SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (517718)12/31/2003 7:53:50 AM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 769670
 
Justin Raimondo discovers his calling
Justin Raimondo has revealed his true calling in life. He is destined to be not merely a conman, a liar, a lunatic paranoid conspiracy theorist, a gullible idiot, and an anti-Semite. He has promoted himself into the ranks of the common criminal, for he is a petty thief.

In today's drooling rant, Raimondo attacks Ronald Radosh for a piece that Radosh wrote in the Boston Globe. Among other things, Radosh criticized Raimondo for continuing to insist that ''Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11". In his own defense, Raimondo says:

And I have another news flash for Radosh: Die Zeit, a generally pro-Israel German weekly of some repute, is now reporting that the Israeli spy operation I've been detailing in this space since last year was indeed watching the hijackers, which is precisely what I've said all along.
This is a most remarkable bit of news, for several reasons. The Die Zeit article that he is referring to is the one that I translated several days ago. It does not imply in any way that Israel had foreknowledge of the attacks, only that Israel was investigating some of the hijackers. And as it turns out, the Die Zeit piece was ultimately fact-checked and dismissed as being based on a discredited source. I posted an update to that effect on my translation of the Die Zeit article. Still, Raimondo linked to my translation anyway, even though the original story was both lacking in credibility and spun opposite of the story that Raimondo in his hallucinatory anti-Semitic view of the world wanted to tell.

And then it gets even better. After I discovered Raimondo's link, I revised my translation to include an even more prominent disclaimer, at the top of the page and in red letters:

Note: This report appears to based mainly on questionable and previously discredited sources, mainly a DEA investigation report on the so-called art students. Blogger Bruce Rolston fact-checks a number of Die Zeit's claims in this story. I'm inclined to go along with Rolston's interpretation and to disregard this article. I've e-mailed [article author] Oliver Schröm, inviting him to respond to Rolston's critique and I'm still waiting for his response.
So what do you suppose Raimondo did next? He removed the link to my website, and linked instead to a BBC Report about the Die Zeit article that didn't bother to question Die Zeit's sources. And he posted an unattributed copy of my translation on his website, without my permission, and without any of my disclaimers and links to Bruce Rolston's fact checking.

So he simply stole my work (or at least the parts that serve his idiotic fantasy world) and took credit for it. He is an ordinary thief, a piece of trash. One wonders what else he steals when he's not too busy spreading lies.

UPDATE: Raimondo removed his shameless rip-off of my translation from his own website, apparently after seeing this post. Instead he links to another copy someplace else

UPDATE #2: "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog", but the Internet does keep an audit trail. The comment entry from "wendy rimely" came from IP address 66.125.92.172, which the preponderence of circumstancial evidence in my traffic log suggests belongs to either Justin Raimondo, or to the person who maintains his online column.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 14, 2002 01:39 PM
usefulwork.com



To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (517718)12/31/2003 8:04:13 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
HERE the Whacko is again exposed...unusual twist. Don't think Ray will like this either.
cscs.umich.edu
May 19, 2003
Not My Antiwar, Thank You Very Much
Moved by I know now what impulse, I decided today to finally take a look at the Antiwar.com site which has been so prominent in anti-war linkage for so long, and especially at the Justin Raimondo character who is its editorial director. I have returned with only one thing to say.

Has the whole world gone fucking insane?

Antiwar.com got started to oppose US intervention in Yugoslavia. Now, I've said before that I think one of the worst things about American foreign policy in the 1990s was that we did not act to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as quickly and as forcefully as we should have, but I could respect a general libertarian argument against intervention, like Gene Healy's or Jim Henley's. (I'd think it was wrong, even on its own terms, but another time.) The fact that Raimondo's bio online links to an outfit calling itself the von Mises Institute suggests that's where he's coming from. But in fact the vMI crowd are the kind of pseudo-libertarians who endorse monarchy, because if states were personal property, their rulers would go in for less welfare spending and allow less immigration. Raimondo is, in fact, a proudly paleo-conservative activist of the hard right. He gets Pat Buchanan to write admiring prefaces to his books, like this one about how wily ex-Trotskyists subverted the noble nativist American conservative movement:

And today? "Two traditions stand head-to-head, contending for the future of the . . . movement. One piously holds out the promise of enterprise zones from South Central Los Angeles to Mogadishu, while the other dares utter the forbidden phrase, America First!" Written in defense of, and in the style of, the dead lions of the Old Right whom Justin Raimondo reveres, Reclaiming the American Right is not about olive branches; it is about conflict, about taking back the movement, about taking back America.
"America First" was of course the leading isolationist organization in the US during the years before our entry into WWII, many of whose leaders were, if I may use the phrase, subjectively pro-fascist: they were divided over whether we shouldn't have joined the war, or whether we joined the wrong side. Digging a bit more, I find that Raimondo delivered the nominating speech for Buchanan at the 2000 Reform Party convention, and that he's pushed the Mossad-caused-9/11 meme.

Raimondo's bio at Antiwar.com says he "writes frequently" for Chronicles, which is another hard-right organ. Looking over its current and former tables of contents, I find, beyond the now-expected isolationism: anti-Muslim bigotry, defenses of Rick Santorum, Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond, denunciations of abortion, paeans to Confederate generals, denunciations of Gen. W. T. Sherman, the ludicrous conspiracy theory that the Iraq war was to keep the euro from becoming the world's reserve currency, and even (how I wish I was making this up) defenses of Milosevic and the Serbian national cause, i.e., a policy of fascism and genocide right out of the Europe of the 1930s, complete with rhetoric approximating "you may flinch at the methods, but it takes real men to defend western civilization against the hordes of the east". I didn't find anything in praise of Marshall Petain, but then they don't have most of their back issues online;I did turn up Raimondo's "Rothbardian" defense of conspiracy theories.

I hope to never see a clearer instance of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's saying "Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side". For us on the left, Raimondo is the enemy, the old enemy, the one we've fought since Dreyfuss and before. I understand that seeking complete purity in allies is a recipe for failure. And I'm not pulling a Hitchens here, still less a Horowitz, saying that people like this invalidate the anti-war cause. The fact that Raimondo is the worst kind of reactionary idiot doesn't mean that (a) the war against Iraq was not a blunder, and (b) that his "put away your puppets" column wasn't good tactical advice. I'd be flabbergasted if most of the people who link to Antiwar.com have any inkling of this stuff, much less approve of it in the least. But I'm very disturbed that I can find only one other progressive publicly repudiating Raimondo, namely Gary Farber (who I haven't been reading often enough). I'm all for a broad front, but not with this.

Update: On re-reading, I see that my third paragraph might give the impression that Healy and Henley had libertarian arguments against the US going to war in the Balkans. I was thinking, though, of arguments analogous to the ones they made against going to war with Iraq; I and don't know what their position, if any, they hold on Yugoslavia.

Posted by crshalizi at May 19, 2003 07:41 PM | TrackBack



To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (517718)12/31/2003 11:03:26 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
No one of substance gives a single dingle about this...

If you regard most of Europe, almost all of the Muslim world and most of the ROW to be 'of no substance', then your comment probably is simply naive.

Worldwide, more people agree in general terms with Justin Raimumdo's analysis than trust the Bush/Blair cabal to be telling the truth.