THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 478, July 27, 2008
"Our would-be keepers in both 'major'
parties want you to accept a lower
standard of living, and begin a long
slide back into the Dark Ages"
None Dare Call It Treason!
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
Prior to submitting to TLE my recent article denouncing the warmongering NATO cheerleader, Eric Margolis, I engaged in a brief email dialogue with Eric Garris of antiwar.com. I pointed out that Margolis, in a recent article, "...praises Bush (and Clinton) for the NATO War Against Serbia and the installation of the KLA gangsters as their puppet government of the occupied Serb province of Kosovo," and I dared to ask why antiwar.com continues to give a forum to an enemy of peace and liberty. Mr Garris was kind enough to reply to my inquiry.
In the opening of an exchange of emails, he pointed out that antiwar.com "...attacked Margolis when he made those statements..." but stated that if "...we required 100% agreement on all subjects with someone before running an article by them on a specific subject, we would have a very small pool to draw upon." Fair enough.
However, I pointed out that, "The problem I have with running anything by Margolis is that he is not anti-war; he isn't even anti-imperial war. He is simply an Albanian fifth columnist in the antiwar 'movement'," and that, "We can disagree with a great many people on a great many subjects, but we must draw a line somewhere. I suggest that we exclude all warmongers from any 'antiwar' sites. That will still leave a very large pool to draw upon." (I subsequently sent him the above-referenced column and invited antiwar.com to link to it. To date they have not, to my knowledge, done so.)
In his next email, Mr Garris wondered how I would apply "these standards" to (a list he supplied of) various bad apples whose writing antiwar.com had published. I answered:
"I'm glad to see that we are discussing standards, at least. I think that 'these standards' of no support for warmongers by 'antiwar' sites should be applied as follows: without exception or favour, period.
"Once the thin edge of the wedge gets in, so does everything else, as evidenced by the list of ghouls whom you include in your email. How in the world you can give a platform to anyone on that list and consider yourself "antiwar" is beyond me; they are the enemies of peace, as you even point out in your notes on them."
I added that, "The large 'pool' upon which you currently draw at antiwar.com is a cesspool," and that,
"You guys apparently have an obsession with gaining 'acceptability' with a barrage of 'big names' at your site, no matter how evil the bastards are. Yet there is no shortage of decent writers who have dedicated their lives to opposing statism and the wars it inevitably wages. Of course, many of them are not 'big names'."
In his next letter, Eric said that, "I could not disagree with you more," and made three points. I quote them here, along with the replies I made to them in my answering letter:
EG #1: People change. I used to be a socialist. Some of the strongest voices against the war I know are former advocates like Andrew Bacevich.
KK #1: Until people change from being warmongers, they are still warmongers. Most will never change, and you never know which ones will until they do.
I do not oppose former warmongers who are now consistent advocates of peace; I oppose present and continuing warmongering [expletive deleted] like Margolis and Will and the rest of the ghouls from your list.
EG #2: In order to win on any issue, we must cooperate with those who only agree on that specific issue. I could cite many examples but I think that they are self-evident.
KK #2: The "specific issue" is wars of aggression, hence the name "antiwar.com", no? So why promote warmongers?
EG: #3: I know very few good writers who have not, at some point, deviated from their purity.
KK #3: I'm not talking about "good writers" who "deviate from their purity", Eric; I'm opposing evil, hypocritical warmongering [expletive deleted] like Margolis. The difference does not strike me as being all that subtle.
I added, "In any case, I think that antiwar.com has betrayed its name and alleged mission."
In his next email letter, Mr Garris tersely informed me that, " Our policies on this issue have not changed since our founding in 1995." I had the temerity to suggest, in response, that times change and one must sometimes do so one's self, especially when one is wrong. I don't think that this went over too well...
In his final communication, Mr Garris informed me that there was no more need to exchange ideas if I would not refrain from suggesting that antiwar.com had betrayed its alleged ideals.
Well, kids, my own policy on the issue of political sacred cows, which has not changed since the founding of The Kaptain's Log, is this: they should all be made into political hamburger.
Oh, I know that we are all supposed to "pull together"; I just want to know what I'm being asked to pull first, and in which direction. If the "antiwar movement" is so fragile that it cannot stand a little scrutiny and so sacred that it is above criticism, then I say it's a fraud, and I say to hell with it.
I also realise that, as someone pointed out about writers who are selectively "antiwar", "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." I know that it is only "right" by inevitable coincidence, however, and not by intent. I also know that for the other 86,398 seconds of the day it's bloody wrong. Imperial wars which ally themselves with Islamic bigots are no better than those which fight against them. A true antiwar movement is not based on a pick-and-choose cafeteria style ideology.
Compromise with principle always leads to disaster. For too long antiwar.com has strayed from the path of total opposition to imperial war, and the results are disastrous for both the site and those who seek information and/or inspiration from it.
As just one (more) example, take Justin Raimundo's fervent defence of the "antiwar candidate", Barack Obama, in his column of March 17, 2008.
I would like to be able to characterise this absurdity as being naive, but I am forced to point out that it's just plain substituting wishful thinking for critical analysis, hardly the best "standard" for a foe of "the War Party". Mr Raimundo, after comparing the media's treatment of Barack Obama's campaign to its slander of Dr Ron Paul (which comparison alone is grounds for asking who it is who inhabits the "Bizarro world"), moaned that, "...on account of his antiwar views [?!?] ...The War Party... is determined to destroy Obama." What were you smoking that week, dude?
Well, for those of us who inhabit the real world, it is clear that Barack Obomber is the same kind of "antiwar" crusader as was the Democratic Party's "peace candidate" in 1964, one Lyndon Baines Johnson. This one is leading the charge to declare "victory" in Iraq and fight the "good" war in Afghanistan.
Some "antiwar" candidate, eh?
Some "antiwar" dot com...
Yes, Eric, I do consider antiwar.com to have betrayed the principle of total opposition to imperial wars and propaganda. And yes, it's bloody treason.
If we uncritically follow self-appointed "antiwar" poobahs, there is not much hope for...
Peace and Liberty.