Normally, I would have no interest in the writings or talk-show appearances of Ann Coulter, and I will stipulate that I have not read her latest contribution, a volume titled Treason. However, I have felt myself drawn into the controversy over the book, because of its reliance on scholarship analyzing, and based on, the Venona traffic. This, as a wider section of the public will now come to know, is a series of several thousand clandestine Soviet intelligence messages intercepted and decrypted by American military personnel, beginning in the second world war. Ms. Coulter has used the Venona traffic to make the argument that Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, has been unfairly defamed by liberal public opinion. She has intimated that liberals in general, meaning many Democrats, social democrats, and anti-Communist union leaders, were soft on the former Soviet Union, and therefore traitors.

These are immensely complicated historical issues, which continue to be treated subjectively by most commentators, and on which I don't wish to expend a great deal of energy right now. Nevertheless, I have had a minor role in the analysis of the Venona decryptions, and wish to point out certain obvious problems with Ms. Coulter's claims.

First, one of the main lessons we must derive from the Venona traffic is that Soviet clandestine agents in the U.S. and in the West in general did not operate in a rational fashion, and did not, in fact, consistently concentrate their main efforts on infiltration of the U.S. government for purposes of influencing its foreign or domestic policies. Rather, a considerable amount of the Venona traffic is concerned with Soviet persecution, harassment, surveillance, and infiltration of the tiny group of supporters of Leon Trotsky, murdered in 1940. It is a major paradox of Soviet clandestine operations in the era of Alger Hiss that influence over American policy was very often a less important goal for the Kremlin than persecution of obscure heretics. Hiss himself used his high post in the Roosevelt administration, as revealed in the Pumpkin Papers made public by Whittaker Chambers, to further such nefarious activities.

My contribution to the discussion of Venona included a discussion of messages transmitted to Soviet agents in Mexico. I will defer to Arnold Beichman, writing in the Washington Times of August 24, 1997, to describe my work on this topic and the content of the materials I analyzed:

The decryptions have been analyzed in a long article by Stephen Schwartz, an expert on Soviet espionage and Comintern history, in the August 1997 Spanish language monthly, Vuelta, published in Mexico. The magazine [was founded] by Octavio Paz, poet and critic, and winner of the 1990 Nobel Prize for literature. Mr. Schwartz describes Soviet activities as constituting "a gross violation of Mexican national sovereignty."

"The Mexican communications disclose the remarkably obsessive nature of Soviet clandestine operations," writes Mr. Schwartz, "and the extent of their penetration and manipulation in Latin America, involving the Spanish Republican exile community and many prominent intellectuals, in addition to the communist parties of Mexico, Chile, Cuba and other countries."

[Quoting Schwartz:] "Venona" makes clear the criminality of international Soviet agents, who acted throughout the world, on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. no less than in Mexico and Colombia, as if they were on their own territory. They hunted down, kidnapped and killed Russian nationals who had escaped Stalin's reign of terror, looted the secrets of industrial and scientific enterprises, and corrupted foreign political and military personnel.

In the ‘Venona’ dispatches, code-names are used for almost everybody. Some of these aliases were neutral; others, like Zionists, were given pejorative epithets [– Zionists being referred to as ‘rats.’] Followers of Stalin's hated enemy, Leon Trotsky, were code-named ‘polecats.’ Trotsky, himself, was living in Mexico as an exile when he was killed at the age of 61 in 1940 by a 26-year-old KGB operative, Ramon Mercader del Rio, who was convicted of the crime and given a 20-year jail sentence. Mercader was the son of Caridad Mercader, who was herself a KGB agent.

From the beginning of the KGB rezidentura’s [Mexican] operation in 1943, Stalin had one objective: springing Mercader. Despite all kinds of KGB conspiracies, the assassin served 20 years in jail.

In keeping with KGB encoding style, the first message about the Mercader escape effort, sent from Mexico City to Moscow Dec. 23, 1943, described it as a "surgical operation" from the "hospital," meaning jail, specifically Penitenciaria de Lecumberri where Mercader was held. The noun "scientist" was a code name for Mexican agents or for Mexicans who were Soviet sympathizers ready to follow Moscow orders.

(I would add that my commentary on the Mexican Venona and related issues discussed below--having to do with Stalinist intellectuals recruited to secret police terror tasks--appears in my book, Intellectuals and Assassins (London, 2000). In addition, in another of my books, From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind (New York, 1998), I included work on Venona and the pattern of Soviet espionage in the Manhattan District atomic bomb. Much of this latter work is cited in Greg Herkens's Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence and Edward Teller.)

Thus, with regard to Venona and what it tells us about Soviet operations in the U.S., a knowledge of the ins and outs of the Roosevelt New Deal is often much less useful than a study of the hidden and largely forgotten history of Trotskyism. One of the most significant Soviet agents discussed in Venona was the infamous Mark Zborowski, militant and anthropologist, who infiltrated the Trotskyist movement in the late 1930s in Paris. Zborowski was involved in the murder of Trotsky’s son Lyova Sedov and other revolutionary militants whose names would doubtless mean nothing to Ms. Coulter: Andreu Nin, Hans Freund, Kurt Landau, Ignacy Porecki-Reiss, Erwin Wolf, and Rudolf Klement, as well as plots to murder the author Victor Serge and the labor leader Henk Sneevliet. Zborowski was very likely also involved in the mysterious deaths of men named Samuel Ginsberg (Walter Krivitsky) and Otto Ruhle. I emphasize my conviction that Ann Coulter does not know most of these names, although she may have heard of Krivitsky, and cannot imagine what significance they have, and would doubtless not care very much about them. They were not American patriots, believers in the Republican party, or admirers of Protestant fundamentalism. They were ultra-revolutionary activists who lived and died, often young, for an ideal today universally held in contempt – that of proletarian socialist revolution.

And yet it was the deaths of these men and others like them, including some women, that moved Whittaker Chambers to break with Stalinism, and others to fight the Soviet Union and everything it had come to represent, in conditions of danger and obscurity that Ann Coulter could never imagine.

And that is an important part of the Ann Coulter problem – for there is such a problem.

Ann Coulter has turned the struggle over historical memory about Soviet clandestine activities in the U.S. into a comic-book morality play about good Americans and bad aliens, on television programs like "Crossfire," with the assistance of equally narrow-minded individuals such as Robert Novak. In doing so, Ms. Coulter has dishonored the sacrifices of those without whom no such struggle could have taken place.

It is not merely a matter of gross vulgarity in the attempt to rehabilitate, and transform into an American civic hero, the demagogic McCarthy, whose antics deeply undermined the combat against Stalinist influence undertaken in America by ex-Communists, social-democrats, anti-Communist labor leaders, and, yes, liberals. It is not merely a matter of, as I have been told, Ann Coulter making the grotesque mistake of defaming Walter Reuther, a tough union man who rescued one of America’s great labor organizations from Soviet control.

There is also an issue of motives here, on which I am not inclined to cede a single inch to Ann Coulter, her possible ghost-writer (because it is very difficult for me to imagine that she did all this herself), or her admirers.

Ms. Coulter was quite properly criticized a week or so ago by Ronald Radosh, a hero of our time for his exposure of the truth about the Rosenbergs – that they were fanatical Stalinists and guilty of the espionage charges brought against them. Radosh commented, to Andrew Sullivan writing in the London Times, “I am furious and upset about her book.” Radosh pointed out that Ms. Coulter has used his work, as well as that of Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, and Allen Weinstein, to distort their arguments and advance absurd, propagandistic claims.

Ms. Coulter has now answered Radosh, in effect, by penning a column in which she holds Radosh up as an intellectual paragon for his work to expose the Rosenbergs.

This is what must be said: I, like Radosh, and for that matter David Horowitz, come from a Communist background. I, like Radosh and Horowitz, now stand in defense of America, its democracy, its free enterprise system, its values, and its leading role in the world. I, like Radosh and Horowitz, now dedicate my energies to exposing and memorializing the crimes of Communism.

But there is something that separates us from Ann Coulter – something more than suspicion and contempt for the figure of Joseph McCarthy. Those of us who put so much into this struggle did not bear this burden lightly. Some of us learned difficult foreign languages, some of us traveled to distant and hostile locations, all of us devoted many, many hours of unpaid labor to this cause. But above all, as Walter Krivitsky said to Whittaker Chambers, “One does not come away easily from Stalin.” Because we began in the Communist movement, we had to come to terms with our own misguided beliefs and motives; we had to let go of an idealism that we had nurtured and that had nurtured us; we had to break with friends, family, colleagues, a whole world. We had to ask ourselves a million times if we had made the right decision. We had to face the dreadful accusation, with which Ann Coulter will never have to contend, that we were renegades and opportunists who had sold out our comrades out of craven self-interest. We had to live with the charge that we had taken the side of the world’s oppressors against its victims – after we had spent long years living by our promise never to desert the battle against oppression.

I cannot speak for Radosh and Horowitz when I say that in engaging with the issue of Venona I did so more out of a deep and abiding anger over the forgotten martyrdom of young and courageous men of heart, men of fire, men who had committed themselves to a perhaps hopeless, probably meaningless, and doubtless lonely battle, rather than out of loyalty to my land of birth and citizenship. Men like Nin, shot to death after he was tortured for days, gravely ill with a kidney ailment, but refusing to say yes to Stalin – and my comrade Victor Alba affirmed that Nin’s fortitude, through incalculable pain and suffering, saved thousands of Spanish revolutionary militants, who were unafraid to be called anarchists, communists, and Trotskyists, from the Stalin murder machine. Men like Hans Freund, snatched off the street in Spain and never seen again; Kurt Landau, betrayed and kidnapped from a place where he thought he was safe, and never seen again; Ignacy Porecki-Reiss, machine gunned to death in the snows of Switzerland, after he was betrayed by a woman “friend”; Erwin Wolf, another who disappeared into the void and of whose fate we know nothing, and Rudolf Klement, his tortured, decapitated body fished out of the River Seine. And men like Trotsky’s son Lyova, murdered by Zborowski, who made himself Lyova’s best friend.

I have spent much time in Barcelona and Paris in winter, and whenever I read these names, and recall the pages of Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, I think of cold winters in Europe, and cold sweeps me for a moment: the frigid wind of Stalinism, that swept across a continent, and swept these men away.

I will not forget them, even as I affirm my loyalty to America. The heritage of Joseph McCarthy is one that asks us to forget the suffering, the torment, the terror, the ignominious end of those who fought on the front line against Stalin, in history’s coldest hour. That is a heritage Ann Coulter has chosen to embrace. I believe I speak for Radosh, and some others who share my position, in saying it is a heritage we renounce.

Related Link

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About?

Alex Viktorov - 10/9/2003

By Alexander Viktorov

The 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia is nearing its centennial in 2017. The antiglobalization movement, actually anticapitalist, is growing world over. Three fourths of the world do not seem to be willing to live on $1 a day by 2015, as the UN report predicts... And Russia is Russia...

2017. The Prodigal Son Flees Home Again

His comeback seems now to be made in vain,
And the prodigal son leaves home again.

In vain the fatted calf was for him slaughtered -
He got only a snippet of it and a cup of water.
And the bulk was devoured less than in an hour
By those who were not prodigal any
And who had stayed at home to save every penny,
Who skin prodigal sons and daughters
Having taken them alongside with calves to slaughter.

The prodigal son's father got stuffed to the gills and preaches:
"Look, only at home you can find real riches.
Together with you we can slaughter calves twofold
Then skin them, sell skins and get tenfold in gold.
What good is seeking other ways across life?
You had hardly half a cake a day - now you can have five!
All our folks will be glad:
Our business will thrive!
To our business you were dead,
And now you are back alive.
You've got a robe, a ring, and Le Monti shoes now.
All you must do, paying back, is to take a vow
That you stay and help me and your elder brother
Market our calves,
In that business we'll go halves:
You'll get more shoes, rings, and robes
Provided you live up to our hopes."

The elder brother came scowling and grinning:
«It seems to be paying - not working but sinning:
Behold, a fatted calf has been killed in your honor
And me - I am looked at as if I'm a donor..."
But the father cut his elder son short:
"Stop seeing a mote in your brother's eye!
He is back to become yours and mine ward
To stop him for ever from saying "good-bye"...
Well, I've had enough, 1 am tired and gonna couch...
But I don't want you to have a fight with your brother,
I am too old now to organize you another...
Since for peace this night neither of you can vouch
I'll put you, my prodigal boy, under lock and key
In our guest room so I have a guarantee
That I find you alright tomorrow,
You have given me, quitting once, enough sorrow..."

So the prodigal son got accommodated,
But all familial cares now come to him belated.
He can't sleep because of his heartfelt battle:
No, he's unprepared to skin and sell cattle,
He'd left his home for a freedom's mock...
And then he heard someone tamper with the lock,
He heard a key-turning rattle
And he readied himself for a home battle.
He turned to face the comer - one or another,
And the comer came to be his eider brother,
Who smirked a grin: "Brother, now it's my sin.
You won't anyway bring any grist to our mill,
You have got your own flagpole to shin
Who knows, maybe one day you'll win...
So you may go or do as you will."
"Thank you, brother, I thank you for that brotherly cup.
It was my error to have returned
To disturb you and our father and what you have earned...
Now I have to go - the time is up
To see again plains and trees, and waters, and birds,
And walk on, on and on
Along mountain paths and in all kind of dirts
To see in the very end The Kingdom of John ."*

“Okay, brother, you may go
To spare our family another woe...”
They parted without kiss,
And the prodigal son walked
Across the pain trying not to miss
The path so the East that people had talked
To be the path to the real bliss.

As he was just in the very start,
He heard a voice as if it was a dart:
“Stay, brother, don't be that speedy!
Share your way with me, be not so greedy.
I want also to see plains and trees, and waters, and birds,
To hear other nations talk, to learn foreign words.”
The prodigal son delayed and waited
For his elder brother to join him.
They had never been indeed closely related
And he believed his elder brother's word just a whim.
But the elder brother put his hand on the younger one's shoulder
And they walked on and on, the younger and the older...

The prodigal son's new history yet has not got much renown.
Maybe you have seen the two brothers passing thru your village or town?

*The Kingdom of Presbyter John was a legendary kingdom in the medieval East believed to be a hypothetical "Golden Age" state founded by a British crusader..

Alex Viktorov - 10/9/2003

By Alexander Viktorov

The 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia is nearing its centennial in 2017. The antiglobalization movement, actually anticapitalist, is growing world over. Three fourths of the world do not seem to be willing to live on $1 a day by 2015, as the UN report predicts... And Russia is Russia...

2017. The Prodigal Son Flees Home Again

His comeback seems now to be made in vain,
And the prodigal son leaves home again.

In vain the fatted calf was for him slaughtered -
He got only a snippet of it and a cup of water.
And the bulk was devoured less than in an hour
By those who were not prodigal any
And who had stayed at home to save every penny,
Who skin prodigal sons and daughters
Having taken them alongside with calves to slaughter.

The prodigal son's father got stuffed to the gills and preaches:
"Look, only at home you can find real riches.
Together with you we can slaughter calves twofold
Then skin them, sell skins and get tenfold in gold.
What good is seeking other ways across life?
You had hardly half a cake a day - now you can have five!
All our folks will be glad:
Our business will thrive!
To our business you were dead,
And now you are back alive.
You've got a robe, a ring, and Le Monti shoes now.
All you must do, paying back, is to take a vow
That you stay and help me and your elder brother
Market our calves,
In that business we'll go halves:
You'll get more shoes, rings, and robes
Provided you live up to our hopes."

