Jan 8, 2005
Can Justin Raimondo Understand English?
In a series of replies to my recent Blog here, the heroic Internet journalist at antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, labeled me an “idiot.” If he meant the way in which Doestoyevsky used that term in a book, then I especially thank him.
If not, I still thank him, for this may be a case of “it takes one to know one,” and without his splendid insight, I might never have become aware of my condition.
Despite his rather intemperate tone, what concerns me is his seeming inability to read and understand English. ¡Si queres, Justin, nos podemos comunicar en español! I have for years read his columns with interest, but now the question arises, can I trust his research any longer?
For example, he writes that “in a long, rambling piece …[Bill Marina] complains about libertarians ‘getting into bed’ with the Left”
What I wrote was “I just don’t think I want to climb into bed with True Believers with the goal of some kind of misguided, military, FGW [Fourth Generation War], Futile Crusade to make the world safe for American ideas of Liberty.”
I said nothing about anybody else climbing into bed, referring only to myself not doing so, and nothing about anyone doing so “with the Left.” The two people I mentioned, with whom I was dissenting, were William Lind and Lew Rockwell, both, as Raimondo acknowledges, clearly from the Right.
I spent some time describing Puritans as True Believers before relating that to today’s versions. Is that “rambling,” and too hard to follow?
Here’s another Menckenism on the Puritans: “A Puritan is someone who’s afraid that somewhere, somehow, somebody might be happy.” Justin sounds to me, not only very angry, but perhaps unhappy as well, and not just about me. Are you also a Puritan, Justin?
As I have observed over the years, what happens to libertarians who dissent, from within that dwindling group, I have increasingly defined myself primarily as a Taoist, as I first did over 40 years ago.
One theme that came through in the comments was that “we” are such a small group, “we” need to stick together and not quarrel. I have never placed that need over open dissent.
As a Taoist, I have valued the view that one can be “ a majority of one,” and especially Dr. Stockmann’s observation in Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” that “a man is strongest when he stands most alone.”
Justin complains that I am so negative, that I mentioned no one whose work appears to satisfy me: “is anybody good enough for you?” Again, it appears he cannot read very well. I mentioned HL Mencken, Murray Rothbard, William Appleman Williams, Carroll Quigley, Adam Smith and the Tao. If it will help to make you happy, Justin, I can give you the names of many other writers whose works I have found enlightening.
Justin goes on at me: “I am sick unto death of ‘libertarians’ who sit on the sidelines carping, kvetching, and coughing up all sorts of ‘objections’ to what we do at antiwar.com.” As a reader and supporter, my only comment, Justin, was that you might reconsider running Lind’s writings as a regular column, doing some of them as you might Paul Wolfowitz’s writings, in telling us about the aims of the Empire. As it is, you have institutionalized the work of someone whose goal is to improve the technology of warfare. Is that antiwar?
I am again saddened that you are so unhappy about all of those “carping” libertarians who have complained to you. I guess you can understand why I define myself primarily as a Taoist.
Justin says I nowhere cite or quote Lind. That is true, I thought a reader might go to antiwar.com among the links on the right side of the L&P site, and read for themselves. That’s what they are for. Justin also says I have “lied” about Lind’s position.
So, Justin, here’s a quotation from Lind at the end of his article in the lewrockwell.com Archives for October 7, 2004, which I believe says it all:
“The Fourth Generation seminar met Friday for the first time since last spring, and we have decided to write our own field manual on Fourth Generation war. It will be modeled on the excellent field manuals the U.S. Marine Corps issued when General Al Gray was Commandant. We plan to have it out in the first half of next year; LRC will offer the whole FMFM.”
I am opposed to war as a means of solving human problems or as means of enhancing State Systems.
Military strategists have been attempting to figure out ways to suppress “people’s war” for well over two millennia. While I doubt he will, if Mr. Lind now succeeds in developing more “humane” counter-insurgency tactics, he will certainly be a hero with the Marines, and all of the thuggish dictators around the world, who will adopt these tactics in putting down their own people.
And at least two libertarian, anti-state, anti-war web sites will be helping to disseminate that information. Now, maybe that will make you happy, Justin!
I haven’t totally sat “on the sidelines,” Justin. Interested readers can consult some of my writings on Peoples War, Marine Handbooks, weapons technology, etc, among the several articles under my name at independent .org. Here are two, that relate to the above, and that will link to many others:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1283
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1286
What really disturbs me, however, is not your calling me an idiot, or seeming to misread my words, but rather your own:
“Lind is working from the assumption that we are indeed at war, and that there is a rational way to fight it: not in Iraq, not against states whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, but against what Michael Scheuer calls the "worldwide Islamist insurgency" represented by Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.”
If I understand you correctly, Lind’s manual will help the Marines find bin Ladin, something we have not yet been able to do.
A “rational way to fight” war; and, I mistakenly thought you were antiwar. Apparently an erroneous “assumption.” “Rational War” — pronounced with a slight Russian accent, sounds like something out of Ayn Rand, as when she used to tell her husband, Frank, to go out for a “rational walk” so that she could have sex with Nathaniel Branden. I hope Osama will listen to your reason.
Scheuer, dear Justin, appears to be writing about a war of ideas somewhat different from a new Handbook modeled along lines of that of the Marines.
Are you the official spokesperson for antiwar.com? If the aims of antiwar.com are as you state them, to develop new means of “rational” war, rather than to oppose war per se, then you really ought to get rid of that “negativism” you accuse me of, and perhaps change the name of your web site to “rationalwar.com,” along with proclaiming that the aim is really to fight the "worldwide Islamist insurgency." Given your aims, that is certainly more logical, straight forward and honest, for a group that is really not fundamentally antiwar, but rather seeking ways to wage rational war. For openers that should attract a number of Randians!
