I received this note from Pat Buchanan, a longtime friend of Justin and supporter of Antiwar.com:
Eric, thanks for alerting me. Justin was a loyal friend and brave man who bore his suffering with dignity and was indispensable to the cause of keeping our country out of these damnable wars. You folks at Antiwar.com continue to do heroic work. May God bless and keep Justin whom I first came to know in that campaign of ’92, long ago. All the best, Pat.
Well said.
Pat is a gracious man.
Unfortunately PAt B was not always so gracious about gay people… but he’s mellowed into graciousness.
Pat rejected the forcing of the gay lifestyle on America but respected the worthy efforts of gays such as Raimondo. It’s a case of the old “hating the sin but loving the sinner.”
What other imaginary things did Pat reject?
Excellent point.
There was no political program for the homosexualisation of America.
It all just happened spontaneously – like most major revolutions do (we are seen it with the “trans” movement now) – and there was never any book published by the men who created and actualised the plan.
“It all just happened spontaneously”
No, it didn’t happen spontaneously.
Because it didn’t happen at all.
Excellent point.
There was no political program for the homosexualisation of America.
It all just happened spontaneously – like most major revolutions do (we are seen it with the “trans” movement now) – and there was never any book published by the men who created and actualised the plan.
When Pat said AIDS was payback to gays I think that captured his feelings at the time… people change… just sayin’
I’ve since taken a sharp turn to the Left, but it was Buchanan who cured me of neoconservatism, for which I will always be grateful.
Pat and Ron Paul have stood out from the political crowd in calling out the neocons. Because of their words MILLIONS of people now see through them and understand the danger this “policy” view represents.
… And Justin Raimono also made great contributions to the effort to make sure this suicidal path is rejected.
Yes Ron Paul changed my world view. I have been waiting a long time for the left to have a candidate as strong as Paul. I might finally pull the lever for a D once again if Gabbard is the nominee. If it’s just a usual MIC backed candidate I be will continue to vote Green or L.
Yes I might also go a little further left and add the Chinaman that wants to give 1000 dollars per month for every one over 18 . This is still a level playing field . The government gets their power by creating unlevel playing fields .
Andrew Yang is a New Yorker, not a “Chinaman.”
“On Thursday, June 27, Justin Raimondo passed away after a long battle with lung cancer. He was 67. Justin was a lifelong fighter for peace and liberty. In 1995, he co-founded Antiwar.com with Eric Garris. He served as Antiwar.com‘s editorial director and top columnist, writing over 3,000 articles for the website. He can never be replaced and will be missed by countless numbers of fans and followers. Read his Antiwar.com obituary here. More remembrances will follow in the days to come.” –Paul Craig Roberts
He challenged conventional wisdom when conventional wisdom is often terribly and dangerously wrong. He provided a forum where others could do the same thing (because there were – and still are – too few places willing to do this). Because he did these things, others can continue this vital work.
Please pray your Holy Rosary for Justin Raimondo!!! Remembering him and talking about him will do him no good, prayers are what he needs. By human standards, Justin was a hero for his spirited fight against the warmongering juggernaut that has killed so many millions (and trapped yet more millions in its propaganda that inverts reality). Unfortunately, being in a homosexual “marriage”, he was gravely sinful in the eyes of God. Sodomy is one of the 4 sins so grave that they cry to heaven for vengeance (the other 3 are murder, depriving workers of their fair wages, and oppressing widows/orphans/the weak).
Eulogies for the dead do the dead no good. Prayers doThe Holy Rosary is one of the most powerful prayers. Please pray the Holy Rosary for Justin Raimondo. Pray it, and pray it again, and keep praying for him throughout your life. This is the only thing we can do to help Justin get to heaven. And your eternal destination (heaven or hell) is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.
Believe whatever you want but if you’re going to print it then I’m going to respond. If there is a heaven, Justin is there and the very idea that his loving relationship with another man would change that is ridiculous.
“If there is a heaven”…………………………….
Priceless !!
“Justin is there”.
Breathtakingly, hilariously absurd.
You are a comedian ?
“Loving relationship with another man”.
Define “Love”.
Thru his long & let us hope purgative suffering, JR more than once speculated about returning to the Faith in which he was baptized. Am accordingly wondering whether a (n honest) priest did in fact come to his bedside during his last days & hours. Expect some would like to ignore that if it happened, but would appreciate any definitive evidence one way or t’other.
Let’s pray for Justin to cut down his purgative suffering.
Have been, & will, regularly, since he got sick< Will also have (old-rite) Masses offered for him. Blessed are the peacemakers, especially those who actually fight against war, of whom JR was the exemplar.
Please don’t speak for God. If you believe in God, and not that you yourself are the almighty you cannot speak for God. The church is against homosexuality. The church is not God. Leave it to God to decide who is invited into Heaven.
“The church is against homosexuality. ”
Some churches are, some churches aren’t.
The Bible was written by men. It was not written by God. The Bible is not history. The Bible is myth. Stop speaking for God. You are not God. God will decide who is admitted in Heaven.
We discussed: USA likes to INVADE other countries; but they like to call it just WAR….thus “WAR” is a euphemism.
Although Raimondo died many years too soon, he lived a life of influence most of us can only envy. What a hard piece of news it was to read of his passing; to borrow from the poem, “God take him to a fairer place…”
“Although Raimondo died many years too soon”
We all die at precisely, exactly the correct time.