The elder brother came scowling and grinning:
«It seems to be paying - not working but sinning:
Behold, a fatted calf has been killed in your honor
And me - I am looked at as if I'm a donor..."
But the father cut his elder son short:
"Stop seeing a mote in your brother's eye!
He is back to become yours and mine ward
To stop him for ever from saying "good-bye"...
Well, I've had enough, 1 am tired and gonna couch...
But I don't want you to have a fight with your brother,
I am too old now to organize you another...
Since for peace this night neither of you can vouch
I'll put you, my prodigal boy, under lock and key
In our guest room so I have a guarantee
That I find you alright tomorrow,
You have given me, quitting once, enough sorrow..."

So the prodigal son got accommodated,
But all familial cares now come to him belated.
He can't sleep because of his heartfelt battle:
No, he's unprepared to skin and sell cattle,
He'd left his home for a freedom's mock...
And then he heard someone tamper with the lock,
He heard a key-turning rattle
And he readied himself for a home battle.
He turned to face the comer - one or another,
And the comer came to be his eider brother,
Who smirked a grin: "Brother, now it's my sin.
You won't anyway bring any grist to our mill,
You have got your own flagpole to shin
Who knows, maybe one day you'll win...
So you may go or do as you will."
"Thank you, brother, I thank you for that brotherly cup.
It was my error to have returned
To disturb you and our father and what you have earned...
Now I have to go - the time is up
To see again plains and trees, and waters, and birds,
And walk on, on and on
Along mountain paths and in all kind of dirts
To see in the very end The Kingdom of John ."*

“Okay, brother, you may go
To spare our family another woe...”
They parted without kiss,
And the prodigal son walked
Across the pain trying not to miss
The path so the East that people had talked
To be the path to the real bliss.

As he was just in the very start,
He heard a voice as if it was a dart:
“Stay, brother, don't be that speedy!
Share your way with me, be not so greedy.
I want also to see plains and trees, and waters, and birds,
To hear other nations talk, to learn foreign words.”
The prodigal son delayed and waited
For his elder brother to join him.
They had never been indeed closely related
And he believed his elder brother's word just a whim.
But the elder brother put his hand on the younger one's shoulder
And they walked on and on, the younger and the older...
The prodigal son's new history yet has not got much renown.
Maybe you have seen the two brothers passing thru your village or town?

*The Kingdom of Presbyter John was a legendary kingdom in the medieval East believed to be a hypothetical "Golden Age" state founded by a British crusader..

Jack Sarfatti - 9/5/2003

Memorandum for the Record

Goebbels the German composer, not Joseph, triumphed at Royal Albert Hall at the Proms Monday night. A good piece.

Michael Savage written up in The London Times a few days ago. More on that anon when I get to Rome.

Sarfatti Commentary

Note my politics is not the same as Keating's. However what he says about Schwartz's character is true. More evidence for this opinion is at

http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz/

On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 07:54 PM, Harry Nelson wrote:

The following is on the internet at:
 
http://www.infoshop.org/myep/schwartz.html


"Neo-conservatism and Stephen Schwartz: the further adventures of an obituary writer

San Francisco, CA
May 1, 2003

My 1993 article, "Left Communism or State Department Surrealism," exposed neo-conservative pundit Stephen Schwartz as a chronic liar, opportunist and comically self-abasing buffoon. Schwartz's recent ravings against conservative writer Justin Raimondo for posting links to this article on his antiwar.com web site indicate that my analysis of Schwartz is on target."

I did not know that Raimondo was a "conservative". I only heard about him from Schwartz. Yes, I, and many others in San Francisco's North Beach, can confirm from many years first-hand experience with Schwartz up close and personal that he is a raving " chronic liar, opportunist and comically self-abasing buffoon." Juxtaposing his e-mails proves he is the "liar" on several matters of importance.

'I some times think it's comical, fa la la la fa la la la
That every neocon that's born alive
Is either a little Trotskyite or else a little bit naive."

"The word is out about what Steve Schwartz is all about, and Schwartz is in a panic about it; his ability to function effectively as an ideological prostitute is being compromised.

I have never met Justin Raimondo. I don't agree with almost any aspect of his politics, aside from his ardent opposition to recent acts of mass murder committed by the United States government. Raimondo's posting of links to my article about Schwartz doesnít imply any political connection between us, any more than my citing an article from the New York Times would imply agreement with the editorial opinions of the Times. Schwartzís attempt to link Raimondo and I, and somehow mysteriously discredit Raimondo with this, is an example of the Stalinist amalgam method, where all opponents are deceitfully compressed into a homogenous mass. This is an example of a totalitarian mindset at work, and the use of this transparently bogus tactic by Steve Schwartz proves that with the neo-conservative Schwartz you can take an intellectual mediocrity out of the Stalinist milieu that spawned him -- but you cannot take the Stalinist milieu out of the intellectual mediocrity."

Yes, Schwartz's bogus tactic "the Stalinist amalgam method, where all opponents are deceitfully compressed into a homogenous mass. This is an example of a totalitarian mindset at work, and the use of this transparently bogus tactic by Steve Schwartz proves that with the neo-conservative Schwartz you can take an intellectual mediocrity out of the Stalinist milieu that spawned him -- but you cannot take the Stalinist milieu out of the intellectual mediocrity."


A former obituary columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, author or co-author of several undistinguished books, and practitioner of a soporific prose style, Steve Schwartz continually reminds readers of The Weekly Standard and the National Review that he was once an armchair leftist. He has managed to dine out on this fact for almost 20 years, using his credentials as the former leading member of a one-man Trotskyist organization to pursue a lucrative career as a cheerleader for violence by the US government against civilians in Central America, Serbia and Iraq.

The neo-conservative milieu is a strange and cynical scene, but few of its militants have a personal history as bizarre as Steve Schwartz. Schwartz first tried to call attention to himself in the punk rock subculture of San Franciscoís North Beach, way back at the end of the 1970ís. In those days Schwartz, the son of a pro-Moscow Stalinist bookseller, produced a self-proclaimed "ultra-left communist" fanzine, The Alarm, and wrote in it under the names "Comrade Sandalio" and "S. Solsona," attempting to surround himself with a dashing air of mystery and adventure otherwise out of reach for an obnoxious loudmouth cafe habituÈ who couldnít get dates with hot young punk rock chicks. One person who knew him then, anarchist writer Bob Black, derided Schwartz as an "after-hours militant with nothing to say in six languages." Another acquaintance, John Zerzan, has said of Schwartz: "...he always struck me as a pretty ridiculous character. He went from Stalinist to Trot to `Surrealist Trot' to what he called `very close to classical anarchist,í and given his flakiness it didn't seem to matter nor did it seem like it would surprise me whatever turn he would take. Now I know this sounds like a claim to omniscience, but he always struck me as an unstable case who could end up anywhere!...he made himself a joke by trying to recruit San Francisco punks - who all laughed at him while spending his money..."

I might also add that the Sailor's Union of the Pacific was not happy with the shoddy book he wrote for them for a lot of money.

"Reviled by bohemians when not altogether ignored by them, by 1983 "Comrade Sandalio" was getting tired of making a nuisance of himself in bars and driving a cab for a living. Then a new hope appeared on his horizon, when Schwartz met someone gullible enough to offer him a job based on his superficial intellectual merits. That person was a Yale graduate, advocate of up-by-their-bootstraps ideology and trust fund beneficiary named A. Lawrence "Lawrie" Chickering. Chickering headed a Reagan Administration-connected San Francisco-based think tank called the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and the encounter between Schwartz and Chickering was a true meeting of minds."

I would not be so hard on Lawry. I need to take part of the blame here because I promoted Schwartz to Lawry back then - one of my many major errors of judgment. Mea Culpa! :-)


"Schwartz read some of his wannabe-Surrealist poetry to Chickering, and Chickering offered Schwartz a job as a senior editor at the Institute. Schwartz offered to tell Chickering everything he knew about the Spanish Civil War, and Chickering offered to introduce Schwartz to the leading personalities of the Israel Lobby. For Schwartz, the world had changed, and he had now seen the light; he became a passionate believer in government-assisted free market economic policies. He stopped trying to sell kids in black leather jackets on the virtues of Leon Trotsky and anarcho-syndicalism, and instead wrote editorials demanding increased congressional funding for the Nicaraguan Contras. Chickering even allowed Schwartz to visit the White House and shake hands with Oliver North.

The Institute for Contemporary Studies worked to create a favorable public relations climate for US-backed counterinsurgency efforts in Central America in the 1980ís. They fought to defend the sacred right of private property, to make this world a better place for the hacienda-owning class, and keep the infant mortality rate in Nicaragua high enough to satisfy the publishers of the Wall Street Journal. All this offered Steve Schwartz an opportunity to not merely read about history, but take a small part in making it. Schwartz took to the crusade as a hog to the wallow, even publicly indulging in a Walter-Mitty-style fantasy when he bragged on KRON-4 TV in November 1987 about spying on opponents of US policies in Central America, and feeding the information heíd uncovered to the Feds. Schwartz is, of course, a pathological liar, so itís possible he didnít really do this, and was just ass-licking his way into his employersí continued good graces when he boasted about snitching on TV.

Schwartzís tenure with the ICS hinged on his ability to pontificate soulfully and at stupefying length about the evils of Communism. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union this extremely narrow field of specialization was no longer in demand. Stalinism was historically spent, as dead as Pharaoh, and Schwartzís ideological shelf-life was past its expiration date. His employers were probably tired of Steve running around the ICS office hollering at the top of his voice about the latest developments in the feud between Trotsky and Stalin, anyway, so they unloaded him on the SF Chronicle. There he was assigned to toil on the obituary page, a sarcastic tribute to Schwartzís earlier journalistic efforts to keep the graveyards of Nicaragua plentifully supplied with the corpses of impoverished peasants and wage workers.

The years rolled by, and after the Reagan-Bush foreign policy triumph in Central America the former Yugoslavia became a focus of US national security concerns. Growing weary of his sinecure at the Chron, and drawn once again to the smell of human blood being shed in copious quantities, Steve Schwartz remade himself as an "expert" on the Balkans. He simultaneously transformed his public persona, growing a very long beard, sporting a skull-cap, converting to Islam, and changing his name for the duration of US military action in the Balkans to Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz. He even relocated to Sarajevo for some sordid reason, no doubt savoring the new lease on life provided by going to a part of the world where few knew him firsthand, or had seen what he is all about.

They probably found out soon enough. In less than two years "Suleyman Ahmad" had scurried back to the US, losing his new Islamic-sounding brace of names and moving to Washington DC in search of his next personality makeover. Today the former "Suleyman Ahmad" pays his rent penning pompous pronunciamentos for various neo-con journals. Back when Schwartz claimed to be an enemy of capitalism, people as dissimilar as John Zerzan, Franklin Rosemont and the late Grandizo Munis all ended up despising him; whatever you think about their politics they are individuals with strong principles, and any one of them could smell a rat. But among the neo-conservative set a porcine prostitute can always find a place at the table! The intellectual and ethical standards of certain former Trots and Stalinists are ultra-liberal when compared to those of housepainters, bass players, and ultra-left Marxists in France. If the neo-cons are so hard up that they must tolerate Schwartz in their ranks they will obviously tolerate anything.

Occasionally the former "Comrade Sandalio" lets his old sentiments show through, as when he described the Spanish CNT as "... the anarcho-syndicalist mass movement that was the greatest labor organization in history" in an article in the defrocked Stalinist David Horowitzís FrontPageMagazine.com of April 29th. Posting his nostalgia for Spanish anarchism on a far-right website is the political equivalent of Touretteís Syndrome and typical of his grotesque cluelessness. Schwartzís vicarious identification with long-gone enemies of bosses and capitalism is a comic non sequitur as well, since Schwartz himself is a craven, servile, fawning employee, a toady and sycophant who will do anything to grovel his way into jobs as a hack propagandist. Schwartz claims to admire rebels like Durutti and Joe Hill, but Schwartz himself is a model of conformist psychopathology. This brings me back to where I began. With Schwartz, as with other ex-leftists slithering around the neo-conservative scene, you have an example of a totalitarian personality, like that of a loyal apparatchik in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, but in the service of a different pack of killers; an individual whose fundamental values are completely malleable, based solely around the requirements of the men who hold power, and who makes his living pedaling the big lie of the day.

Nietzsche called beings of this sort "men of ressentiment;" without Stalinism, Schwartz and his fellow neo-cons are left without anything to not believe in. A character like Schwartz has to go through life hiding behind a huge portrait of Stalin, hoping all attention will be focused on the image of the tyrant and no one will notice the foul smell coming from behind the picture.

Itís been said that you become a better writer the longer you work at it, but Schwartzís career contradicts this. A recent Schwartz rant, "Two Faces of Fascism?" (FrontPageMagazine.com, April 23rd) is a good example of bad writing. Here the former "Suleyman Ahmad" unsheathes his polemical scimitar to get revenge on antiwar.comís Justin Raimondo, takes an awfully long time to do it, and loses his way in the process. When it becomes obvious that he knows nothing about his subject he compensates by hurling discombobulated data at the reader, like custard pies in a Three Stooges movie. His argument isnít organized in an even minimally coherent manner, and apparently he thinks that since he takes himself too seriously his readers will have to take him seriously, too. Schwartz has now gone from being a graceless pedant with a flatulent bovine prose style to being a drooling, gibbering, unintelligible pedant.

My guess is that Steve Schwartzís days as a paid liar for neo-conservative publications may be drawing to a close. Neo-conservatives have nothing against lying, of course, but a liar no one believes isnít useful and he will backfire on his employers; he compromises the effectiveness of all the other lies they must tell, and calls attention to the rottenness of their politics. Schwartzís increasingly frantic response to critical examinations of his life and deeds indicate that the news is getting around about Sleaze Schwartz. His credibility is shot, and Schwartzís reputation for slimeball opportunism and clownish antics clings to him like a phantom limb. How much longer will the prats at National Review pay for his foamy effusions? Who else would be impressed with his sophomoric erudition? It would be against his bossesí moral principles to allow an unemployable Schwartz to go on welfare, so they should help him move on to something he is suited for. They should get him a job as a reporter with FOX News.

My article from Anarchy magazine examining the specimen of repellent dark humor that is Stephen Schwartz, "Left Communism or State Department Surrealism," is available on line at:

FROM MUNIS TO MEESE: Left Communism or State Department Surrealism?

And I also recommend readers check out the new article, "Between Iraq and a hard place," on the internet, at:

http://war.linefeed.org

for the abolition of wage labor,

Kevin Keating

Additional reading

• THE VOA FOLLIES by Justin Raimondo
• We Have a Winner (or Loser, as the Case May BE!) by Steve Schwartz
• Two Faces of Fascism? by Steve Schwartz

Tibor Szamuely - 9/2/2003

The following is also on the internet at:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/schwartz.html


Neo-conservatism and Stephen Schwartz: the further adventures of an obituary writer
San Francisco, CA
May 1, 2003

My 1993 article, "Left Communism or State Department Surrealism," exposed neo-conservative pundit Stephen Schwartz as a chronic liar, opportunist and comically self-abasing buffoon. Schwartz’s recent ravings against conservative writer Justin Raimondo for posting links to this article on his antiwar.com web site indicate that my analysis of Schwartz is on target. The word is out about what Steve Schwartz is all about, and Schwartz is in a panic about it; his ability to function effectively as an ideological prostitute is being compromised.

