Sick, or What?
Antiwar.com Senior Editor and Lewrockwell.com Columnist Jeremy Sapienza has once again given everyone an occasion to “smear” him by…quoting him. He recently headlined an essay as follows:
A Grim Milestone — 159,000 US Troops Remain Alive in Iraq
Filed under: War — Jeremy Sapienza @ 2:13 pm
Another occasion that Mr. Sapienza gave to “smear” him by quoting him was when he wrote:
“I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet.”
If William Kristol and other neo-conservatives had tried to invent people to discredit their critics, they could not have done better than the kind of trash that antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com have dredged up. What a truly sickening display of how far someone can go off track — from “the state is an enemy of liberty” to “any enemy of my state is a friend of mine.”
(I mention the “smear” charge because when Mr. Sapienza is quoted, his defenders at lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com insist that such quotations — with links to his expressed opinions — are “smears.”)
UPDATE: I just had a chance to settle in to my hotel room in Portland, Oregon when I checked my email and found one insisting that Mr. Sapienza isn’t a columnist for lewrockwell.com. Sure enough, his name cannot be found on the list. I’ll respond to some of the comments later, but I did have the foresight to take a screenshot of the list of “Columnists and Commentators” before posting the column above. Here it is. And just in case Mr. Sapienza gets dropped from the masthead of the antiwar.com and sent down the memory hole, here’s a screenshot of the antiwar.com masthead taken at the same time the material above was posted. Had the neo-conservative warhawks set out to do it deliberately, it would have been an astonishing accomplishment for them to have invented personas more likely to discredit the cause of non-intervention and peace than Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza.
There’s some misperceptions here that I think it would be good to correct, so that a more mature discussion can be had on this issue. First of all, it’s innacurate to lump Sapienza in with Lew Rockwell or anyone else. His views, whatever their merits may be, are his own. I don’t know what the motivation is to lump them together. Second of all, I don’t think Sapienza is a racist of any kind. Is it such a radical statement to say that some people have more merits or talents than others? People who join the military are signing up for welfare. I’m a young man myself, and know people who have joined the military, and thats basically their thinking: “I get paid and I don’t have to think”.
Now, on to the content of Sapienza’s posts themselves, which have been largely ignored up to this point except by Mr. Long and Sam. Sapienza says that he hopes US Soldiers will be killed. Now, strictly on the basis of libertarian principles, I don’t see any reason to condemn Iraqis who blow up US tanks with IEDs. They’re a military force occupying the area and clearly violating libertarian ethics. They are funded by a state’s stolen tax money. The fact that they are following orders by democratically elected officials is meaningless.
Here’s where I differ from Sapienza: I’m basically indifferent to the deaths of US soldiers, though obviously the loss of life is regrettable. Sapienza’s rants about how he cheers the death of US soldiers aren’t founded in logic or principle, but in anger and hatred, which I can sympathize with to an extent. I’d like to see Sapienza try to defend his views on a rational basis, though.
“They’re a military force occupying the area”
And the Baathists/Islamists are NOT?
A cop stops a guy from raping your sister. Since he was paid in “stolen tax money” his actions were the same as the rapists?
What sickness.
“Is it such a radical statement to say that some people have more merits or talents than others?”
What crap. They are obsessed with skin pigmentation over there, not merit, and you are a fool to deny it.
“People who join the military are signing up for welfare. ”
Untrue, even by insane anarcho-libertarian standards. They being paid wages for service. According to anarcho-fiction, even in fantasy-anarcholand there would be paid enforcers.
http://anti-state.com/blog/?p=24
Tom is the weirdo.
It’s perfectly normal to call for the deaths of 159,000 US Troops.
King Mob writes, “Now, strictly on the basis of libertarian principles, I don’t see any reason to condemn Iraqis who blow up US tanks with IEDs. They’re a military force occupying the area and clearly violating libertarian ethics. They are funded by a state’s stolen tax money. The fact that they are following orders by democratically elected officials is meaningless.”
This line of “reasoning” is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to “libertarian principles.”
Frankly, I’m stunned and terrified that anyone can even argue that this sentiment reflects “libertarian principles.” The closest I can get to excusing this moron is to chalk it up to a severe error, and move on. I’ve been involved in libertarianism for about ten years now, but if this is where libertarianism is going, count me out.
