of the church-owned colleges), I've had many good friends who were Islamic, Hindu, and I think a few Buddhists (they are a minority, but they are treated quite well – which is why their parents send them here). I know that there are some of the less informed among any church that fall prey to petty demagoguery, but don't lump us all in that boat.

Just a minor nit.

~ Jonathan Goff

Christopher Deliso replies:

Thanks, Jonathan.

I didn't mean to "lump" you – I was referring more to a general ideology than to the specific members of a group, since the ideology is what motivates the "petty demagogues," as you call them. I have had Mormon missionaries come to my door, and I have talked with former "deprogrammed" ones as well. Perhaps this has influenced my opinions unjustly. However, from talking to them, an unpleasant picture of indoctrination and manipulation emerged. Of course, the missionaries were always polite, well-scrubbed and nice – in a way that made me very nervous.

I'm glad to hear of your "interfaith" friendships. I'm sure BYU has some interesting and positive aspects, and the CSM is a pretty fine newspaper, most of the time. Don't feel that I condemn everything Mormons or whoever else stand for. However, I do have two strong beliefs, one, that there is a lot to be said for tradition, and, two, that proselytizing is fundamentally evil.

Mr. Deliso's analysis of the evangelical church in America pains me; some of what he says is a just critique, and some of what he is says is bitter invective. As an evangelical Christian, I am keenly aware of, and deeply disturbed by, the unreflective and uninformed political opinions that are dominant in our circles, and which characterize much of our high-visibility leadership. The evils that this perpetuates are great.

This said, I think Mr. Deliso gives too much credit to evangelicals for the policies of Washington. I believe the war party could and would do exactly what it wants to do, with or without evangelical support. Evangelicals are, unfortunately, part of a broader problem: as a nation we are frightened and apparently ready to go to war against anything that can be associated with terrorism.

Perhaps the part of Mr. Deliso's work that is most unfair is this statement: "However, in seeking to forcibly impose a specific belief system on everyone else, America's evangelical Christians display cultural intolerance and fascism." Perhaps I am unaware, but I do not know of any incident of forcible conversion, or attempted forcible conversion by evangelicals in this country. As I understand it, evangelicals are not using swords or guns, but the normal means of free democracy to promote their ideas. In fact, Mr. Deliso himself has a "specific belief system" which he is promoting. I would guess that his is a libertarian viewpoint, which sometimes includes the intolerance of intolerance. This paradox is not easily resolved, for by declaring intolerable some other group, because the other group is intolerant, the accusers are in danger of having their claim reduced to this: "with respect to issue x, we will not tolerate your efforts to promote opinion/ policy x, because we are more tolerant (!?) than you are."

Much of what Mr. Deliso writes in his analysis can be reduced to this (tolerable, but inconsistent) intolerance, including his broad condemnation of missionary efforts and efforts to proselytize.

~ Jonathan Nichols

Christopher Deliso replies:

A very interesting idea – the "intolerance of intolerance." Perhaps. But I am not coming at it from any political viewpoint, except what I perceive to be common sense and fairness. I fully understand that there are many good folks such as you seem to be, who are sensitive of other cultures and use their religious belief toward some peaceful and generally positive goals. Unfortunately, however, you have some high-profile leaders who have made some pretty crazy statements, and who I believe are pretty influential. Inevitably innocent people wind up taking the flack, but I do not believe for this reason we can ignore the dangers of the larger issue.

Perhaps I was not clear enough about "forcible" conversion. Of course I do not mean the "conversion by the sword" endorsed by, among others, some Muslim extremists. Yet all of the quotes I mentioned seemed intellectually quite forcible to me – and the pen is mightier, no?

For the record, I would rather be inconsistent – and even intolerant – if I stick to my belief (and certainly this is my own opinion) that proselytizing is one of the worst of all human endeavours. To try to get other people to be aware of or share your own views, I believe it is sufficient to write articles or follow other creative means of expression. But proselytizing? No thanks.

Regarding "Who's Gonna Take Away Washington's License to Kill?" by Stan Cox:

Well-stated. The world needs a superpower with the ability to keep the United States in check.

