’s Senior Editor Applies His Intellect to a Burning Controversy

Jeremy Sapienza.jpg
One Smart Fella

The allegedly pro-peace folks at have contributed so brilliantly to the discussion of how to avoid a “clash of cultures.” Some of their contributions are catalogued in The Fever Swamp. Their latest contribution, according to’s Senior Editor Jeremy Sapienza: “Muslims are stupid.” Not just the people who have torched embassies, but all Muslims, well over one billion of them. Well. All the subtlety, insight, and respect for truth one would expect of an acolyte of Justin Raimondo.

For the record, I know plenty of Muslims who are obviously far more intelligent than Mr. Sapienza, but then, judging from his latest outburst, that’s clearly an almost insultingly low standard by which to measure anyone, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

23 Responses to “’s Senior Editor Applies His Intellect to a Burning Controversy”

  1. Palmer, you’re really lame. Sapienza is no more an “acolyte” of Raimondo than you are an “acolyte” of the Ayatollah Sistani. Sapienza’s tirade takes the complete opposite tack from Raimondo’s take on the same issue, here:

    You really demean yourself by stooping to this kind of thing. It’s funny, however, that your first link goes to an article in which Sapienza quotes you as some kind of authority.

  2. They’re coworkers. The praise each other. They’re senior editors at the same wacko website. They’re both kooks, with weird, exaggerated approaches to everything. A 20 second Google search found these gems:

    “Jeremy Sapienza, whose column at has always been one of my favorites and whose website,, is the epicenter of the growing market anarchist movement.”

    “The pontificating Palmer, who spends all his time defending the American state, and smearing anyone who opposes its war plans, isn’t even half the libertarian — or the human being — that Jeremy Sapienza is, and, what’s more, he knows it.”

    Acolytes and those who sponsor them don’t have to have the same opinion on everything. One sponsoring the other and employing the other and both having the same wacko, crazy, attack-anything-that-moves style works for me. Don’t know that I would have used the term acolyte, but I do know that the aging priest of wackiness has sponsored his disciple and encouraged in the disciple his defining trait — being “outrageous”, paranoid, and completely crazy.

    Your link just makes Tom’s point, anyway. In his rambling rant, Raimondo attacks Flemming Rose, because the paper he worked for “just yesterday” supported fascism (“just yesterday” refers to over 70 years go, if you bother to follow the link to a Danish web site with some quotes from 1933 about Hitler’s election; do you read Danish? Do you know what they say? Do you care what some writer published in a paper 73 years ago? Would you link a reporter today with what someone allegedly wrote in the same paper 73 years ago?), and goes on to suggest that a paper in little Denmark is the lynchpin of a conscious global conspiracy to start a global war. Now that’s truly crazy, as crazy as Sapienza, his Senior Editor. They’re united in being both completely out of their minds.

    And your last point reveals a lot about your take on ideas, Juanita – what’s all that funny about Sapienza liking a Palmer essay on patents and copyrights? You imply that Palmer shouldn’t take the absurd little squirt on because the little squirt once mentioned him favorably. Now there’s a serious, non-lame, smart response!

    (Oh, how rich it is of Raimondo to write of Tom that he “spends all his time defending the American state”. With all his effort defending the American state, when does he get any time for anything else?)

    And, by the way, which of the two crazy positions do you support? That, as Raimondo tells us, a paper in Denmark is really evil because they’re the lynchpin of a conscious global campaign to start a war (after all, Rose once met with and interviewed Daniel Pipes! That proves it all) or that “Muslims are stupid,” as Sapienza tells us. Wow. Tough choice. Crazy…or crazy? Which to choose?

  3. The use of the word “acolyte” is just plain bizarre, as is the strained connection between Sapienza’s views on the Danish controversy and Raimondo’s diametrically opposed view. But in the world of Tom Palmer and his acolyte, “Tony,” it’s all connected … somehow. Talk about “crazy” — you need to look in a mirror.

    Your foam-flecked tirade gives you away: “Aging priest”? We’re all aging: That’s life.