I have never met Justin Raimondo. I don’t agree with almost any aspect of his politics, aside from his ardent opposition to recent acts of mass murder committed by the United States government. Raimondo’s posting of links to my article about Schwartz doesn’t imply any political connection between us, any more than my citing an article from the New York Times would imply agreement with the editorial opinions of the Times. Schwartz’s attempt to link Raimondo and I, and somehow mysteriously discredit Raimondo with this, is an example of the Stalinist amalgam method, where all opponents are deceitfully compressed into a homogenous mass. This is an example of a totalitarian mindset at work, and the use of this transparently bogus tactic by Steve Schwartz proves that with the neo-conservative Schwartz you can take an intellectual mediocrity out of the Stalinist milieu that spawned him -- but you cannot take the Stalinist milieu out of the intellectual mediocrity.

A former obituary columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, author or co-author of several undistinguished books, and practitioner of a soporific prose style, Steve Schwartz continually reminds readers of The Weekly Standard and the National Review that he was once an armchair leftist. He has managed to dine out on this fact for almost 20 years, using his credentials as the former leading member of a one-man Trotskyist organization to pursue a lucrative career as a cheerleader for violence by the US government against civilians in Central America, Serbia and Iraq.

The neo-conservative milieu is a strange and cynical scene, but few of its militants have a personal history as bizarre as Steve Schwartz. Schwartz first tried to call attention to himself in the punk rock subculture of San Francisco’s North Beach, way back at the end of the 1970’s. In those days Schwartz, the son of a pro-Moscow Stalinist bookseller, produced a self-proclaimed "ultra-left communist" fanzine, The Alarm, and wrote in it under the names "Comrade Sandalio" and "S. Solsona," attempting to surround himself with a dashing air of mystery and adventure otherwise out of reach for an obnoxious loudmouth cafe habitué who couldn’t get dates with hot young punk rock chicks. One person who knew him then, anarchist writer Bob Black, derided Schwartz as an "after-hours militant with nothing to say in six languages." Another acquaintance, John Zerzan, has said of Schwartz: "...he always struck me as a pretty ridiculous character. He went from Stalinist to Trot to `Surrealist Trot' to what he called `very close to classical anarchist,’ and given his flakiness it didn't seem to matter nor did it seem like it would surprise me whatever turn he would take. Now I know this sounds like a claim to omniscience, but he always struck me as an unstable case who could end up anywhere!...he made himself a joke by trying to recruit San Francisco punks - who all laughed at him while spending his money..."




Reviled by bohemians when not altogether ignored by them, by 1983 "Comrade Sandalio" was getting tired of making a nuisance of himself in bars and driving a cab for a living. Then a new hope appeared on his horizon, when Schwartz met someone gullible enough to offer him a job based on his superficial intellectual merits. That person was a Yale graduate, advocate of up-by-their-bootstraps ideology and trust fund beneficiary named A. Lawrence "Lawrie" Chickering. Chickering headed a Reagan Administration-connected San Francisco-based think tank called the Institute for Contemporary Studies, and the encounter between Schwartz and Chickering was a true meeting of minds.

Schwartz read some of his wannabe-Surrealist poetry to Chickering, and Chickering offered Schwartz a job as a senior editor at the Institute. Schwartz offered to tell Chickering everything he knew about the Spanish Civil War, and Chickering offered to introduce Schwartz to the leading personalities of the Israel Lobby. For Schwartz, the world had changed, and he had now seen the light; he became a passionate believer in government-assisted free market economic policies. He stopped trying to sell kids in black leather jackets on the virtues of Leon Trotsky and anarcho-syndicalism, and instead wrote editorials demanding increased congressional funding for the Nicaraguan Contras. Chickering even allowed Schwartz to visit the White House and shake hands with Oliver North.

The Institute for Contemporary Studies worked to create a favorable public relations climate for US-backed counterinsurgency efforts in Central America in the 1980’s. They fought to defend the sacred right of private property, to make this world a better place for the hacienda-owning class, and keep the infant mortality rate in Nicaragua high enough to satisfy the publishers of the Wall Street Journal. All this offered Steve Schwartz an opportunity to not merely read about history, but take a small part in making it. Schwartz took to the crusade as a hog to the wallow, even publicly indulging in a Walter-Mitty-style fantasy when he bragged on KRON-4 TV in November 1987 about spying on opponents of US policies in Central America, and feeding the information he’d uncovered to the Feds. Schwartz is, of course, a pathological liar, so it’s possible he didn’t really do this, and was just ass-licking his way into his employers’ continued good graces when he boasted about snitching on TV.

Schwartz’s tenure with the ICS hinged on his ability to pontificate soulfully and at stupefying length about the evils of Communism. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union this extremely narrow field of specialization was no longer in demand. Stalinism was historically spent, as dead as Pharaoh, and Schwartz’s ideological shelf-life was past its expiration date. His employers were probably tired of Steve running around the ICS office hollering at the top of his voice about the latest developments in the feud between Trotsky and Stalin, anyway, so they unloaded him on the SF Chronicle. There he was assigned to toil on the obituary page, a sarcastic tribute to Schwartz’s earlier journalistic efforts to keep the graveyards of Nicaragua plentifully supplied with the corpses of impoverished peasants and wage workers.

The years rolled by, and after the Reagan-Bush foreign policy triumph in Central America the former Yugoslavia became a focus of US national security concerns. Growing weary of his sinecure at the Chron, and drawn once again to the smell of human blood being shed in copious quantities, Steve Schwartz remade himself as an "expert" on the Balkans. He simultaneously transformed his public persona, growing a very long beard, sporting a skull-cap, converting to Islam, and changing his name for the duration of US military action in the Balkans to Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz. He even relocated to Sarajevo for some sordid reason, no doubt savoring the new lease on life provided by going to a part of the world where few knew him firsthand, or had seen what he is all about.

They probably found out soon enough. In less than two years "Suleyman Ahmad" had scurried back to the US, losing his new Islamic-sounding brace of names and moving to Washington DC in search of his next personality makeover. Today the former "Suleyman Ahmad" pays his rent penning pompous pronunciamentos for various neo-con journals. Back when Schwartz claimed to be an enemy of capitalism, people as dissimilar as John Zerzan, Franklin Rosemont and the late Grandizo Munis all ended up despising him; whatever you think about their politics they are individuals with strong principles, and any one of them could smell a rat. But among the neo-conservative set a porcine prostitute can always find a place at the table! The intellectual and ethical standards of certain former Trots and Stalinists are ultra-liberal when compared to those of housepainters, bass players, and ultra-left Marxists in France. If the neo-cons are so hard up that they must tolerate Schwartz in their ranks they will obviously tolerate anything.

Occasionally the former "Comrade Sandalio" lets his old sentiments show through, as when he described the Spanish CNT as "... the anarcho-syndicalist mass movement that was the greatest labor organization in history" in an article in the defrocked Stalinist David Horowitz’s FrontPageMagazine.com of April 29th. Posting his nostalgia for Spanish anarchism on a far-right website is the political equivalent of Tourette’s Syndrome and typical of his grotesque cluelessness. Schwartz’s vicarious identification with long-gone enemies of bosses and capitalism is a comic non sequitur as well, since Schwartz himself is a craven, servile, fawning employee, a toady and sycophant who will do anything to grovel his way into jobs as a hack propagandist. Schwartz claims to admire rebels like Durutti and Joe Hill, but Schwartz himself is a model of conformist psychopathology. This brings me back to where I began. With Schwartz, as with other ex-leftists slithering around the neo-conservative scene, you have an example of a totalitarian personality, like that of a loyal apparatchik in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, but in the service of a different pack of killers; an individual whose fundamental values are completely malleable, based solely around the requirements of the men who hold power, and who makes his living pedaling the big lie of the day.

Nietzsche called beings of this sort "men of ressentiment;" without Stalinism, Schwartz and his fellow neo-cons are left without anything to not believe in. A character like Schwartz has to go through life hiding behind a huge portrait of Stalin, hoping all attention will be focused on the image of the tyrant and no one will notice the foul smell coming from behind the picture.

It’s been said that you become a better writer the longer you work at it, but Schwartz’s career contradicts this. A recent Schwartz rant, "Two Faces of Fascism?" (FrontPageMagazine.com, April 23rd) is a good example of bad writing. Here the former "Suleyman Ahmad" unsheathes his polemical scimitar to get revenge on antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, takes an awfully long time to do it, and loses his way in the process. When it becomes obvious that he knows nothing about his subject he compensates by hurling discombobulated data at the reader, like custard pies in a Three Stooges movie. His argument isn’t organized in an even minimally coherent manner, and apparently he thinks that since he takes himself too seriously his readers will have to take him seriously, too. Schwartz has now gone from being a graceless pedant with a flatulent bovine prose style to being a drooling, gibbering, unintelligible pedant.

My guess is that Steve Schwartz’s days as a paid liar for neo-conservative publications may be drawing to a close. Neo-conservatives have nothing against lying, of course, but a liar no one believes isn’t useful and he will backfire on his employers; he compromises the effectiveness of all the other lies they must tell, and calls attention to the rottenness of their politics. Schwartz’s increasingly frantic response to critical examinations of his life and deeds indicate that the news is getting around about Sleaze Schwartz. His credibility is shot, and Schwartz’s reputation for slimeball opportunism and clownish antics clings to him like a phantom limb. How much longer will the prats at National Review pay for his foamy effusions? Who else would be impressed with his sophomoric erudition? It would be against his bosses’ moral principles to allow an unemployable Schwartz to go on welfare, so they should help him move on to something he is suited for. They should get him a job as a reporter with FOX News.

My article from Anarchy magazine examining the specimen of repellent dark humor that is Stephen Schwartz, "Left Communism or State Department Surrealism," is available on line at:

FROM MUNIS TO MEESE: Left Communism or State Department Surrealism?

And I also recommend readers check out the new article, "Between Iraq and a hard place," on the internet, at:

http://war.linefeed.org


for the abolition of wage labor,

Kevin Keating


Additional reading
THE VOA FOLLIES by Justin Raimondo
We Have a Winner (or Loser, as the Case May BE!) by Steve Schwartz
Two Faces of Fascism? by Steve Schwartz

Jack Sarfatti - 8/20/2003

Stephen Schwartz often lies. Evidence is at
http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz


On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 10:33 AM, .... wrote:

"It seems that the Old Guard conservatives in the Republican Party are starting to distance themselves from the Neo-Cons.  First, there was Robert Novak, then Jack Kemp and now in today's Washington Post; George Will blasts Tony 'baloney' Blair, George 'bombast' Bush and the Neo-Cons for their hubris in boasting to bring democracy to the world.  I hope these are the first signs that the Republican Party is coming to its senses.  It let itself be kidnapped by a cabal of Neo-Cons and religious Right.  Neo-Cons are not conservative, they are not even anti-conservative; they are outright revolutionaries for a kind of a nightmarish utopia.  Many of the Neo-Cons have an admited past assocications with the revolutionary Left; and although they now renounce the Marxisit economic theory, they retain the mindset and methods of the totalitarian Left."

That is exactly what the Schwartz Jacobin Red Reign of Terror against San Francisco's Bohemian North Beachers is all about. Schwartz, gloating in his power with the neocons "in DC and NYC", real or imagined, would foist an Orwellian State of "double think" with the demise of the rule of law on America and the world with the subterfuge of fighting terrorism just like Goebbels used the Reichstag fire. The late CIA Chief of Station Harold Chipman was right on the mark about Schwartz in the mid-1980's. This is proved by Schwartz's attempts today to muzzle, smear and libel his critics with phony charges of aiding terrorists under the Federal RICO Act (Torre's favorite BTW) is a good example of how Stephen Schwartz retains the mindset and methods of the totalitarian Left as shown in http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz/ Schwartz, by his own writings on http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz/, obviously has no respect at all for the US Constitution, for freedom of thought and speech. He is no defender of democracy in fact he is just the opposite - a classic case of Orwell's "double think" in "1984". Schwartz is a real liability to the neocons since he is so blatantly a hypocrite and hoists himself on his own petard with his foul-mouthed writings abusing and debasing his critics as "human dust", "human garbage" with a slightly higher level version of Tourette's syndrome constantly rapidly repeated rat tat tat predatory pederastic imagery like"Weenie", "Kimberly Buttboy", "Dildinski", "Scrofalatti" "Serbfatti", "Serb Gold", "Sarfatti, Naify, Amy and Weenie", "Commies, Nazis, Wahabbis, Sarfattis and Weenies"... sounding exactly like Don Logan in "Sexy Beast" http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/sexy_beast.html Schwartz's characteristic use of this kind of hostile violent homo-erotically tinged imagery, even in his published Anderson Valley Advertiser article of July 9, 2003, makes Alex Dore's allegations about Schwartz more credible.

Now is the time for all good Republicans to come to the aid of their Party and oust the Trotsky Revolutionary Reds in neocon clothing from their ranks. This applies to some of the decent neocons as well. Not all of the neocons are like Stephen Schwartz - let us hope. It's the Neo Con SS that is the greatest domestic terrorist threat in America today. Ann Coulter needs to add a new chapter to her book "Treason". Schwartz is like the Blaster Worm inside the Neo Con Cabal.

My forwarding messages does not mean I endorse them note also:


"Ninth Circuit: Bloggers Protected From Libel Suits
Wired reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that the 1996 Communications Decency Act, or the CDA protects bloggers from many libel suits based on republishing material that appeared elsewhere. That section states, "... no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation observes: "One-way news publications have editors and fact-checkers, and they're not just selling information -- they're selling reliability. But on blogs or e-mail lists, people aren't necessarily selling anything, they're just engaging in speech. That freedom of speech wouldn't exist if you were held liable for every piece of information you cut, paste and forward."
6:05:03 AM     

© Copyright 2003 Jerry Lawson. http://netlawblog.com/categories/netLaw/2003/07/01.html


BTW I think it's "Wiener" not "Weiner" but I am not sure. I will ask Michael Savage next time I talk to him.

 
FROM: Stephen Schwartz
DATE: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
TO:
SUBJECT: UPDATE

"Hello,

My attention was directed to a considerable amount of comment on me, my personal affairs, and my relationship with The Weenie, on the EZ Board Savage discussion group.

I don't desire to engage with that or any other such site, but thought I would inform you of a few things. You can reproduce this statement as you see fit, but please leave my email address off it.

I am continuing with the effort to get a major article into print on "The Rise and Fall of the Savage Nation." A book is a good idea but I don't have time to work on it. I have other and more serious books to write.

Savage/Weiner/Weenie, when he discovered that I was actively working to have him removed from the airwaves, incited this nut case Sarfatti in an extraordinary campaign of defamation against me.

I am planning a libel suit against The Weenie and Sarfatti, along with other defendants.

I would like it to be known that I was never a friend of The Weenie. I was an acquaintance of his, but disliked him from the beginning, rejected his approaches, and never spent time with him anywhere, whether in coffee houses or bars, or even chatting on the street. I was one of the victims of his aggression from the beginning of his residence in San Francisco in the mid-70s.

He attacked me on the radio 10 years ago, at the beginning of his "Savage" career, when, as a reporter for the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, I covered his antics.

The details of his long history of swindles, aggression, and other vicious behavior have only begun to come out. The Ginsberg letters and so forth are merely the easiest material to produce. There are whole distasteful areas of his life that have yet to be exposed. But they will be exposed. A number of his former close friends, and I mean really close, not like this baboon Sarfatti, have already come forward and been interviewed. That was how The Weenie's first wife was located. (Sarfatti was not a friend of the Weenie until the former recently perceived some benefit to himself in kissing up to and otherwise serving this reptile.)"