Incidentally, King Mob’s post highlights precisely why it is important to make sure that those who might not already be familiar with libertarianism understand that Rockwell, Raimondo, and Sapienza (and King Mob) do NOT represent the rest of us.
Do us a favor, King Mob. While the rest of us grapple with the serious issues about how to secure liberty in the Middle East, how to bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry, and all the other tough questions surrounding foreign policy in the post-9/11 world, go back and read “The Ethics of Liberty” one more time, so that even though you’ll be worthless in the real world, you can keep convincing yourself that you are the only true libertarian out there.
Remember, transparency is the biggest threat to cults and revolutionary cadres. Their own words and madness are their biggest threats, and they will go to much effort to distort or cover-up their own views.
Keep up the good work Tom. Keep shining that flashlight…
1. Obviously, the Baathists, Islamists, whatever are a rival gang of thugs as well. If a cop stopped someone from raping my sister, I’d thank him wholeheartedly. Where are you getting these bizarre ideas? You think the US military is over there to stop rapists? No, they went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein and install a new government with more democratic trappings and less weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, Saddam Hussein was an evil person, I don’t mourn his passing. But he’s gone now, what’s going on now has nothing to do with him.
Your comments here expose you: you couldn’t care less about human life. You’re no Mother Teresa, my friend. You want all of the insurgents to die. You’re just a collectivist who dislikes it when his collective is attacked by the enemy collective. I hope you get eaten by alligators.
2. I’ve never seen Sapienza make a racist comment. I’ve seen Lew Rockwell make some, but not Sapienza. Please, find one, I’d be thrilled.
3. Fine, they’re being paid wages for service. Oh well, it’s irrelevant to my point anyway.
“This line of ‘reasoning’ is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to ‘libertarian principles.'”
Why not?
“Incidentally, King Mob’s post highlights precisely why it is important to make sure that those who might not already be familiar with libertarianism understand that Rockwell, Raimondo, and Sapienza (and King Mob) do NOT represent the rest of us.”
It would be pretty dumb to think that an individual view reflected everyone elses, wouldn’t it? Want to hear what I think about them? Rockwell is a bigot. Raimondo is a partisan who loves to lie and distort information. Sapienza does the same thing.
“Do us a favor, King Mob. While the rest of us grapple with the serious issues about how to secure liberty in the Middle East, how to bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry, and all the other tough questions surrounding foreign policy in the post-9/11 world, go back and read ‘The Ethics of Liberty’ one more time, so that even though you’ll be worthless in the real world, you can keep convincing yourself that you are the only true libertarian out there.”
Oh, I’m so sorry Greg! Sorry to walk in on this salon of philosophical inquiry where you grapple with these heady issues, painstakingly working to climb the rocky crags of the mountains of evidence in order to bear down the sacred fruit of knowledge, and piss in your drink. What a miscreant I am!
You said I should reread the Ethics of Liberty. Well, I already read it once, hell of a book isn’t it? Check out chapter 24! That crazed radical Rothbard refers to the state as a “criminal organization”. Quite similar to the language I used in my earlier comments, isn’t it!
“Remember, transparency is the biggest threat to cults and revolutionary cadres. Their own words and madness are their biggest threats, and they will go to much effort to distort or cover-up their own views.
Keep up the good work Tom. Keep shining that flashlight…”
Yes, he covered up his views by posting them on the internet with his name attached. As for cultists, maybe he’s a Templar, you should torture it out of him that he’s really a sodomite. Oh right, we already all know that too!
With liberty comes responsibility. I, for example, always take responsibility for my own actions and my own thoughts (which is why I will always put my own name, email and website whenever I make any comments).
Do the writers above take responsibility for their thoughts? Some do. Some, like so many posts that I have looked at, are rude, childish and irresponsible, both in their thinking and in their attitudes.
Tom, for whatever his detractors proclaim, takes responsibility for his actions AND his thoughts, and puts them out in the open for all to see. He’s an activist and quite willing to jump up on any soapbox that he has to speak to the world about his beliefs on liberty in all aspects of his personal and public life. For that I commend him more heartily than those who hide anonymously or pseudonymously.
Sapienza, at least, doesn’t hide under cover, and for that I am glad. Let people who are interested know who he is and what he thinks about killing people.–and be condemned for it!