~ Irv Barat, Canada

Stan Cox replies:

According to Jonathan Schell in The Nation, The Other Superpower is the regular people of the earth, who for the first time in history aren't isolated from one another. That may be the only power that can stop us.

Great article – albeit very sobering and very disturbing. Sadly Americans are genuinely disliked, even loathed in many other parts of the world as well. I say sadly, as all are tarred with the same brush and I, personally do know a number of intelligent, decent, well educated Americans who do not deserve to be bundled up in the same category of race and behaviour as these louts and animals that the US Military seems to consist of. Of course the truth is very simple – people do not like bullies – and that is precisely how America and Americans are perceived, that is how they behave. All this with a heavy coating of that smug puritanical assumption that God is on their side, that whatever they do is right! Europeans gave up on that idea after the 1st World War in which 125,000 Americans died – 900,000 Britain and Empire, 1.7 million Russians, 1.75 million Germans and 1.2 million Austrians. Tragically this lesson needed to be relearned as in World War II – 21 million Russians – 50% military/50% civilians, 11 million Chinese, 7 million Germans, + 6 million Jews, 6 million Poles, some 600,000 British and Commonwealth and 500,000 Americans.

Perhaps when one really considers this human waste it is easier to understand why the world distrusts aggressive, arrogant military behavior and why it was that Messrs. Chirac, Schroeder and Putin with the Chinese were so keen to give peaceful disarmament more time to work in Iraq.

Furthermore few Europeans respect or have any regard for Bush, he is seen as stupid, in his case looks are not deceptive – he is stupid. He is also dishonest, a criminal both in terms of his war record and in the way and he fraudulently assumed office. What a cheek to suggest that America has the moral right, the practical ability to single handedly rebuild Iraq, to bring democracy and freedom to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Think for a few moments of the shambles of the last U.S Presidential election, the shameful and criminal fashion in which a number of significant minority groups were systematically and cynically disenfranchised – think also of Bush and his cronies abusing the rule of law to stop the natural election processes continuing – but then I guess this is okay as most of these judges on the Supreme Court were put there by Bush senior – perhaps just in case of a rainy day!

Keep on writing.

~ Charles Craske, Switzerland

Good points and well-written too. I'm going to see that my congressmen get a copy.

~ Donna S.

This is a brave piece of writing! The point that hits me the hardest is that our outrage and indignation over 9/11 seem misplaced in a world where so many nations have suffered so much more than we have, often at our hands. When things settled down after 9/11, I thought, "This is just a taste of what it must have been like in Dresden, Hanoi, London, Baghdad in '91, and all the other cities where the bombs just kept falling and the killing must have seemed like it would never end. Maybe this will change our way of thinking about indiscriminate bombing." Our adoption, instead, of blind vengefulness is a bitter disappointment to me.

~ Tony Zito, New York

Thanks for writing this article, as these are my thoughts exactly.

Sometimes I wonder how we (America) would feel if some all powerful alien from outer space came to earth and because of their supreme technology, did to us what we did to Iraq, on the presumption that we have wmd.

~ Steven S., Hawaii

Sources

I am confused as to why you would use WorldNetDaily as a news source. I read their story on Jessica Lynch. While it raises questions about the spin on the coverage and details of Lynch's capture, the editors' conservative slant definitely comes through. Another recent article on WND reports how antiwar entertainers are suffering commercially for their "unpopular" views. The banner seemingly ever-present on WND's page promotes investment in gold, ready to "break through $850 an ounce."

Then again, you print Pat Buchanan (a regularly featured writer on WND) on a regular basis, which is also troubling. Here is the promotional blurb on his latest book, The Death of the West: ...

I may be going elsewhere for my progressive news in the future.

~ David F.

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

I find it hard to consider objections that are not based upon the content of the articles we are running, but rather on the writings we are NOT running. The "guilt by association" you are practicing here smacks of McCarthyism. If you want your objections to the article taken seriously, please detail what you object to in the articles we are running, rather than attacking excerpts from a book we do not promote (in fact, we have run articles criticizing the Buchanan book you cite).