False. I knew Michael and his wife Janet since the 70's and had been to his several houses for dinner several times in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. I also spent a lot of Caffe time kibbutzing with him during that time period. I did not see much of him when he started Savage Nation ~ 1993-4 until January 2003.

"My opposition to the Weenie's activity is not motivated by politics per se, though I do consider it outrageous that legitimate conservatives and neoconservatives should be lumped in with a foul-mouthed, scurrilous fascist. Please note that after his dismissal from MSNBC almost no actual conservatives defended him, and most treated him with the utter contempt he deserves.

Certainly, his incessant advocacy for Milosevic would be enough to anger me. I worked, among other tasks, as a volunteer investigator of the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, in Bosnia. I have published a great deal on the Balkan wars, resided in Sarajevo, and speak Serbian and Albanian. The Weenie has issued a number of threats against me, supposedly emanating from his Serbian pals, but having spent time in Serbia itself, I am unimpressed. These guys are real tough when it comes to shooting Muslim grandmas, decapitating infants, and burning villages, but not very effective in real war. The same goes for The Weenie; his talent for serious writing and argumentation is almost nonexistent. They deserve each other, with Sarfatti and Co. thrown in as a bonus.

Stephen Schwartz

Again for the record, I am not, and never have been, a supporter of Milsovec or the Serbs, or the Wahabbis and Saudis for that matter. I have never had any knowledge of or contact with Royce and White. I only heard of them from Schwartz himself. Here Schwartz is lying convicted by his own earlier writing about me and the Serbs . Schwartz wrote about me in 1999 http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/0799ss.htm

"Bay Area Jews, with the exception of a few leftists and Serb sympathizers, have reacted almost unanimously in defense of the Kosovar Albanians, viewing so-called "ethnic cleansing" as a parallel to the Holocaust. Albanian community groups, including Muslim groups, report a steady stream of telephone calls and checks with donations to help the victims from individual Jews in the Bay Area, as well as congregations. Jack Sarfatti, a theoretical physicist born in a distinguished family of Spanish Jews (Sephardim) from Macedonia, said, 'It would be appallingly immoral for any Jew to defend the Serbs. Jews don't need to be convinced; we look at trains filled with people expelled from their land and we know what it is: genocide. We'll do anything we can to stop it, and anything we can to assist the victims. Our faith teaches us to care for our neighbor as we would for our brother. On the planet, Albanians are our neighbors.' "

Schwartz is motivated by pique, vengeance and jealousy, to pursue frivolous lawsuits and malicious persecution and prosecution against his critics who will not obey his "Don Logan" like orders to "destroy The Weenie". See also Schwartz's August 17, 1997 article about me in the Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL
and
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/television/6336570.htm

Stephen Schwartz is not only a liar, he is a bad liar since his own writings convict him. He endangers the whole Neo Con Cabal and opens his FDD employer to a counter law suit for punitive damages.

The Story

Loaded with visual style, Sexy Beast is set on the Spanish Costa del Sol and in London. This genre bending romance marks the directorial film debut of Jonathan Glazer, the multi-award winning commercial and music video director. The film is produced by Jeremy Thomas and written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto.

Ex-villain Gal Dove (Ray Winstone) has served his time behind bars and is blissfully retired to a Spanish villa paradise with a wife he adores. The sun drenched idyll is shattered by the arrival of his psychotic, gangster nemesis Don Logan (Ben Kingsley), who is intent on persuading Gal to return to London for one last big job. Desperate not to sacrifice his comfortable existence, Dove is drawn into an explosive battle of wills with Logan, and ultimately, takes part in a sensational underwater heist, risking everything to protect the woman he loves.

With his portrayal as Don Logan, Sir Ben Kingsley was nominated for an Academy Award® for Best Supporting Actor in 2001.

I am "Gal Dove" to Schwartz's "Don Logan". "Costa del Sol" as North Beach. "London" as DC. The "one last big job" is to "get the muck heil Weenie" with Schwartz's repeated mantras "Wahabbi, Wahabbi, Wahabbi" or "Serb, Serb, Serb", "Serbfatti, Serb Gold..."
"Kimberly Buttboy", "Dildinski", "Doggydoo" etc.


On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 08:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/sexy_beast.html

Ben Kingsley plays Don Logan with Tourette's Syndrome.

On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 06:00 AM, John W Perry wrote:


If the Schwartz affair is as "serious" as Sarfatti claims and as you seem
to uphold, how come the guy can't even get his Neocon buddies to foot the
bill for an attorney (other than Torre) to foot the bill to take on you
"human dust"? Surely Schwartz' mentor Paul Wolfowitz can fork over many
kilodollars to torture you guys litigiously as the prodigious force he's
been made out to be.

John

Schwartz claims he has attorneys preparing to seize our bank accounts and put us in Federal Prison under the RICO act. Of course all of his allegations are lies, but truth is of no value to him. He has proved this time and time again. Schwartz claims he has the money and that people like ex DCI James Woolsey actively support his Robespierre Reign of Terror against almost the entire Bohemian Community of San Francisco's North Beach. He also claimed Lawry Chickering supported him, but Lawry denied that to Herbert Gold in a recent telephone call. So he may be lying about Woolsey also? Schwartz's program for America is like that of Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" and the "Blood Sport" movies http://hallmovie.com/title/blood_sport_iv.htm with him as "Sexy Beast". Imagine a Trojan Horse operation of several decades where a cabal of communist revolutionary intellectual Trotskyites bent on world domination infiltrate the Republican Party and create an Orwellian State -- fiction is it? ;-)

On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 10:35 AM, ... wrote:

"The suggestion that neocons have somehow infiltrated the Republican Party for the purpose of creating a global dictatorship would indeed make for a delightful screenplay.  Historical fact rendered as historical fiction being a common literary device, I can understand the impulse.  The addition of the beef with the North Beach Bohemes would make a delightful and flavorful additive, no doubt allowing ample opportunity for dramatic antics and fiery scenes of vengeful fury, sorrow, grief...whatever.  
 
The problem would appear when historical fact intervenes to drop a bucket of cold water on the screenwriter's hot and heavy fantasy life. 
 
As regards the matter of the neocon control, it's tempting to regard the matter of conspiracy as emanating from the intellectual clique itself.  Tempting for those who regard ideas as causal and money as secondary.  Unfortunately, such temptations make for pure fantasy, truly destroying the spell of verisimilitude that all would like to advance. 
 
The neocon control cabal may be highly placed, but it has not been demonstrated to be highly causal. 
 
Discussions of this nauseating menace to date emphasize the connection of this group to the University of Chicago, with emphasis on the great power of the great mind--Struass.  Granted, I myself am poorly aquainted with the figure of Strauss specifically.  On the other hand, I am well aquainted with the antics of this very same crowd from other topics.  In my own case, this familiarity derives from the role of the neocons in the field of international development--(economics) and its contemporary origins--"operation paperclip".  The political economic morass unleashed by these monsters includes the spectacular boom and bust cycles of authoritarian Chile and Argentina that occurred durring the seventies and eighties.  It is no coincidence that their intervention involved exaggerated and obviously fraudulent claims about free market panaceas and international trade.  The result of their interventions in both Chile and Argentina involved a grave combination of mass poverty, political terror (one-way helicopter rides over the ocean), and the wholesale give-away of state assets to Nazi financiers residing in nearby Paraguay (the Martin Bor bunch).  When during the reign of the ever drunken Yeltsin they were allowed to enact much the same agenda, Russia saw its economy launch into an unprecedented free fall in which the quality of life collapsed;  life expectancy dropped by some 10 years in less than 5 years time.  The expropriation of assets in the latter case led to the shutdown of banks, the loss of an entire generation's retirement savings, the collapse of the industrial base, the rise of organized crime and the despotism of a state run by robber barrons. 
 
All this should sound familiar and should leave no doubts as to the plans and intentions of those laying the tracks toward our immediate future. 
 
From that point of view, the suggestion of drama that you (Jack) put forward would appear grand indeed. 
 
From a more sobering vantage point, the proposal falls flat.  It falls flat precisely because it departs too greatly from reality itself. 
 
When the neocon cabal rears its ugly head, certainly it is true that disaster innevitably follows.  The view that sees the neocons as causal in this scenario does not follow from observation of previous case studies.  As with Argentina, Chile and Russia, the intervention of these horrific fellows at the most visible end--the offices of the state--should not and can not realistically be regarded as causal.  Instead, it would be more accurate to regard this despicable movement of crackpot anti-intellectuals as a motion that signals the shifting tactical intent of the those who on less visible and more operational levels can actual be regarded as the true puppet masters.  The difference between cause and correlate being fundamental to anyone engaging in control/variable anaylysis, the importance of this distinction ranks front line and center of anyone wishing to assess the structure of any model or system in a state of change. 
 
The script thus far suggested by Jack S. over-emphasizes the importance of the useful idiots in academia.  It also greatly exaggerates the relevance of the Caffe circuit.  As far as the eye can see, there's nothing going on in Trieste that would cause any policy maker of the totalitarian cabal to lose a moment's sleep.  There's nothing going on that represents a threat of action.  There's nothing going on the level of analysis that even goes so far as to threaten exposure. 
 
The idea, therefore, that any drama involving the Caffe could rise to national importance is pure self aggrandizement.  Turning the misdirected and ignoramous bullmush of North Beach namby pambies into a scenario involving challenges to national security and international intrigue might be worthy of consideration, if only as a farce.  So long as the norm of conduct and discourse remains at the level its been running, I'd say the entire script would be a tough sell. 
 
Best go back to the drawing board.  Maybe we could borrow the title off a previous release, go straight to DVD and hope it gets rented in large numbers by mistaken shoppers who fail to distinguish the disguised title.  Jim Carey did a good work that'd make for appropriate coat tails.  A variation on the title used for his films, I'd suggest a slight alteration in wording to make the point.  The title should read:  "Dumber than the Dumbest". 
 
I swear, it'd be a big sell.  Certainly truer to fact than the original proposal.  Though doubtful as an Oscar Nominee, I'm sure those of us who hang at the caffe would love it just fine."

I Care - 7/27/2003

"The claim that I ever invented anything in any of my work is libel, and cannot be sustained. Nobody has ever made such a claim. Geertz and Doran disagreed with my interpretation but did not charge me with fabrication." - Stephen Schwartz

"Because a danger of such magnitude cannot be something completely new, Schwartz has no choice but to rewrite the story of the modern Middle East, depicting the Saudis as the primary villains. Claiming that his study "constitutes a 'secret history' comparable to the hidden archival record of Soviet Communism," Schwartz manages to find the fingerprints of Riyadh at crime scenes that no Saudi ever visited. Thus, with no proof whatsoever, Schwartz asserts that it was Saudi -- not European -- expansionism that presented the Ottoman Empire with "the deadliest challenge" to its rule. And thus, based on the weakest circumstantial evidence, he equates Wahhabism, the official Saudi ideology, with Islamic fundamentalism in general, thereby saddling the Saudis with more guilt than they deserve for the general Islamic resurgence in the Middle East.

When Schwartz is not planting evidence against the Saudis, he is busy concocting alibis for proven offenders. He claims, for example, that Khomeinism has been misread by the United States as intolerant and threatening. The Saudis reinforced this misperception, he argues, so as to prevent us from realizing that they -- not the fascists in power in Tehran -- are the true enemies of pluralism. This kind of dirty detective work destroys the author's credibility." - Michael Doran

Joe Cherney - 7/25/2003

Steve Schwartz is a professional repentant "communist" who used to make a living selling his fatuous eruditon on the subject of quote-unquote "communism." Here the repellant little man displays his pig-ignorance every step of the way:

"Sorel" was a character in a novel by a guy named Stendhal, whom the bloated mediocrity Schwartz has obviously never heard of. The novel is titled, 'The Red and The Black.'

As for alleged "Jewbaiting," Tibor Szamuely was Jewish. Why would an anti-semite use the name of a Jewish communist revolutionary, one of the stellar figures from the Hungarian Council Republic of 1919?

Schwartz is a totalitarian loon and out-of-control liar who follows the dictum that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Whenever Schwartz's mouth is open, he's either talking out his ass or shovelling food in his maw.

Joe Cherney

Jack Sarfatti - 7/25/2003

Memorandum for the Record

On Stephen Schwartz's Jihad of Lies against Jack Sarfatti

From Paul Zielinski to Stephen Schwartz hiding under the alias "J Robert Oppenheimer"

"There is no "conspiracy", Stephen.

Let me explain something to you: All these people dislike you not because they are engaged in some massive "conspiracy" designed to destroy your wonderful career; but rather because you are, well, you.

You are the common thread here, Stephen. You and your treacheries and your vicious personal insults, and your obnoxious behaviour in general, towards others over the many years.

Your "poisonality". Your helium-filled ungraduated ego.

This is not some dark conspiracy of elders hatched over a steaming cauldron in the Avalonian mists of your own fevered imagination.

It is what is written about you in the Book of Life.

So ask not for whom the bell tolls, Stephen: it tolls for YOU.

But Steve, the people you mention below were all highly talented people.

So I fail to see the relevance?

Schwartz wrote:

"Jack London left University of California after one semester, F Scott Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton, Dec. 1915, William Faulkner, Nobel laureate in literature, dropped out of the University of Mississippi, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac both dropped out of Columbia U., Jose Saramago Nobel laureate in literature received a trade school certificate in auto repair, Edward Albee (playwright) dropped out of Trinity College, Hartford, after 3 semesters
Thomas Edison, Bill Gates (Microsoft) dropped out of Harvard, 1976, Steve Jobs (Apple, NeXT, Pixar) left Reed College in Portland, Oregon, after 1 semester, Steve Wozniak (with Jobs, founded Apple Computer), Lawrence Ellison (Oracle Computer), Michael Dell (Dell Computer) dropped out of the University of Texas Ted Turner (media mogul) -kicked out, Harry S Truman, Barry Goldwater, Rush Limbaugh spent 1 year at Southeastern Missouri State University, dropped out Stan Brakhage (experimental filmmaker), Yoko Ono (you know) dropped out of Sarah Lawrence College, Nina Totenberg (public radio) dropped out of Boston UniversityFamous high school dropouts include Ansel Adams, H.H. Bancroft, historian for whom the Bancroft Library is named, Iosif Brodsky, Nobel Prize laureate in poetry, Robert DeNiro, Theodore Dreiser, Isadora Duncan, Ernest Hemingway, Peter Jennings, British prime minister John Major, Al PacinoLike we say, too much science causes atrophy of the brain."     

Z.

Jack Sarfatti writes:

I have never defended Wahabism. You are preaching to the choir.
Why did you send me this? Do not believe what Stephen Schwartz
writes about me. He lies about everything he says about me. None
of it is true. I have e-mails from him prior to Feb 8, 2003 in
which he says the opposite about me from what he says about
me today. The man is crazy, inconsistent and a loose cannon
to his employer, to the Neo Cons and to President Bush.
If you read Professor Michael Doran from Princeton,
Clifford Geertz and Myles Kantor on Schwartz you will
see that you cannot trust anything he writes about anything at
face value without independent checking of the facts. His Islamic
scholarship is apparently sloppy and when he is on a personal jihad of
revenge for some imagined paranoid betrayal based on his jealousy
of Michael Savage, as he is with me, he does not care about facts
and he makes up egregious lies that suit his agenda of the moment.