I have opposed war my entire adult life, from the Viet Nam War to today’s cruelty. I neither support war against some criminal in another country, nor would I ever support making war against our kids in this one.
I have seen too many who signed up with the State Guards with the expectation of having to do a weekend for college in the future to believe that they are killers who should be killed. Our military has never been designed for seiges, nor long-term occupation. The continuation of our occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is an aberrant abomination contrary to American tradition and will not last.
It is the libertarian responsibility to keep the flame of libertarian principles alive for all to see and to experience. It is our responsibility to constantly extend and expand those ideas into all areas of our lives–personal, social and political.
I’ve worked in mediation for too many years not to realize that there are viable, reasonable alternatives. Google on VOM and VORP sometime. Look into alternative dispute resolution. There are entire industries building up and many already long established which provide tools for resolving international problems.
The best to all of you.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/
I’m going to vainly assume the above comment is at least party targeted at me. I’m King Mob, quite well known. Just google me! Anyways, who cares who I am? Deal with my arguments themselves.
“This line of ‘reasoning’ is pathetic, and thankfully does NOT represent, in any form, fidelity to ‘libertarian principles.'”
“Why not?”
Because there is no libertarian principle that says it’s ok for homicidal maniacs to blow people up, or kidnap and decapitate them, merely because they’re part of a military that happens to be in a particular geographic area that you’d rather control instead.
If in March 2003 Iraq was a modern libertarian utopia, had no terrorist ties, and was obviously not a threat to the stability of the middle east or the U.S., and we had “invaded” their country with the intent of taking natural resources and conquering their people, then it would be justified to repel our military presence.
However, it is more than obvious that the “insurgents” who are killing children, beheading foreigners, and exploding bombs on roads to kill soldiers are NOT, in any sense, fighting to repel an unjust invasion. Rather, they are fighting to disrupt a process that would, if left uninterrupted, yield an outcome they find evil, to wit, democracy.
Whether or not the war was justified or not is not the question here. The question is whether it is right–under libertarian principles–for madmen to kill soldiers merely because those soldiers are occupying the physical space that the madmen want for themselves.
Oh, I forgot, though. The soldiers are “funded by a state’s stolen tax money.” I guess that means that “libertarian principles” would allow any of us to set up car bombs all the way down COnstitution Ave. here in D.C. and watch as thousands of government workers are killed. AFter all, D.C. is “occupied territory,” right, Mob? Didn’t Lew Rockwell remind us about how much freer we’d be if terrorists struck my city? After all, the state is just an organized criminal gang. In your world it would be ok to kill all the bureaucrats and government officials in D.C., because they’re part of a gang, and theyre funded by “stolen” tax money.
That, frankly, is insane. It’s murder, and it’s not libertarianism.
Greg = Neocon
I had no idea you were so controversial Tom. You really blew Jeremy’s skirt up. Good work.
Kevin
Jeremy’s responds (he can’t respond here since Tom won’t allow his posts)
http://anti-state.com/blog/?p=25
“Whether or not the war was justified or not is not the question here. The question is whether it is right–under libertarian principles–for madmen to kill soldiers merely because those soldiers are occupying the physical space that the madmen want for themselves.”
And it’s right for soldiers to kill madmen that are occupying the physical space they want for themselves? So what’s the difference between them? One is a state funded army, and one escaped the psych ward?
I’ve just read Mr. Sapienza’s responses to Tom’s post and the comments therein. Apparently we were all wrong about Jeremy…he truly is a life-loving peacenik. Silly me. How could I miss this message in his “A Grim Milestone — 159,000 US Troops Remain Alive in Iraq” post. If I missed his fuzzy life-embracing mantra there, it should have been lovably obvious when he wrote, “That’s 2000 less future homeless junkie serial-killer rapist petty thief semi-crippled nutjobs to be subsidized/suffered by the productive people of these United States.” But now that he’s explained it all, it makes total sense. Sorry Jeremy for the mix up.
Tom won’t let Jeremy post here, but I’m sure he forgives you, Dan.