The Jessica Lynch story was very interesting, especially considering the source, and contained information not reported elsewhere. And I although I didn't agree with every word in Buchanan's piece, I think it has a powerful message. This is the type of message that can reach people who have not committed to the antiwar position.

Antiwar.com is committed to running a broad range of antiwar positions, not only ones considered to be in the "progressive" milieu. The very fact that Pat Buchanan and Robert Scheer are sending similar messages on today's Antiwar.com is indicative of the shifting political paradigm.

I've been reading Antiwar.com for a while, and I've noticed several links on the site that open up pages at Newsmax.com.

In particular, I am thinking of today's story about Bob Graham's accusations that Bush could have prevented 9-11.

Newsmax is a ultra right-wing "news" source. I am surprised that Antiwar.com uses it at all.

~ Brannon I.

Eric Garris replies:

We use it carefully, but they sometimes have stories with information unavailable elsewhere.

We try to give our readers the most complete information available, even if it means we have to go to "the enemy" to get the news.

Sue'Em

I see that a US judge allowed that Osama, the Taliban and Iraq could be sued for considerable damages.

What amazes me is that the Arabs and the Palestinians have not tumbled onto that idea so far. Instead of fighting the mighty Israeli army which is well equipped with the latest weapons the US can provide, the Palestinians would frighten the hell out of Sharon and his kind with some serious law suits. This would not cost any Palestinian lives and would create havoc with the Israeli legal system, to say nothing about the system in the USA, and who knows they might win one or two of them.

The pen, especially when it is in the hand of a lawyer, is mightier than the sword.

~ Paul Fritz-Nemeth, Verdun, Quebec, Canada

Regarding "Mad Dogs of War" by Justin Raimondo:

As a former congressional lobbyist for the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, I am grateful to Justin Raimondo for reminding his readers that Mordechai remains in prison for his act of conscience on behalf of all humanity. Being a regular reader of Mr. Raimondo’s column, I sincerely hope that he will consider the larger meaning behind the Vanunu story. Through his actions, Mordechai Vanunu declared to the world that a commitment to humankind, not nation, is the only way to avoid war. When the men of the world cease using religion, ideology, nationality, and borders, to absolve themselves of their responsibility to love and protect their fellow men, war will be over. Until then, religion, ideology, nationality, and borders, will continue to serve as desperate, pathetic instruments to stave off the inevitable.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Raimondo will follow in Mordechai’s footsteps and use his own mind, and his own body, as a source of love and devotion to all men, regardless of where they happen to live.

~ Timothy Rieger

Regarding "The Final Secret of 9/11" by Justin Raimondo:

You are again citing Safire quoting Rove on the alleged – and uncorroborated – knowledge of special codes, without the slightest skepticism.

If indeed such knowledge had existed, it would have pointed to major vulnerability in the highest echelons. That would have been incredibly sensitive information. Even a presidential adviser should not have been privy to such national security information unless cleared for it. Even if he had obtained it, leaking it would have advertised this vulnerability to the world, allowing foreign intelligence and terrorist organizations alike to refine their analysis of how the US government protects itself – or fails to do so. Having thus done his country a major disservice, for said adviser to remain in favor and unindicted just about boggles the mind.

The story is preposterous on its face unless the Bush administration is deeply, dangerously dysfunctional. As to Safire, he has a history of acting as a liar for hire, as a recent article by Barry Lando illustrates, in which Safire's outrageous "French Connection" pieces are taken apart. It was deemed worthy of publication by Le Monde, a newspaper that is demonstrably more independent of the French government on issues of national security than the New York Times is of the US government. Safire has, as you know, been a party to nasty attacks against Buchanan – his former colleague in the Nixon White House. Isn't that enough to justify skepticism, apart form the numerous left-wing analyses that claim that Rove made the whole thing up to counter the perception of GWB as a scared rabbit zigzagging across the US after the attacks? ...

~ Philippe Dambournet