Everything you say below may be true. I have never argued to the contrary.
I am essentially a kind of "rocket scientist" working on "Making Star Trek Real"
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Ukraine.doc and I know nothing really about Islamic politics. My opinions are superficial based only on a few things I have read
that people send me. I do not rely on Keating, Raimundo and White
as Schwartz baldly lies that I do. There is no truth to that at all. It's
simply Schwartz's knee-jerk paranoid sociopathic psychotic reaction.
I do rely on Rep Ron Paul of Texas, on Myles Kantor, on Michael Doran,
on Clifford Geertz, on the International Herald Tribune, on the Manchester Guardian, on the Washington Post. Also I have never been pro-Serb, I have never supported Milosevic as Stephen Schwartz lies, libels and slanders
me that I have. Every specific allegation Schwartz lays against me will be
shown in a court of law, and perhaps before a Grand Jury, Senate and House
Intelligence Committees, FBI interviews et-al to be 100% false. Schwartz
has opened himself up to criminal charges as well as civil liability and he
has made the Foundation for Defense of Democracies liable for civil punitive damages because he used their stationary to file a bogus terrorism charge against Kim Burrafato with his employer the State of California. He and his henchman also filed a bogus completely false complaint with CHP that Kim was stalking his henchman with a gun. The State of California investigated and found no evidence supporting Schwartz's vicious campaign of false allegations, harassment and defamation against Kim Burrafato. Schwartz is notorious in San Francisco for doing this sort of thing against a long list of his victims for several decades since he was a Red Diaper Doper Baby for the American Communist Party. As Schwartz himself proudly wrote recently "I have not changed!" And we believe him! Stephen Schwartz is a pathetic paranoid loudmouth with a vengeful mean spirit who continually hoists himself on his own petard with his inconsistent written raves and rants, twisting in the wind
on his own rope.

On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 07:40 AM, ZAHID SHAH wrote:

Dear Sarfatti.

'Their is no doubt in my mind that Wahabism is a
is a another Name of Terrorism. Wahabies in fact
Believe in killing of Muslims, Jews and any other
innocent person.

Look at the History of Wahabism, they don't believe
in love and Respect. Wahabies are Murdering
People left and Right. You don't have to be a Rocket
Scientist to know the wahabies specially the role
Of Saudi Arabia behind 9-11, Iraq and Iran war
Afghanistan, India, Africa, Pakistan and many
other poor countries.

Saudi matter of fact spend Million of Dollars
to convert Muslims into wahabies. Saudi don't care
if Muslims need jobs, Health, electricity, clean
water,investment, All Saudi care is how to
Terrorize innocent people and Kill. we have
to stand up against wahabism. AS a Muslim
wahabies are giving a bad name to Islam.

It is our duty to stand up against wahabism.
United we stand and divided we fall.

May Allah bless you.

From: ZAHID SHAH
Date: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:11:59 AM US/Pacific
To: sARFATTI@well.com
Subject: Wahabies R killing innocent Muslims.

Hundreds of doctors and lawyers, various Ulema,
scholars, teachers and students of seminaries, religious
figures, politico-religious parties leaders and activists,
officials of various government and private institutions have so
far been assassinated during the last few years in
Pakistan. Their only fault, they were Shias.
Sipah e Sahaba (Army of the Companions), best
described as Sipah e Yazid (Laeen ibn e Laeen) is a
Wahabi/Deobandi terrorist organisation which is being funded by Saudi
ArabiaWith the financial backing from Saudi Arabia and
ammunition, protection and training from the Pakistan
government, Sipah e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jhangavi
have been openly killing Shias in Pakistan for many
years now. Hiding behind the name of Sahaba Ikram (RA),
these Wahabi terrorists tried to portray themselves as
Sunni Muslims.Year 2003

July 05:Renala Khord Catholic priest Father George
Ibrahim was gunned down at his home by Wahabi mullahs.

July 04:Quetta 50 Shia Muslims were killed and 65
others injured when Wahabi terrorists carried out a
suicide attack at a mosque during Friday prayers in
Quetta.

June 08:Quetta 12 Shia police cadets were killed and 8
seriously injured by Wahabi mullahs in Quetta.

June 06:Quetta Syed Niaz Hussain, Vice-President of
Imambargah Sajjadia Sariab Road was killed by Wahabi
terrorists.

February 27:Karachi Two Shia men, Ghulam Hussain and
his nephew Baqar Raza, were shot dead at their bakery
by three Sipah e Sahaba terrorists.

February 22:Karachi Nine Shia Muslims were killed and
10 injured when 4 Wahabi terrorists opened fire at
worshipers in Mahdi Imambargah near the Karachi
airport.

Year 2002

November 01:Lahore Capt Syed Imran Zaidi (retired), a
45 year-old doctor, was shot dead at his clinic on
Wazeer Ali Road by a Wahabi terrorist

September 30:Charsada Agha Danish Alvi, a teacher at a
government primary school, was shot dead by Wahabi
terrorists inside the school premises.

August 10:Texila Three nurses were killed and 25
people were injured when Wahabis threw grenades on a
chapel in the Taxila Christian Hospital

August 09:Quetta Brigadier Bartar Hussain Naqvi
critically injured by Wahabi terrorists.

August 05:Murree Six people were killed when Wahabi
militants opened fire at a Christian School in Murree

June 26:Waziristan Agency !0 Pakistani soldiers were
martyred in a gun-battle with Wahabi terrorists
belonging to Al-Qaeda. Names of the martyrs: Maj
Rizwan, Lance Naik Sajawal, Sepoys Ishaq, Safdar Khan
and Fazle Rabbi of the Baluch Regiment, and Capt
Naeem, Lance Naik Hazrat Hussain, Lance Naik Din
Muhammad, Sepoy Jameel Khan and Lance Abdus Samad of
the South Waziristan Scouts.

June 17:Multan 3 Shia youths were shot dead by Wahabi
terrorists near Imam Bargah Al-Hussaini in New Multan.
The victims were identified as Hassan Raza Zaidi, his
younger brother Ali Raza Zaidi and their friend Raza
Haider

June 14:Karachi 11 killed in suicide bomb attack at
the U.S. consulate.

May 25:Karachi Wahabi terrorists shot dead Agha Abbas,
owner of a juice center in Nazimabad. Gul Zaman, a
worker was wounded in the attack.

May 8:Karachi 11 French navy experts and two
Pakistanis killed by a suicide bomber outside Sheraton
Hotel

May 7:Lahore Renowned Sunni scholar Dr Ghulam Murtaza
Malik, his driver and a policeman were shot dead by
terrorists

May 7:Karachi 32 years-old Shia Muslim, Syed Asghar
Ali Ziadi was shot dead by Sipah e Sahaba at his
tailoring shop in Karachi

May 6:Karachi Syed Zafar Mehdi Zaidi, a prominent Shia
figure and principal of Jamia Millia Technical
College, Malir was shot dead along with his driver
Qamar Zaman, and his peon, Mukhtar by Sipah e Sahaba
terrorists. Qamar Zaman and Mukhtar belonged to the
Sunni sect of Islam.

May 5:Karachi Dr Athar Hussain Rizvi, aged 50 was shot
at and injured by Sipah e Sahaba terrorists at his
clinic in F-South in Khokhrapar.


April 25:Bhakkar 7 women and 5 children were killed
and at least 50 injured in a bomb blast at a religious
gathering of thousands of Shia Muslims in the grounds
of a mosque. A Wahabi terrorist using the name,
Tauseef Ali was arrested on May 5, 2002 in connection
to the Bhakkar massacre.

April 23:Karachi Nasir Ali - aged 20 and Aal e Raza
Rizvi aged - 30 were shot dead by Sipah e Sahaba
terrorists in Orangi Town area. Their third victim 18
year-old Fahad Hussain was wounded in the attack

April 10:Karachi Isfahan Haider, a 37 year-old
shopkeeper was shot dead by Sipah e Sahaba in North
Nazimabad


March 19:Lahore Professor Attaur Rahman, a prominent
Sunni scholar was shot dead along with his driver by
Sipah e Sahaba terroristsThe same terrorists then shot
dead Syed Hasan Raza, a Shia Muslim who was standing
outside a mosque near Professor Rehman's institue,
Idara Minhaj ul Quran in the Jain Mandir area.


March 17:Islamabad 5 people were killed and 45 injured
in a grenade attack carried out by Wahabi terrorists
on a crowded Protestant church.


March 12:Karachi Anwar Ali Tirmizi and Zulfiqar Haider
killed by the Sipah e Sahaba at a Tehrik e Jafria
office in Shah Faisal Colony.


March 12:Shahkot Syed Gul Hassnain was killed along
with his driver by Sipah e Sahaba terrorists in
Shahkot (60 Kilometeres west of Multan).


March 12:Karachi Sipah e Sahaba terrorists attacked a
Shia family killing three brothers Ahsan Ali, Mohsin
Ali and Abbas Ali while their fourth brother, Irfan
Ali was wounded in the attack.


March 11:Karachi Three doctors, Dr Ali Jaffar Naqvi,
Dr Bilal and Dr Shahnaz Ahad escaped an attacked by
Sipah e Sahaba terrorists in Defence Housing Authority

March 08:Karachi Dr. Muzaffar Ali Soomro was killed by
Wahabis in Gizri, Clifton.

March 05:Karachi Dr. Aale Safdar Zaidi was killed by
Wahabis in Gizri, Clifton.

January 29:Karachi Jawwad Rizvi, a retired employee of
an insurance company in his early-60s was shot dead
and his friend Zumarrud Hussain Jaffery wounded
seriously by suspected Sipah e Sahaba terrorists.

January 23:Karachi Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl
was kidnapped and brutally murdered by Wahabi
terrorists.

January 09:Karachi A Shia official Syed Hasan Ali shot
dead by Sipah e Sahaba

Syed Rashid Mehdi was also shot dead by Wahabis in the
Hussainabad area of Karachi. We were unable to get the
exact date of his martyrdom."

Dave Miller - 7/25/2003

It's very difficult to find anything positive to say about Joseph Stalin, who was, in all likelihood, the greatest murderer of innocent human beings in history.

However, to give the devil his due, Stalin did at least kill quite a few viciously murderous Bolsheviks, such as Leon Trotsky.

Good.

I do not think that anyone familiar with Trotsky's conduct during the rise of the Bolsheviks to ultimate power can doubt that Trotsky was a viciously murderous thug.

Schwartz sympathetically describes Trotsky's minions as having been "ultra-revolutionary activists who lived and died, often young, for an ideal today universally held in contempt – that of proletarian socialist revolution." Yeah, and the Waffen-SS and the Brownshirts were also "ultra-revolutionary activists who lived and died, often young, for an ideal today universally held in contempt.." Both groups _deserve_ that universal contempt.

The only difference I have ever been able to see between Trotskyites and Stalinists is that the one side won out in the inter-factional struggle and the other lost. Does anyone doubt, based on Trotsky's actual record when he did have power, that Trotskyites would have been just as murderous as Stalinists had they had the chance?

Oh, yes...there is one other difference: a number of "former" Trotskyites (do they call themselves "neo-conservatives" now?) have managed to seize control of the foreign policy of the "sole remaining super-power."

God help us all.

If only Stalin hadn't been such an incompetent, he might have done a better job of ridding the world of these thugs and thereby accomplished one good thing in his horribly evil life.

Jack Sarfatti - 7/24/2003

See http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz/
http://qedcorp.com/Schwartz/LunaticMind.doc
Memorandum For The Record

Stephen Schwartz is here using "J. Robert Oppenheimer" as his alias.


On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 04:53 PM, J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote:

"Dennis "Justin" Raimondo has published an attack on the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in which he cries and whines that one of the contributors to the History News Network, which rejected his Jewbaiting crap, doesn't have a college degree.  This is obviously a reference to Mr. Schwartz, and it is just as obviously derived from the propaganda of Jack "I Love Serbia and the Saudis More Than Life Itself, Because Schwartz is on CNN and I'm on Star Trek" Sarfatti."

What is the URL for this? I have not seen it.

There is no truth at all to describing me as

"I Love Serbia and the Saudis More Than Life Itself, Because Schwartz is on CNN and I'm on Star Trek" Sarfatti.

This is Stephen Schwartz behaving like Jayson Blair putting words into my mouth I never said nor even thought.
I never supported Milosevic, what ISSO did with Vigier and the Serbs in 2000 was done with full prior and post knowledge of the CIA to see if the Serbs had anything immediate that could lead to a WMD. Creon Levit of NASA ran this project. I had nothing directly to do with it either in the planning or the execution in Budapest. In anycase it was done in the interest of US National Security and was not at all an act of treason as Schwartz Screw Loose libelously misreports. The libel and slander BTW is on Creon Levit, since a simple fact check would reveal it was his project not mine.

 
"Dennis Raimondo and Jack Sarfatt (the name under which he published his original physics papers) claim that they never met each other but they conspire via e-mail, just as Dennis conspired with Randall "Ismail" Royer, now a federal prisoner, to publish yet another attack on FDD, which, of course, has become a major target of Sarpatholofatti."

Again for the record, my father's name is Hyman Sarfatti, always has been. My two half-brother's names are Michael and David Sarfatti, always has been. My mother Mildred, against my father's wishes, left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 because she thought it sounded "too Italian" and Mussolini's confidante Margherita Sarfatti was a distant cousin of my father. See my book "Destiny Matrix" for details. My father insisted that the "i" be restored in 1975 and he went down and had the birth certificate changed to "Sarfatti" which is his name. Our mailbox at 2047 Nostrand Avenue, Flatbush and the apartment directory for decades had "Hyman Sarfatti" listed until my mother moved out about 23 years ago. This is a good example how Schwartzky, as a pattern, finds sinister meaning in perfectly innocent situations. Schwartzky is simply a vengeful paranoid on the verge of a manic psychotic breakdown. BTW there is an old e-mail from Schwartz pre Sept 11, 2001 saying I should get the Medal of Freedom at the Bush White House for outing Werner Erhard, Michael and Dulce Murphy at Esalen in late 70's and 80's as useful idiots for the KGB. Schwartzky also said Werner's tax lawyer Ephraim Margolin worked for Stalin and that Hillary Clinton worked for Margolin fresh out of Yale. Schwartzky also boasted that he started the negative campaign against Hillary in "The American Spectator." Mar Also in a phone call from Schwartz to me prior to Feb 8, 2003, Schwartz said "Sarfatti has always been out in front fighting the fascists. It's Schwartz and Sarfatti against the fascists." Then all hell broke loose on Feb 8, 2003 because Schwartsky flipped over Michael Savage.
 
Here's a free education for the "geniuses": a list of some famous college and high school dropouts:
 
Jack London left University of California after one semester, F Scott Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton, Dec. 1915, William Faulkner, Nobel laureate in literature, dropped out of the University of Mississippi, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac both dropped out of Columbia U., Jose Saramago Nobel laureate in literature received a trade school certificate in auto repair, Edward Albee (playwright) dropped out of Trinity College, Hartford, after 3 semesters

Thomas Edison, Bill Gates (Microsoft) dropped out of Harvard, 1976, Steve Jobs (Apple, NeXT, Pixar) left Reed College in Portland, Oregon, after 1 semester, Steve Wozniak (with Jobs, founded Apple Computer), Lawrence Ellison (Oracle Computer), Michael Dell (Dell Computer) dropped out of the University of Texas
Ted Turner (media mogul) -kicked out, Harry S Truman, Barry Goldwater, Rush Limbaugh spent 1 year at Southeastern Missouri State University, dropped out
Stan Brakhage (experimental filmmaker), Yoko Ono (you know) dropped out of Sarah Lawrence College, Nina Totenberg (public radio) dropped out of Boston University

Famous high school dropouts include Ansel Adams, H.H. Bancroft, historian for whom the Bancroft Library is named, Iosif Brodsky, Nobel Prize laureate in poetry, Robert DeNiro, Theodore Dreiser, Isadora Duncan, Ernest Hemingway, Peter Jennings, British prime minister John Major, Al Pacino
 
Like we say, too much science causes atrophy of the brain. 