We are all forgotten rather quickly after our passing.
A right wing guy here who thought the world of Mr. Raimondo. His death is a big loss.
I am surely going to miss Justin…I hope this site remains just the way he intended it. It is a great public service.
Mr. Raimondo refused to obey the Objective Universal Moral Code (OUMC) when it came to actions he favored but were condemned by The OUMC and so he forfeited (He was blind to this though, as are those who succored him) ) any legitimate right to insist that all others obey the OUMC when it came to Just and Unjust wars.
That is, if he was at liberty to reject the OUMC is one instance, others are, similarly, at liberty to reject the OUMC when it comes to such things as Usury, Depriving a laborer of his wages etc etc
It is not perplexing at all that he did not see this as lust blinds.
“[T]he Objective Universal Moral Code (OUMC)”
You’re using the definite article there, but quick Google and Bing searches don’t lead me to any explication of this OUMC you speak of. Is there one somewhere?
The OUMC is my own acronym for the Natural Law that God provided every man ever living with so that if, say, a savage living in a jungle would know right form wrong.
The Moral Code has never changed and can never change and Mr. Raimondo (although prolly not aware of it) was appealing to it every time he argued against Unjust Wars.
Here is an extended explanation of it
http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/AbolitionofMan.pdf
OK, so by “objective” you mean “subjectively asserted without evidence.” No problem, just wanted to understand what you were saying.
It is prolly a waste of my time to reply but your attempt to recast objective as subjective is aught but your psychological projection and a mundane example of a very weak wise- guy gainsaying.
You believe most of what you believe owing to the authority of others – that is, you are not an expert in ballistics, optometry, physiology etc; – but when it comes to the ultimate authority, God, you are quick to dismiss Him.
For you, there can be no greater error.
Some day you will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and you will not be cracking wise then for you will have to account for all of your thoughts, words, and deeds.
Repent while you still have time.
Adios.
I’m not dismissing God. I’m dismissing your claim to possession of an Objective Universal Moral Code.
Or, as CS Lewis put it, “Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not ‘So there’s no God after all,’ but ‘So this is what God’s really like. Deceive yourself no longer.’”
I don’t possess it. I acknowledge it and try to adhere to it.
In arguing with others that they were wrong to wage Unjust Wars Mr. Raimondo was appealing to a universal standard of morality (right and wrong) he expected man (all men and woman0 to know and adhere to.
He prolly did not understand that was what he was doing but that is what the was doing.
Now, the fact he exempted himself from part(s) of that universal (everyone included at all times) objective (for every man) moral (right or wrong) code (law) meant that he significantly weakened his argument for if he had liberty to exempt himself from part of that UOMC, he had no real right for condemning others who exempted themselves from that UOMC because massive hypocrisy.
I think one either grabs this essential truth or they do not.
But if they do not, they ought not be surprised others turn a deaf ear to the pleading.
O, and one last thing as we are writing about God.
God grated Mao, Stalin, and Hitler control of those governments at that time.
I wonder what you think about that truth?
Let me put it a different way:
Yes, Justin was appealing to a universal standard of morality.
So are you.
Your error is in assuming that he was appealing to the same universal standard of morality that you try to adhere to, or that the latter is “objective.”
My impression, which might be incorrect, is that the universal standard of morality that you are advertising is a standard drawn from a particular reading, with particular emphases, from particular portions, of a particular set of books. Other portions of that same set of books claim that belief in the things it says it is a matter of faith, which is the opposite of a matter of evidence, the latter of which would be required to determine “objectivity.” And still other portions of that set of books warn against judging lest one be judged.
My further impression is that your particular claim of self-exemption on Justin’s part has to do with who he decided to marry and why. If that set of books is correct, including in the particular portions that you seem to be relying on, that’s something he’ll answer for to the deity the book claims to represent, and your opinion on the matter couldn’t plausibly be of any great importance to said deity.
Dear Mr. Knapp. You acknowledge that Mr. Raimondo was appealing to a universal standard of morality but then try to claim that the standard to which he was appealing was not necessarily the same standard as others but that just means there is no universal standard.
That is, you end up denying what you just claimed.
There is a UOMC and God created knowledge of that in all of His human creatures.
Thus, a savage born in a jungle, having never heard the Gospel, was/is aware that killing and eating his children is wrong.
Thanks for the pleasant and pacific exchange, sir.
O, and I want to end by writing that Mr. Raimondo has had a huge influence on me and his opinions vis a vis aggressive wars are morally correct.
No, I did not deny what I claimed.
Mr. Raimondo posited a universal standard of morality. So did you. That doesn’t mean the two of you posited the SAME universal standard. At least one of you, and maybe both of you, are wrong as to what constitutes that universal standard.
A universal standard of morality would by necessity be objective (“expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”). It does not follow from that that your personal understanding of what might constitute such a standard is objective.
“Thus, a savage born in a jungle, having never heard the Gospel, was/is aware that killing and eating his children is wrong.”
On the contrary. Some “savages” in various jungles have not only posited that it’s not wrong, but that it’s required by an objective universal moral code.
One has only to know the definitions of Universal, Objective, and Moral to understand you are indeed denying what you claim.
I don’t know what you think you are doing by engaging this way this but I suspect you are both serious and not embarrassed by what you are doing.
Adios
Thanks for confessing that you’re unfamiliar with the definitions of Universal, Objective, and Moral — I thought it was just the second one.
Have a great day.
Well done, sir !