If not, I still thank him, for this may be a case of “it takes one to know one,” and without his splendid insight, I might never have become aware of my condition.
Despite his rather intemperate tone, what concerns me is his seeming inability to read and understand English. ¡Si queres, Justin, nos podemos comunicar en español! I have for years read his columns with interest, but now the question arises, can I trust his research any longer?
For example, he writes that “in a long, rambling piece …[Bill Marina] complains about libertarians ‘getting into bed’ with the Left”
What I wrote was “I just don’t think I want to climb into bed with True Believers with the goal of some kind of misguided, military, FGW [Fourth Generation War], Futile Crusade to make the world safe for American ideas of Liberty.”
I said nothing about anybody else climbing into bed, referring only to myself not doing so, and nothing about anyone doing so “with the Left.” The two people I mentioned, with whom I was dissenting, were William Lind and Lew Rockwell, both, as Raimondo acknowledges, clearly from the Right.
I spent some time describing Puritans as True Believers before relating that to today’s versions. Is that “rambling,” and too hard to follow?
Here’s another Menckenism on the Puritans: “A Puritan is someone who’s afraid that somewhere, somehow, somebody might be happy.” Justin sounds to me, not only very angry, but perhaps unhappy as well, and not just about me. Are you also a Puritan, Justin?
As I have observed over the years, what happens to libertarians who dissent, from within that dwindling group, I have increasingly defined myself primarily as a Taoist, as I first did over 40 years ago.
One theme that came through in the comments was that “we” are such a small group, “we” need to stick together and not quarrel. I have never placed that need over open dissent.
As a Taoist, I have valued the view that one can be “ a majority of one,” and especially Dr. Stockmann’s observation in Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” that “a man is strongest when he stands most alone.”
Justin complains that I am so negative, that I mentioned no one whose work appears to satisfy me: “is anybody good enough for you?” Again, it appears he cannot read very well. I mentioned HL Mencken, Murray Rothbard, William Appleman Williams, Carroll Quigley, Adam Smith and the Tao. If it will help to make you happy, Justin, I can give you the names of many other writers whose works I have found enlightening.
Justin goes on at me: “I am sick unto death of ‘libertarians’ who sit on the sidelines carping, kvetching, and coughing up all sorts of ‘objections’ to what we do at antiwar.com.” As a reader and supporter, my only comment, Justin, was that you might reconsider running Lind’s writings as a regular column, doing some of them as you might Paul Wolfowitz’s writings, in telling us about the aims of the Empire. As it is, you have institutionalized the work of someone whose goal is to improve the technology of warfare. Is that antiwar?
I am again saddened that you are so unhappy about all of those “carping” libertarians who have complained to you. I guess you can understand why I define myself primarily as a Taoist.
Justin says I nowhere cite or quote Lind. That is true, I thought a reader might go to antiwar.com among the links on the right side of the L&P site, and read for themselves. That’s what they are for. Justin also says I have “lied” about Lind’s position.
So, Justin, here’s a quotation from Lind at the end of his article in the lewrockwell.com Archives for October 7, 2004, which I believe says it all:
“The Fourth Generation seminar met Friday for the first time since last spring, and we have decided to write our own field manual on Fourth Generation war. It will be modeled on the excellent field manuals the U.S. Marine Corps issued when General Al Gray was Commandant. We plan to have it out in the first half of next year; LRC will offer the whole FMFM.”
I am opposed to war as a means of solving human problems or as means of enhancing State Systems.
Military strategists have been attempting to figure out ways to suppress “people’s war” for well over two millennia. While I doubt he will, if Mr. Lind now succeeds in developing more “humane” counter-insurgency tactics, he will certainly be a hero with the Marines, and all of the thuggish dictators around the world, who will adopt these tactics in putting down their own people.
And at least two libertarian, anti-state, anti-war web sites will be helping to disseminate that information. Now, maybe that will make you happy, Justin!
I haven’t totally sat “on the sidelines,” Justin. Interested readers can consult some of my writings on Peoples War, Marine Handbooks, weapons technology, etc, among the several articles under my name at independent .org. Here are two, that relate to the above, and that will link to many others:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1283
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1286
What really disturbs me, however, is not your calling me an idiot, or seeming to misread my words, but rather your own:
“Lind is working from the assumption that we are indeed at war, and that there is a rational way to fight it: not in Iraq, not against states whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, but against what Michael Scheuer calls the "worldwide Islamist insurgency" represented by Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.”
If I understand you correctly, Lind’s manual will help the Marines find bin Ladin, something we have not yet been able to do.
A “rational way to fight” war; and, I mistakenly thought you were antiwar. Apparently an erroneous “assumption.” “Rational War” — pronounced with a slight Russian accent, sounds like something out of Ayn Rand, as when she used to tell her husband, Frank, to go out for a “rational walk” so that she could have sex with Nathaniel Branden. I hope Osama will listen to your reason.
Scheuer, dear Justin, appears to be writing about a war of ideas somewhat different from a new Handbook modeled along lines of that of the Marines.
Are you the official spokesperson for antiwar.com? If the aims of antiwar.com are as you state them, to develop new means of “rational” war, rather than to oppose war per se, then you really ought to get rid of that “negativism” you accuse me of, and perhaps change the name of your web site to “rationalwar.com,” along with proclaiming that the aim is really to fight the "worldwide Islamist insurgency." Given your aims, that is certainly more logical, straight forward and honest, for a group that is really not fundamentally antiwar, but rather seeking ways to wage rational war. For openers that should attract a number of Randians!