He forgot to mention:

Stephen Schwartz, with numerous name changes, ("Sarfatt" to "Sarfatti" was a restoration of the original name, not a total fabrication) like "Comrade Sandallo", or "Aby-Normal Silly Man" (pardon my Arabic) the "Sheik of Teheran" or whatever Schwartzky calls himself these days, dropped out of college, wormed his way into the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Cabal in the Second Bush Administration and publicly self-destructed embarrassing The White House.
 
You know they all said Christopher Columbus was crazy because he said the world was round, they all said that Edison was crazy, they all said that Einstein was crazy, they all said that Stephen Schwartz was crazy - and he WAS crazy! They all said that Jack Sarfatti was crazy, but he has the last laugh now. ;-)

http://www.reelclassics.com/Teams/Fred&Ginger/lyrics/laughed-lyrics.htm

"They All Laughed"

music by George Gershwin and lyrics by Ira Gershwin

 
They odds were a hundred to one against me.
The world thought the heights were too high to climb.
But people from Missouri never incensed me.
Oh, I wasn't a bit concerned
For from history I had learned
How many, many times the worm had turned.

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round.
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound.

They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly.
They told Marconi wireless was a phoney.
It's the same old try.

They laughed at me, wanting you.
Said I was reaching for the moon.
But oh, you came through.
Now they'll have to change their tune.

They all said we never would be happy.
Darling, let's take a bow.
But ho, ho, ho.
Who's got the last laugh now?

I Care - 7/24/2003

Michael Doran - Washington Post - December 22, 2002

"Instead of judiciously analyzing the policies and beliefs of Saudi Arabia, Schwartz peddles the outlandish thesis that the country ranks -- together with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- as one of the greatest threats to world peace in the modern era.

Because a danger of such magnitude cannot be something completely new, Schwartz has no choice but to rewrite the story of the modern Middle East, depicting the Saudis as the primary villains. Claiming that his study "constitutes a 'secret history' comparable to the hidden archival record of Soviet Communism," Schwartz manages to find the fingerprints of Riyadh at crime scenes that no Saudi ever visited. Thus, with no proof whatsoever, Schwartz asserts that it was Saudi -- not European -- expansionism that presented the Ottoman Empire with "the deadliest challenge" to its rule. And thus, based on the weakest circumstantial evidence, he equates Wahhabism, the official Saudi ideology, with Islamic fundamentalism in general, thereby saddling the Saudis with more guilt than they deserve for the general Islamic resurgence in the Middle East.

When Schwartz is not planting evidence against the Saudis, he is busy concocting alibis for proven offenders. He claims, for example, that Khomeinism has been misread by the United States as intolerant and threatening. The Saudis reinforced this misperception, he argues, so as to prevent us from realizing that they -- not the fascists in power in Tehran -- are the true enemies of pluralism. This kind of dirty detective work destroys the author's credibility."

Does'nt sound like an interpritation issu to me!

Patrick R. Sullivan - 7/23/2003

Something more important that Mr. Schwartz and Coulter don't have in common is that she doesn't write things about other people in total ignorance (nor make self-congratulatory and irrelevant diatribes). For instance:

" as I have been told, Ann Coulter making the grotesque mistake of defaming Walter Reuther, a tough union man who rescued one of America’s great labor organizations from Soviet control."

Here's what Coulter wrote about Walter Reuther:

" [historian Douglas] Brinkley cites 'the vast difference between responsible anti-communists of the early years of the Cold War--Walter Reuther, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr and Hubert Humphrey come to mind--and an unprincipled, opportunistic bully like McCarthy.' " (p. 67)

And: "Walter Reuther and Hubert Humphrey are interesting additions to Douglas Brinkley's list of 'responsible anti-communists' inasmuch as they were far rougher with Communists than McCarthy ever was.....

" Reuther presided over a brutal factional campaign in the CIO with lots of red-baiting. A few years later, the sanctimonious fraud signed a letter urging that McCarthy be censured. Adopting the hatreds and prejudices of the ruling class evidently buys you exemptions. (Interestingly, the United Mine Workers and the Teamsters--the crotchety old Republican unions--were the only unions to reject loyalty oaths for their members.)

Where's the "defaming" in the above? As usual Coulter's critics can't argue substance.

NYGuy - 7/22/2003

David,

The Democratic administration of the State of California far exceeded anything done by the Republicans. The Republicans of course will meet their own needs while the Democrats will just use other people’s money to solve their financial problems.

California is larger in size and GNP then many countries. They have their high visibility Hollywood crowd that are all upset with the poverty outside their State while their record on homeless is abysmal as is the high number of actual people in poverty. Meanwhile, Hollywood worries more about their Oscars and wants to spend millions to keep them out of the hands of the unwashed then they do about getting their citizens out of poverty.

The UN has been a defunct organization since it was established. They provide no leadership but give authority to many who want to destroy our way of life. What countries in the UN come anywhere near our type of government with its freedoms for its citizens and it recognition of human dignity?

I don’t need our troops to come home and think keeping a force overseas is worthwhile. We should be the country that provides the leadership and example that will get us to a peaceful and safer world. Let’s take our troops out of Germany and Korea and redeploy them to our advantage.

I am well aware of the Quaker history and respect the fact that your position is one that they have put forward since the beginning of our country, and respect your believes.

In conclusion I do not disagree with your desire to Bring our Troops home. That is not the issue. The issue in my mind is that if we do bring the troops home, who will bring peace and security to our land and to the world. Both the UN and NATO are political animals in which each party is interested in their own greed and needs and lack the vision to form a better world.

David Salmanson - 7/22/2003

Hm, I don't suppose you'd care to discuss the finances of Nassau County which practiced Republican economics for the last, I dunno, 100 years, which even continued when the party was led by Joe Margiotta from jail? How is that one of the richest counties in the nation was brought to the edge of financial ruin? But wait, California is not a county. Nor is it a nation. These are not comparable instances. Giving away intelligence data to enemy troops is endangering our troops. Questioning our foreign policy is the sign of responsible voters seeking to be informed in a time when credibility is at issue. Some might argue that putting our troops into the line of fire without a workable plan for reconstruction endangered them. Some might say that acting without the UN (or more relevantly, NATO) needlessly endangered them. These are legitimate view points. They are not the same as giving money and power to foreign nationals that turn around and stab us in the back (hello Saudi Arabia!) but those our "our Arabs" so they must be OK right? Look, let's just hope that the Iranian students succeed in their struggle for democracy and that all our troops come home safe. That's the goal in my mind. Hence the slogan so prevalent in my historically Quaker neighborhood, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home."

NYGuy - 7/21/2003

David,

The real point is that these pundits should start to rehabilitate California before giving advice to GW and in the process give comfort to our enemies and put our troops in greater danger.

California has a deficit larger than all the other states. It has a huge poverty population. (as high as 28% in some counties), according to the NYTimes it is mistreating its homeless and it has failed to control its 86 year old democratic drivers who create a bloody mess which is equivalent to just 10% of our losses in Iraq and includes a 2 year old. They also want to give advice to other states on raising taxes.

I was told that one should watch their own pot boiling rather than watching what others are doing. Perhaps this is why California is in such a mess. They can't run their own government, but can tell others what to do.

David Salmanson - 7/21/2003

Just an aside on the California Driver issue. Like people most states, many Californians have long advocated tighter standards on older drivers. Leading the opposition is the AARP and even more so AAA. My most recent issue of AAA magazine (from before the Santa Monica incident) had an article on elderly drivers and advocated better signage as the solution. They did not mention: mass transit, share-rides, or other options that would have decreased car ownership but increased safety. Perhaps the bumper sticker ought to read, "You can have my keys when you pry them from my cold dead hands."
-David

Josh Greenland - 7/20/2003

Here are some of Schwartz's opinions, quoted in the item titled Never Mind the Torture:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/29/we_479_05.html#one

NYGuy - 7/19/2003

Let us get back to communism. Pre war it was an international philosophy. In England it was espoused by the students from England's best colleges and Universities. In both the U. S. and England there were those who wanted to oppose their governments by helping and promoting communism. These people worked within and without the government to provide this help. They were called "fifth columnists" since part of the communist theory was to bore from within and destroy the enemy.

These facts have to be understood before one can get to the McCarthy investigations. There were real threats to our countries. Focusing on one or two small items and concluding this period was peaceful, and non-threating is meaningless. The entire period and the actions of the "fifth columnists" have to be analyzed in full and not try to dismiss these threats because of one individual, or a technical issue with one person. Everyone in the U. S. and English governments knew about the "fifth columnist", and that it was a threat to both countries.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/19/2003

Bill,
If Ethel Rosenberg was, in fact, innocent, it makes little sense to berate Truman for holding out for the possibility that that was true! The woman was innocent and we killed her. Her guilty brother lied about her and lives to tell the tale even to this day.
Jose Blanco returned from the mission as certain of betrayal as you are and, were I you or him, I would sustain my anger about it to this day.

Bill Heuisler - 7/19/2003

Ralph,
The Rosenbergs were caught before McCarthy. Ethel knew about her husband and brother's espionage. She refused to defend herself at trial because of loyalty to her husband - defending herself meant accusing him. Admirable in a way, but irrelevant.

The Bay of Pigs as you call it included many Americans, on the ground, manning supply ships, coxwains in landing boats and pilots in bombers. The Seventh Fleet was hull-down on the horizon and had promised air-cover for the beachhead and resupply after the Brigade deployed from the beaches. At the last minute, Kennedy halted 70% of the bombing missions planned to surpress Castro's Air Force and cancelled Seventh Fleet air cover. The Brigade held out for three days with no assistance from the carriers and cruisers whose lights were visible at night. They maintained radio contact, but could only provide condolences. Your sheltered family was misinformed. To cover his cowardly ass JFK called us mercenaries, but we were not paid in any coin but pride and patriotism. Kennedy betrayed us.

Ask Coulter? Ralph, we're discussing Coulter aren't we? Your circular argument that Treason is hogwash because her definition of treason is different than yours becomes ridiculous when you refer to her as part of your argument. If betraying American armed forces at Jiron or Khe Sanh is not treason, then why bother having the word at all? Why don't you define the crime of Treason for me, so we'll have a standard of conduct to condemn?
Bill Heuisler

Ralph E. Luker - 7/19/2003

Shannon,
Of course you know about the Republican Party's big tent includes the woman in California who has been a big fund-raiser for the Party and was recently indicted as an agent of the Chinese government. That's the real Chinese spy story. If there were indictable charges to be brought against WJC, I think -- given the millions of bucks spent by Republicans to turn up dirt on him -- you can be assured that they would have been brought by now. Wen Ho Lee was falsely accused and you compound the offense by repeating it. John Huang was duely exposed.

Shannon - 7/19/2003

I hope you gentlemen will pardon my intrusion in your debate.

Ralph, I don't think it's unreasonable to question Clinton's patriotism when, in 1992 and then again in 1996, the Chinese donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, via a Chinese banker named James Riady, to the Clinton-Gore Presidential campaign in an effort to influence the election. I admit to being a neophyte on these issues, but I find it more than a coincidence that later, China managed to transfer sensitive US weapons and military technologies secrets to Libya, North Korea, Iran and Iraq. David Horowitz writes in his book, 'How To Beat the Democrats', that...

"Beginning in 1993, the Clinton Administration systematically lifed security controls at the Department of Commerce, which had previously prevented the transfer of sensitive military, satellite, and commputer technologies to China and other nuclear proliferators. At the beginning of 1993, Clinton appointed John Huang, an agent of the Riady interests as well as Communist China, to a senior position at the Commerce Department with top security clearence. Clinton later sent Huang to the Democratic Nationa Committe to take charge of fundraising for his 1996 campaign."

One other Chinese mishap on Clinton's watch, which shouldn't go unmentioned, is the story of Wen Ho Lee who stole four hundred thousand files from America's nuclear weapons lab. Later on, a bipartisan committee approved the Cox Committe report that had concluded that Beijing had stolen US design data for nearly all elements needed for a major nuclear attack on the US., such as advanced warheads, missiles and guidance systems. Again, I generously quote David Horowitz's book.

I don't know how you feel about it, Ralph, but this stinks of treason in my personal and most humble opinion. I think it's interesting how closley this resembles what was going on in the 1940's and 50's with the appointment of Soviet spies to sensitive and top level security positions in Roosevelt and Truman's Government, don't you? Never forget that Roosevelt called Stalin, "Uncle Joe".

Thank you for allowing me to add my two cents.
Shannon

NYGuy - 7/19/2003

Bill,

Earlier I had asked you about the "fifth column" but found a link on it.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000110.html

"According to Britannica.com, a fifth column refers to any clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation's solidarity.

Who came up with the phrase, and what's with the columns? Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), originally coined the term. As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his "fifth column," intent on undermining the loyalist government from within.

So the fifth column is a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders. Recent conflicts have had their fifth columns: Iraqi insurgents in the Gulf War, Cuban rebels in the Bay of Pigs. Those columns didn't fare quite as well."

What most people don't know is that the communist used this technique to try to undermine or country.

In many ways I believe there are still "a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders."

That is why it is so important for them to emphasize the death count on American soldiers, to give comfort to the enemy and demoralize the people at home and get more soldiers killed.

Funny, we had 149 soldier deaths in Iraq. Last Wednesday, one 80 year old+ driver killed 14 Americans, almost 10% of the Iraqi situation in one day, including a 2 year old girl. The people of California know the dangers of elderly driving but they are too busy telling Bush how to run the country that they can't take care of their own "Bloody Wednesdays".

Are we to build our country on such ignorance?

Ralph E. Luker - 7/19/2003

Bill,
Consider the fact that Ethel Rosenberg was almost certainly not guilty of the charges for which she was executed. Her brother, who was guilty, now acknowledges having lied about his sister under oath to save his own life.
As for the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy was not guilty of Treason. What he did betrayed Cuban nationals, not necessarily United States' interests. I say that as one whose family sheltered the family of a Cuban who participated in the attempted invasion.
I certainly agree with you that our conduct of the Viet Nam War was a fiasco, a shameful waste of American life and resources. How it can be construed as Treason, you'll have to ask Coulter. I think George Bush is shamefully wasting American life and resources. I don't call it Treason.
Let's see, I don't recall Jimmy Carter having visited Cuba while he was conducting American foreign policy. Nor do I recall Clinton having organized British protests against American troops while he was conducting American foreign policy.
If you want to blame some terrible turn in the conduct of American life on the Seventies, you'd better look to Richard Nixon -- not Gerald Ford, not Jimmy Carter, and certainly not George McGovern.

Bill Heuisler - 7/18/2003

Ralph,
Sorry. Wrote Derek. Meant Ralph.
Bill

Bill Heuisler - 7/18/2003

Derek,
This is supposed to be about Coulter's Treason, but here goes:
Truman defended Hiss, the Rosenbergs and others who were later proven traitors. He was probably just a gullible Midwesterner.

Kennedy betrayed the Brigade at Playa Jiron and gave away missiles and Cuba-options to Nikita. Personal history clouds my judgement, but at best he was certainly a disaster in any crisis involving International Communism.