I have to say that – having read all of the posts – Jeremy Sapienza is even more disgusting than I had thought when I read this piece. Whew. What a piece of work. What a disgrace for “Antiwar”.Com and others to be tied up with someone like that.
fuck all you dirtbag murderers
IT’s worth noting that Sapienza wrote an extensive rebuttal to Palmer, located here:
http://tinyurl.com/d82jf
An eloquent response, just the sort of “logic” and “reasoning” one has come to expect from such quarters. But really, which is the “murderer”: the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?; the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops? Perhaps the best response to the Jeremy Sapienzas and the Justin Raimondos is to ignore them, since their writing style is evidence of a deep desire for attention, rather like a small child’s use of naughty words among adults, but I do understand why Tom Palmer periodically exposes them to inform the rest of us of what their real agenda is.
“An eloquent response, just the sort of ‘logic’ and ‘reasoning’ one has come to expect from such quarters. But really, which is the ‘murderer’: the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?; the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops?”
Democracy has nothing to do with libertarianism.
If my analysis of Balko’s position wasn’t convincing enough, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth:
“…let me put about a thousand miles of distance between myself and the opinions wrongly attributed to me in the comments of this Tom Palmer post. The Sapienza post Palmer links to is disgusting. Holding U.S. troops to a high moral standard is one thing. Wishing them dead is something entirely f***ing different. There is no — zero — common ground between my position on the war and Sapeinza’s, other than that we both apparently wish the U.S. weren’t in Iraq.”
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025849.php#025849
“But really, which is the ‘murderer’: the one who favors killing all of the coalition troops, or the one who opposes it?;”
The latter. Since the troops are killers, cheering when they die is pro-life; wanting them to remain alive is pro-death. So simple.
“the one who favors a defeat of the coalition troops and their massacre and a victory for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Baathists,”
Wow I’m not sure how many more times Jeremy could have said he does not favor a victory for the terrorists and Ba’athists. You people never stop the lie and smear machine. Breathtaking.
“or the one who favors support for the democratic process of resolving differences and a timely withdrawal of foreign troops?”
And then you woke up. The violent occupation of Iraq against the will of the vast majority of its inhabitats will not encourage peace or reconciliation and certainly not (how laughable!) democracy. The resistance (note the distinction between “foreign fighter” types and regular, fed-up Iraqis – if you will permit yourself a minute of honesty) is fighting the US occupation, and the terrorists are taking advantage of both the occupation and the resistance to cause chaos and embroil the US military in Iraq for years to come. And that’s EXACTLY what al-Qaeda AND the neocons want. Convenient!
http://invisibleinternational.blogspot.com/2005/11/palmer-vs-sapienza.html
Probably the takeaway lesson here is not to overextend your arguments. A better way to respond to Sapienza would have been to paraphrase Tolkien:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Well, I’m back from Portland, Oregon (a long trip by itself, made longer by delays and endless time on the runway in Chicago). What a lot of comments above. I’ve now read through them, including the linked ones, and I don’t find the defenses of Mr. Sapienza’s opinions and his character very convincing. In his defense on his website he reveals himself to be utterly lacking in moral and intellectual seriousness. And that’s a mild way of putting it.
(On a side note, it’s a shame, Mr. Sapienza, that my comment spam filter evidently holds up comments that contain lots and lots of links in them, evidently on the grounds that they are probably viagra ads. I’ve just found your attempted comment….79 comments back on the list of comments, which, at 15 per page, is a lot of pages back. It’s a shame that it’s fed your paranoia that a friend sent me an email challenging my claim that you were listed as a Lew Rockwell columnist when, mirabile dictu!, you had made that claim in a posting that I had not seen because it was held up by the comment-spam filter. I’d post your comment now, but it’s all on your website anyway, to which the comments above offer plentiful links [had I been afraid of engaging your sort of character and had I been actively monitoring the comments and aware that you had tried to post a comment, I suspect that I would have deleted any comments linking to it, since…well, you get the idea, but do enjoy your paranoia and this little bit of attention as much as you can]. So I hope that fair-minded people will read what you’ve written and make up their own minds about you and about the organizations that would hire you as a Senior Editor.)
I think that the issues laid out above are fairly clear to intelligent people. A number of points that I might make have already been made by other commenters above, so I’ll instead turn my attention to other matters, such as preparing my lecture notes for my upcoming talks in Iraq, where I hope that I can make some contribution to the attainment of peace, freedom, and justice. So, since the issues have been aired above and there are links to the further vulgar rantings of Mr. Sapienza, I’ll bring this discussion thread to a close….unless anyone really, really has something new to add.