Johnson knowingly collaborated with Robert Strange to commit more and more Americans to a war they knew they would not win. Note: we now know they "knew" the VN War was hopeless the way they were waging it according to tapes and McNamara's book. The fact they knew and comitted more troops makes them both traitors - and worse - in my opinion.

We've discussed Carter's anti-Us foreign policy. He criticizes his country in Cuba, of all places, which probably makes him an idiot, but the jury's still out - he might just be a loony Fundamentalist with bad judgement. But I think he acted in many cases against the best interests of his country.

Clinton organized British protests against the US while our troops were dying. He evidently had no foreign policy except to distract from his escapades, but a case could have been made and never was. He's too close to judge. See me in ten years.

Point is, there are opinions about each man and some of us hold what you might call unreasonably high standards. The Seventies made Treason both common and unspoken. To declare a book hogwash because you don't share its conclusions is unreasonable also.
Bill Heuisler

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Ralph,

I checked with some friends in New York because your comment, "dumb twit" did not sound right. It seems the correct term in the north is "dumbass twit", but I was advised that the Southerners drop off their endings. :)


Cheers

Ralph E. Luker - 7/18/2003

Bill,
"an inability to distinguish diplomacy from collaboration in tyranny"
Right. I can't tell whether you accusing Carter or Reagan of committing an act of diplomacy.
Facts: Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were not traitors to their country. To claim that any of them (whatever their many faults) were is the purest hogwash. Dispute it.
Facts: No critic from the left has ever, to my knowledge at least, accused Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II of being traitors to their country. To claim that any of them (whatever their many faults) were would be the purest hogwash. When have critics on the left charged Republican presidents with capital offenses? In fact, it is _only_ the righty loons from the John Birch Society who called Eisenhower a traitor.

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Ralph,

I like that word "twit". My kids think it is so cool.

Your point being that the democrats and liberals are correct posting the daily count of KIA. You believe that the current meaningless debate over Ur in Africa is worth the effort when there are so many moe serious problems in the world. You don't think that the U.S. should be assuming its world role, perhaps you have another nation in mind that you believe is better and more trustworthy.

I don't hear what you or any other lib proposes we do about our having been attacked and how we should be protecting ourselves. You agree with those who say we should bring the troops home and be isolationist. And of course those who still live in past with their quaqmire mentality don't acknowledge that anything has changed in the past 30-40 years. Sort of a "head in the sand" approach to government and foreign policy. I don't think the lib and democratic "bunker" mentality is the answer. So call the FBI.

Let me see, give up our proactive world leadership, rely on the thugs from the UN with all their irresponisble governments and human rights violations, that does nothing and permits over 1.0 million Africans to be slaughtered. Let North Korea, Iran, and the rest of our enemies create the possibility of destroying the world, let Palistine and Israel go back to killing each other, and perhaps bringing about the "final solution". Let the Democrats take over so they can do to the U. S. what they did to California.

Yes, yes I am beginning to see your brillance. In other words we should all go to Canada or other backwood areas of our country and hope that the resultant onslaught does not reach us. I love the emotional fallback that you both feel so unsafe, although I don't notice it in your sharp comments. Perhaps it is just a ruse.

I am sure you and Derek have already positioned yourself and are safe in your own little world. But what do the rest of us do. Pray. Hope that the next plane that crashes into NY does not carry an atomic bomb, or other WMD. No that is not the answer, and beside it is against our Constitution.

You should join your friends in California, able to give a lot of advice, while their own house is burning down.

Twit - That has a sort of a lilt to it.

Bill Heuisler - 7/18/2003

First of all, Derek, this discussion is not about you.
Ann didn't mention you even once...not even in her footnotes. She's discussing history and implications. Your dismissal of her version and refusal to argue her points as "reinventing the wheel" is like dismissing Pope for disagreeing with Byron on a translation of Homer. Engage her, don't dismiss her. She is, after all, selling thousands of her books each day.

Second your reference to racists on the Right ignores Ku-Klux-Byrd, Hymietown Jackson, Confederate Fritz and countless others. Racism is not a province of the Right. Please stop using that club in discussions with me unless you are accusing me or Ann Coulter of defining people by their color or ethnicity. That pleasure seems to fulfill many on your side, but few on mine.

Third, equating Reagan's visit to a German cemetary in which 35 Waffen SS soldiers were buried with Smilin' Jim's embrace of a murderous dictator in the midst of a veritable pogrom of Cuban protestors is either deliberately provocative or indicative of an inability to distinguish diplomacy from collaboration in tyranny - one incidental, one deliberate. Either is beneath you.

Lastly, give me a specific point in Coulter's book you find faulty and we can discuss. Otherwise we merely trade opinions.
Bill

Ralph E. Luker - 7/18/2003

NYG: You anonymous dumb twit, the last time I checked it was your president who put our troops in harm's way. By the way, I am expecting to see Derek here in Atlanta early this coming week. You can have the FBI pick us both up at the same time.

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

No matter how you slice it, it is wrong to deliberately put our troops in danger. And the so called "patriotic stance" merely give comfort to the enemy and make our relationship with other weaker.

Now I remember, it was called the "fifth column."

Derek Catsam - 7/18/2003

Bill --
Surely the rudiments of American law, the null hypothesis, and the inability to prove a negative are all in your arsenal. You tell us to name a person who McCarthy identified as being a communist who was not. It's odd -- we are supposed to prove the innocence of those presumed guilty? You well know that burden is on you. However, I do recall some Army hearings where a number of officials came before McCarthy. Seems I have heard nothing about any of those people being guilty. McCarthy's hearings pulled up hundreds of people, most of whom are not in fact identified as being guilty in venona or any other documents. What is peculiar to me is that people who always looked at liberals incredulkously when we cited communist documents during the cold war now take those documents as gospel truth.
More to the point of the strain, you keep saying that Ralph and I have not used facts. I have no idea what facts you need -- Coulter does "lump." That is a fact. Coulter does smear. That is a fact. Coulter does name call. That is a fact. Another fact is that I was smart enough to read the book in two sittings -- one in a Barnes and Noble, and one in a library. I am not going to buy that tripe, and so i do not have the book in frotn of me to cite from. Once again, the fact that you would take Coulter's conservative views of McCarthyism over radosh's reveals you to be a good ideologue, but a bad student of history.
By the way, I don't know if you are aware that we all can actually read your little aside to NYGuy (and I find it interesting that you never condemn the anonymity of those on the right, but it's no holds barred when someone does not reveal their name on the other side) and since Ralph and I are really the only ones engaging you two, you are either insinuating that he and I are com-symps of some sort, or you don't get the simple fact that there was a good and important strain of anticommunism that McCarthy perverted, and in so doing, subverted the Constitution and the fundamental liberties that the communists in our midsts actually stood against. Strange bedfellows indeed. Then again, the southern Democrats, the true conservatives in the US in the period after World War II, were the most ardent at throwing anticommunism out at every turn and in denying the most basic of rights to that region's citizens. Talk about hating the wrong people.

Bill Heuisler - 7/18/2003

NYGuy,
She calls it Treason. 9/11 happened; we're at war with militant Islam. Our sons and daughters die for our country, but some Libs gloat, make triumphal lists and tell those young people they're dying for nothing. Some Liberal Democrats chortle at patriotism, separate Hussein from Muslim killers but align Republicans with swastikas and pretend W had prior knowledge about 9/11.

Worse than treason, these people believe in nothing at all. White-noise from a slavish press conceals the fact that the American public considers such behavior repulsive and will vote accordingly next year. Then what will these lost souls do?
Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 7/18/2003

Bill --
But you're doing what you always do. I am keeping the company of some liberals in the same way that you are "keeping company with" some rather loathsome conservatives. If all on the elft are tainted with the same brush, so too are all on the right. UYou can't condemn me for the fact that there are lefties who would coddle Saddam any more (or less) than I can condemn you for right wing racists. But despite your assertion that Coulter distinguishes among liberals (after every time she distinguishes good liberals from bad she goes right back to condemning all of them)that breakdown between pre- and post- McGovern is still historically vacuous, because it still does not differentiate between ongoing strains of liberalism. Given that I was an infant when McGovern got shelled, she is lumping my liberalism in with the liberalism (leftyism? -- I think we are lumping everything left of center, whatever that even is, too much) of a whole range of unsavort characters, but characters with whom I might have some ideological agreement on, say, domestic policy, where I am more left than I am on foreign policy. In any case, you can disagree with Jimmy Carter, but to call him treasonous or traiterous is simply silly. Surely shaking hands with Castro is no worse than paying respects at a cemetery for the Nazi dead.

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Bill,

Why are we limiting this discussion to AC’s book? We have living history with the reaction of liberals to GW, the U. S. leadership in the world, our troops in harms way, etc.

I note they and the democrats are now changing their tune and are questioning our authority by nit picking our President, discouraging support by putting up websites on the number of soldiers KIA each day, giving comfort to the enemy and encouraging them to resist. In general just undermining our efforts to establish peace, protect our citizens and create a better world.

Seems to me I remember in the 1930’s there was a General in Spain who said something like:

My army is outside the city, but my real strength is, something like the fifth army, the fifth company or the fifth column that was in the city and is the real strength that would win the battle.

Does any of this make sense? And, since you read AC’s book, how would she describe the liberal front’s actions today?

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Ralph,

My comments on communists refer to what I see in the NYC area. They used to meet in the lunchrooms of CCNY and were the children of new immigrants who were sincere in helping others, but mislead. Today they are the children of rich parents who benefited from this great country, go to prestigious schools like Columbia, and should know better but just want to be pc. It is comforting for them to sit in splendid surroundings and find fault with the U. S., but think every dictator is doing a better job. What countries do they say are better?

And of course we have the Hollywood types in that great state of CA. They bankrupt the State, the NY Times talks about their poor treatment of the homeless, they have poverty rates as high as 28% in some counties, they don’t want the poor to use the beaches in front of their palatial mansions, etc. and have the nerve to preach their bankrupt philosophy to the rest of the world.

Bill Heuisler - 7/18/2003

NYGuy,
Nearly every discussion with Leftists is one of fact and theory against vilification and emotion. Their world-view seems based on pessimism and victimization. Their solutions are nearly all collective, differences are stressed and individual effort seems to mean little when weighed against a benevolent Government.

Communism was dead once the dreamers realized man was a poor substitute for God. Some of them still dream, so just feel sorry for the benighted idiots. Some day they'll realize how foolish they've been. Read Coulter's Treason and you'll see why the truth makes them so angry. Some have wasted their whole lives hating the wrong people. Wouldn't that make you bitter?
Bill Heuisler

Ralph E. Luker - 7/18/2003

NYG: Great insight. I've been a Republican for many years. Cast my first presidential vote for Richard Nixon. But it's likely that I'm one of those comsymps Joe McCarthy used to talk about.

NYGuy - 7/18/2003

Bill,

Base upon past analysis of AC's work there are no substantial objections, only a cloud of dust and a "Hi Oh Silver". It just beats thinking. I had a similiar discussion with Kritz. You keep asking for facts and proof and you get a lot of meaningless rhetoric. But, if one has nothing to say they have no options.

As you may have noticed the attack is on the person, or non person, not on the ideas or what is being said. Part of the old Clinton form of debate. Still they have more brawn than brains and that is why they have the stamina to hang in there.

Hey, maybe the assumptions are wrong. I think Communism is still alive and kicking.

Bill Heuisler - 7/17/2003

Ralph,
Lileks et al oversimplify. Coulter is quite specific in her accusations. So, could one damned critic please state specific objections to her book? Maybe name a person accused by McCarthy who was completely unconnected to the Soviets...just one innocent soul not unmasked by those inconvenient Venona Papers.

Ralph, I once had a bumper sticker that read, "If they take away our guns, how will we shoot the Liberals?"
Most of us have mellowed however.
Bill

Stephen Schwartz - 7/17/2003

I meant that he named himself Sorel, Makhno, etc., obviously.

C'est tout.

Stephen Schwartz

Stephen Schwartz - 7/17/2003

I am not an apostate from Sufism -- the only people who make such claims are Nazis. Keating is a renegade from the left who now hangs with Jewbaiters. Keating is also a fanatic for fake names on the net. We now have a list including Keith Sorel, named for the author of REFLECTIONS ON VIOLENCE; Nestor Makhno, named for a person accused of pogroms against Jews (probably unfairly); Tibor Szamuely (for the Hungarian Communist who said terror was the basis of the revolution); Harry Nelson; and now Joe Cherney.

The claim that I ever invented anything in any of my work is libel, and cannot be sustained. Nobody has ever made such a claim. Geertz and Doran disagreed with my interpretation but did not charge me with fabrication.

Keating/Sorel/Makhno/Szamuely/Nelson/Cherney is so enraged with his insignificance he can do nothing but himself create fabrications, i.e. libels. He is very unhappy about being what he is.

I assumed an Islamic name as every Sufi does, and I used a Hispanic name in the Spanish left. Neither of these acts was intended deceptively.

Does any of this matter? No. But it is an argument against engaging with these free comment sites.

End of my involvement here.

Stephen Schwartz

Ralph E. Luker - 7/17/2003

NYG:
You simple-minded twit. That isn't "Ralph's interpretation." Those are Lilek's words, not mine. Heisler is open about who he is and he knows a good bit. There is no point in my trying to have a conversation with an anonymous mush-brain. Bring me to justice.

NYGuy - 7/17/2003

Ralph you say:

Lileks says:

”Coulter is a Lumper. Anyone who says 'all liberals are . . . '

Ralph’s interpretation:

and follows it with “something like “ genetically driven to oppose the United States is just talking nonsense, and gives the impression that they are actually standing on their hands, and have taught their rectum to pass gas in such a way that forms recognizable phonemes.”

This discussion has gone well beyond “all liberals are….” Ralph. Perhaps you did not have time to read some of the other posts.

Basically we have arrived at that point where there are those who understand it is not about the “true Americans” who love this country and tried to make this a better country, but about those who wanted a new form of government, which is called communism.

As a historian are you arguing that those proud American liberals who were trying to make this a better country and those who advocated revolutionary change of our government are one and the same?

If one does not understand that there is such a difference in philosophy of these groups, then it becomes impossible to proceed with intelligent discussions.

Perhaps this failure of those who do not understand the differences is the reason we get such uninformed rebuttals, as well as any critizism of the communists.

The main characteristic of the U. S is that it has continually worked to improve the lives of the American people. There were those who did not like our government and that is why they worked to undermine it and overthrow it. They were know, among other names, as Communists.

If you read Bill’s points you will understand where we are in the debate on AC’s book.

It is the difference between "true Americans" during the 1918-1955 period and those who thought their "Utopian view of government" was the way to go. Once again democracy triumphed.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/17/2003

Bill:
Let me quote Lileks (who I ordinarily don't read but Clayton quotes him and I copied it from Clayton's blog because his link to Lileks didn't take me to the original):
"Coulter is a Lumper. Anyone who says 'all liberals are . . . ' and follows it with something like genetically driven to oppose the United States is just talking nonsense, and gives the impression that they are actually standing on their hands, and have taught their rectum to pass gas in such a way that forms recognizable phonemes. Yes, there are hard-cases who fit Coulter’s description. But it’s possible to be in favor of all sorts of lefty causes - progressive taxation, affirmative action, abortion, socialized medicine, etc. - and love America. That should be obvious. Otherwise you have to believe that 32 percent of the nation is actively devoted to its eventual destruction. One could say that the consequences of their beliefs might be ruinous - but ruin is not their objective. So to say “left-wingers hate America!” just strikes me as fatuous drivel. If that’s the case, there’s no point in arguing about anything. To the barricades!"
It seems to me that Lileks has it exactly right. If Coulter is correct, you and I or you and Derek or NYGuy and I or whatever don't really have anything to talk about. If words have meaning and if Coulter is correct, your patriotic duty would not be to discuss these things with me. It would be to bring all traitors to justice. Treason is a capital offense.

Bill Heuisler - 7/17/2003

True, Ralph.
But you often see (even on HNN) Republicans cast as racists and war-mongers; you often see Republican initiatives termed for the rich, killing children, starving children, taking food stamps from the poor etc, etc.. Everyone knows none of this is true.

In fact Republican votes passed major Civil-Rights Laws, Republican wars are usually swift and decisive, the wealthiest lawmakers by far are Democrats like Kerry and Kennedy and the other charges impute patently false criminal behavior.

So, if Coulter's charges are false, specify - if true, admit it. Otherwise, complaining Treason isn't history and whining about unfairness seems ineffectual at best.
You know, it's the goose and gander thing.
Bill

Ralph E. Luker - 7/17/2003

Bill, Derek is man enough to speak for himself, but you illustrate the guilt by association argument that Coulter espouses: a Democrat is on the slippery slope side of the American political divide that leads inexorably to betrayal of one's country. I see very few liberals or Democrats who argue that being a Republican or a conservative puts one inexorably on the slippery slope to betrayal of one's country. There are legitimate, patriotic reasons to question the war on Iraq and there are legitimate, patriotic reasons to question the deep indebtedness (I see projections of a national debt of $2 trillion dollars) which the Bush administration will pass on to our children. I don't see _any_ valuable historical insight in Coulter's attempt to redeem Senator McCarthy's historical reputation or her attempts to smear Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. To see in them a long line of treasonous behavior is simply ruthless, ignorant partisanship.

Bill Heuisler - 7/17/2003

Derek,
You're absolutely correct about traditional Liberalism. But Coulter's book makes distinctions (between Scoop Jackson and Tom Hayden, for instance - one a traditional Liberal, one anti-American) among those politicians who seem to be always blaming the US, those who seem to be merely blithering idiots and those who simply feel the US is headed in the wrong direction. For instance, on page 12 she distinguishes the Democratic Party before and after McGovern. Her brush is broad to make a point the way the Modest Proposal made a point.

Surely you can distinguish those among Modern "Liberals" who travel to Iraq and criticize their country (McDermot), travel to Cuba to hug and shake Castro's bloody hand while defaming their country (Carter)and that former Attorney General who leads those anti-American protests with the scurrilous signs. Do you defend these people? Has the cause of Liberalism become so desperate that you all must spring reflexively to the defense of traitors?
Complain about her manners, maybe, but to condemn her out of hand for condemning you all out of hand seems ridiculous.

By the way, when you don't want to be specific in a discussion you frequently state you don't want to "reinvent the wheel". Well, my friend, that's exactly the point. This Liberalism umbrella you all cherish has many wheels. Some are badly bent. That's a grotesque metaphor, but you brought up the wheel. Maybe you Liberals should be more careful in the company you keep.
Bill

NYGuy - 7/17/2003

Derek,

I have not read Ann’s book and I am not defending her. My concern is that the heat being generated is preventing a better understanding of the entire post WW One period and the events that led up to McCarthyism.

Rufus T. Firefly, a hero of mine, just asked Bill in one his posts on the other AC FBI board:

Are you actually DEFENDING McCarthy? My God, what is this world coming to?

I strongly suggest you locate and watch the Edward R. Murrow "See It Now" TV shows about McCarthy. They will give you an excellent look at how McCarthy used innuendo and guilt by association to smear opponents."

If this entire period is reduced to McCarthy and “See it now”, then one wonders why we need historians. Nothing important was happening from 1918 until the mid 1950’s, except that this crazed, fanatic accused everyone without any reason, of being un-American. And it was without reason; after all there were no real concerns, or threats from those who might be trying to destroy our way of life.

If this is what happened, then no one can defend McCarthy. If there were other elements at work, however, and as I understand it the Verona papers have not been fully published, then I believe historians and those studying this period have to maintain an open mind, otherwise there is no need to review any new information. Bill was trying to do that, but we already know the answer and he is accused of not knowing any better.

Horowitz’s comments on some of Ann’s comments have to be taken seriously since he was part of the communist actions. On the other hand if Rufus is correct than there is no need to further understand this period and their can be no alternative view to what Rufus is saying and debate is not only chilled but also ended.

McCarthy troubles me, but I also had an experience with the FBI, a minor one, on Communist activities. Good friends went to CCNY when the spirit of communism was high. Another friend was proud of his brother who served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. They were not activists although they supported communistic theories. And it wasn’t until later in our friendship, and talking with others that I fully realized they were communists.

Not everyone, however, was that benign and many were more active in promoting the cause. And of course there were other radical ideologies we were dealing with. In other words, before McCarthy there were those who hated us and wanted to destroy us.

As a good historian, of course you present your view of the 20th Century:
“One can disagree with much of liberalism and what it stands for, I guess, as one can with conservatism, but to engage in the sorts of gross generalizations that Coulter does about liberals and liberalism is out of hand to dismiss one of the most, perhaps the most, important political and philosophical movements in all of American history, and the one that provided the defining paradigm of American politics for the bulk of the twentieth.”

The problem in my mind, however, is that there were different approaches to “liberalism”. There were “true American’s” who wanted social change to improve the lot of the Americans. And, there were others who believed that American democracy was wrong and that it should be replaced with another type of philosophy, which involved overthrowing the government.

This comment is not meant to accuse you or anyone else, only to reflect my own views of what was happening during this period. I didn’t start out with this conclusion, but I guess it means we have to separate out the “good guy” from the “bad guy”. The little I have read is that is what Ann attempts, although as many report they think she went overboard. Perhaps there should be more discussion about the different factions in Liberalism, and not just throw “true American Liberals” in with those liberals who wanted to hurt us. Perhaps some are not making that distinction.

Thank you Derek and Bill, you stand up for what you believe and that is good. I think we all benefit from it. Since everyone seem to be tired of generalizations, perhaps we can get some sound analysis.

Derek Catsam - 7/17/2003

Bill and NYGuy --
NYGuy -- I take many of your comments to heart.But the fact is, Coulter is getting slammed from the left and the right for her historical treatment of McCarthyism. I do agree that HNN is spending way too uch time on this book, but after two years of all Bellisles all the time, it seems to me that now is an odd time to draw lines in the sand for when enough is too much.
Bill -- I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. I am not going to spend any more time than I must on Coulter. It is her blanket condemnations of liberals and liberalism that one cannot take seriously. Again, I'll let the historiography do the talking, both that on McCarthyism and that on liberalism. If you really think that liberalism is about treachery and traitorship (-y? -ism? Or perhaps a Bushian traitorification?)then we are a lot further off base than our recent rapprochement would indicate. One can disagree with much of liberalism and what it stands for, I guess, as one can with conservatism, but to engage in the sorts of gross generalizations that Coulter does about liberals and liberalism is out of hand to dismiss one of the most, perhaps the most, important political and philosophical movements in all of American history, and the one that provided the defining paradigm of American politics for the bulk of the twentieth century. I'm going to hide behind Bill Leuchtenburg and Lon Hamby on the question of liberalism. Take Coulter against either of those two if you must, because there is no way on earth you're winning, especially when Radosh finds her conservative treatment of those who opposed McCarthy to be slimy and sloppy.

Bill Heuisler - 7/16/2003

Derek,
You say Treason is, "full of flaws of logic, analysis, and fact".
Don't copy Radosh and Sullivan, be specific. Point out the flaws.
Bill Heuisler

Joe C. - 7/16/2003

"Exploring Keatanga: Communazis, Wahhabis, Sarfattis, and Weenies, or, The Friends of Kevin Keating"

Boy, that title is a real mouthful! I would ask if an English-language translation is available, but S. Schwartz has a thing for weird titles; isn't he also known as "Suleyman Ahmad" Schwartz, convert to, then apostate from Sufi Islam -- he's the whirling dervish of Trotskyism-Conservatism!

So Schwartz wrote this article based on the Ann Coulter book without bothering to read the book. He must be a real smart guy -- he's knows so much he didn't even have to condescend to read it! If the stuff said in the "Left Communism to State Department Surrealism" article is accurate, then this isn't the first time "Suleyman Ahmad" just made up a lot of stuff, and then fobbed it off on the gullible as "scholarship."

A Princeton Professor of Near Eastern Studies has joined Clifford Geertz in saying that Schwartz's Two-Faced book on Islam is a lot of hooey. The guy's name is Michael Doran, and it's in the Washington Post. I forget the date, but you can do a search on Google.

NYGuy - 7/16/2003

Derek,

My comments are not made because of my belief. I have no dog in this fight since I did not read Ann's book. Knowing his background on communists, I do listen to the comments of Horowitz and while he had some disagreements he did not condemn the entire book.

First I think HNN's headlines create a hostile environment in discussing the book. If it was totally worthless and has no historical value than we must blame the editors of HNN for even raising the topic. But, then again the site has become in some cases a pit where raw meat is thrown to lions. Maybe that is why we are attracted, as it provides some entertainment.

I respect Bill's opinions and if people disagree with him they should give their reasons. I have no doubt that Bill will meet the challenge. I believe you are sincere in your own beliefs which are reflected in your actions.

Perhaps the real problem is that HNN should not have devoted three articles to her book, including one author who did not even read the book, which is a cheap trick, and another was a personal attack on McCarthy.

I already commented on this period and cited an example of an innocent situation I was involved in that brought in the FBI because of their concerns about communist activities. It was a serious time. I mentioned the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the student reformers in the City Colleges, the other ideologies that we fought against, etc. There were real concerns. Thus, we have to start before post-1945 to understand the threats from communists, dictatorships and other rabid ideologies before we can even begin to talk about McCarthy.

My concern is the approach you use in reviewing her book:

“Coulter's book is a bad one, not because it is conservative, but because it is full of flaws of logic, analysis, and fact. Her blanket condemnation of liberal’s shows that her thesis is worthless, and her presuppositions are simplistic, reductionist, and wrong.”

This is the same criticism that has followed all her books, and has become a “boilerplate” attack on her, and not a factual analysis of her works.

This was a very dangerous world before 1945, and there were people in the U. S. who were seriously trying to destroy America. And, it was real, not someone's imagination.

Briez - 7/16/2003

What a diatribe from Stephen Schwartz regarding Ann Coulter's book, Treason. He hasn't even read the book.

Stephen Schwartz - 7/16/2003

For those amused to read the ridiculous attempts at polemics posted by Joe Cherney, I recommend reading my response "Exploring Keatanga: Communazis, Wahhabis, Sarfattis, and Weenies, or, The Friends of Kevin Keating," printed in the ANDERSON VALLEY ADVERTISER of July 9, 2003.

The former radical leftist turned Jewbaiter Keating/Sorel has allied with Nazis, the Saudi lobby, UFO nuts, and that charming TV/radio personality Michael "Savage" Weiner.

Derek Catsam - 7/16/2003

I get the feeling that when someone agrees with NYGuy they are doing ok, and when they don't they are being uncivil. If you actually knew the subtitle and arguments of the Coulter book, you'd get my reference to being a treasonous pro-communist liberal. My previous article is irrelevent, so why you make mention of it is beyond me. Please reread my post and see what I was saying -- Coulter's is a bad book. It is not that smart, it makes absurd historical claims, and it is about scoring ideological points and not about any sort of reasonable arguments. Yeah, she's clever. So's Michael Moore. I wouldn't want either of them arguing for my side in a debate.

Derek Catsam - 7/16/2003

Er, funny you assume I have not read her tripe. I'm not suspicious of the "sound and fury" I am suspicious of misuse of history and facts. That is what Coulter does. And I do not let anyone choose my reading material, but when it comes to conservative asessments of McCarthyism, Radosh is the big fish in the pond, and I much admire Sullivan even where I disagree with him, because he is smart. As for "lacking facts," both make rather fact filled assessments. Coulter's book is a bad one, not because it is conservative, but because it is full of flaws of logic, analysis, and fact. Her blanket condemnation of liberals shows that her thesis is worthless, and her presuppositions are simplistic, reductionist, and wrong. Given that my main body of work is post-1945 American political history (race, of course, is the main focus, but I am not the sort of academic who cubbyholes myself) I'll gladly take the debating challenge. Coulter is simply not an important or legitimate source for contemporary history, even if I'd play James Carville to her Mary Matalin any day, if you know what I mean.

R. Long - 7/15/2003

Schwartz, snorr..zzzzzzzzzzz

Joe C. again - 7/15/2003

Here's the other one -- sorry about that!

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/schwartz.html

Joe C.

Joe Cherney - 7/15/2003

Stephen Schwartz has a, er, colorful history! Schwartz was described as "a strange and outlandish figure" by the dean of US anthrtopologists Clifford Geertz in a debunking of Schwartz's wring on Islam in the New York Review of Book, July 3rd issue.

The following article shows why:

http://www.anarchymag.org/39/munis.html

NYGuy - 7/15/2003

Derek,

But then again, I'm a liberal, and thus a treasonous pro-communist.

NYGuy

That is not the issue. You had an article on HNN and participated in the question and answer period.

Is this your answer to what Bill is saying. I had started to think we would get better answers, particularly when you talked about the advantage of civil debate with facts at your international get together overseas. I am starting to believe maybe it was just a head nodding conversation.

Bill Heuisler - 7/15/2003

Derek,
Since when have Radosh and Sullivan picked your reading material?
Notice theirs and Schwartz's carping lacks factual ammunition for disagreement. Aren't you just a bit suspicious of all the sound and fury? My knowledge of political events since the fifties is as good as most - and I'll debate anyone who's equally equipped - but I think you should read Coulter's book before criticizing.
Best, Bill

Derek Catsam - 7/15/2003

Bill --
"Ann Coulter's fine book"? You're kidding, right? Even conservatives such as Ron Radosh and Andrew Sullivan (and daily more and more are piling on) have rightly hammered that book for what it is -- poorly conceived, ahistorical, mean but not accurate drivel. Sullivan compares it to Michael Moore's horribly conceived and equally shrill knee jerk leftism. Coulter's book is bad history, bad ideology, and if people like you are buying it hook line and sinker, that makes it dangerous as well. She makes conservatism look like intolerant know-nothingism. But then again, I'm a liberal, and thus a treasonous pro-communist. (Hey, wait a second, what side of the spectrum were Harry Truman, FDR, and Kennedy on? I'll have to re-read my Alonzo Hamby, but I do believe they are of the "traiterous" liberal end of things.)

Bill Heuisler - 7/14/2003

Mr. Schwartz,
You have not read Treason, but you declare yourself drawn in because of the Venona Papers. Then you give reasons for your ire:
1) Much of Venona intercepts dealt with Trotsky, Mexico and internal schisms.
2) An avalanche of self pitying bilge about fellow travelers who died or recanted after heroic struggles with inner demons and former cronies.
None of which has any bearing on Ann Coulter's fine book.

As to your great life struggle and redemption, did any of you come to Chamber's aid when he needed you? Why does error and apostasy deserve commendation more than steadfast belief? You assume nobility. Perhaps you'll excuse some of us for allowing memories of all the innocent victims your "error" caused to dim our admiration.

My advice? Avoid Elysian heralds, never expropriate salvation and at least read a book before attempting a critique.
Bill Heuisler