    As for your defense of the Danish paper that once supported fascism, and is now publishing deliberately insulting and provocative cartoons mocking Islam — the paper’s history is relevent, just as the Walter Duranty’s defense of the Soviet Union in the NY Times is often brought up by conservatives to characterize the liberal mentality. More recently, the Danish paper has been a hotbed of anti-immigrant Muslim-bashing, and propaganda for the Danish Peoples Party — an explicitly racist party. Palmer made much of an interview in a right-wing German magazine that Hans Hermann Hoppe made an appearance in. Why not apply the same standard to The Palmer, who is now defending racist provocations (in the name of “free speech.”)

    Raimondo inquires into the political views of the editor who was responsible for printing the offensive cartoons, surely a legitimate inquiry. He also wonders why there was a campaign to reprint the cartoons all over Europe. Again, a legitimate inquiry.

    A “conscious global campaign to start a war”? Why, who ever heard of such a thing? Surely that could NEVER happen, especially in these peaceful times.

    The whole tone of Palmer’s post, and your reply to me, is filled with emotion-laden epithets — “wacko”, “crazy,” etc. etc. The reaction is way out of proportion to the original subject. Why all the bitchiness?

  4. Whoa….someone accuses a Danish writer of being a part of a coordinated global campaign to start a war and another person (his colleague, senior editor and one of his favorite writers) calls all Muslims “stupid” and worse…and MY note is “way out of proportion to the original subject””? Who should be searching for a mirror? I’ll leave responding to the rest to Palmer. I’ve had my say – your nuttiness isn’t worth any more of my time.

  5. “Dear Mr. Omary: Fuck off and die. Muhammad sucks the shit out of pigs’ asses.”

    how elegant!

    why bother writing about this cretin? we should leave the discussion of Mr. Sapienza and his “thoughts” to medical professionals.

  6. Tom, if anything your post is too soft on these cretins. Raimondo and Sapienza, and What an embarrassment that such low class jerks would call themselves libertarians.

  7. I must take exception to Juanita’s claim that I am “now defending racist provocations (in the name of ‘free speech.’)” How many errors can one little mind pack into a sentence? I would not “defend” a racist provocation in the sense of defending the propriety of making it, nor would I defend the propriety of a provocation against a religion. Juanita insists that I’m not actually in favor of freedom of speech, but that I only use free speech (“in the name of ‘free speech’) as a cover for my real concern, which she claims is to defend racist provocations. (Let’s set aside the little issue of whether the religion known as Islam is a “race.”) Now that makes little sense, even given the twisted logic of someone involved in the Rockwell cult. I found Sapienza’s hateful slander of all Muslims (the mildest of his insults was “stupid”) offensive and sickening. I referred to him as an acolyte of his boss and promoter, Justin Raimondo. Juanita brought out as evidence that they are not connected Raimondo’s conspiracy conjuring about an editor for a Danish newspaper trying to start World War III by printing cartoons. Ummm…hmmmmm. I think that Tony effectively responded to Juanita’s loopy defense. But somehow Juanita later divined that my real intention in linking the two otherwise unconnected kooks was to use concerns about free speech (*that* old ruse) to advance my real concern, which must be to make or defend the making of racist provocations, which I managed to cover with a double-secret-reverse-cover by condemning the disgusting libel issued by Sapienza. Whatever.

    I’ll let others draw whatever conclusions they want from kult priest Hans Hoppe’s eager involvement with the neo-Nazi-lite publication Junge Freiheit and his and Justin Raimondo’s excitement about the denial of the rights of holocaust denier David Irving, which (bad and unjust as that is) Raimondo has equated to the violence and threats of holocausts unleashed by the riots over the cartoon of the founder of Islam. (As Raimondo asks, “When will Rose and Jyllands-Posten come to Irving’s defense? Probably not soon.” Well, *that* surely proves that their real purpose was to “psychologically prepare” us “for another world war,” for which “the first shots are being fired from the pages of Jyllands-Posten.”)

    Emile is right. That whole gang is an embarrassment. It’s almost impossible to get through their writings without feeling dirty.

  8. I’m sure you believe in free speech, but since the free speech rights of that Danish rag were never abrogated by anyone, and are not about to be, that is not the issue.

    You tied in Sapienza’s “Muslims Are Stupid” piece with Raimondo. But what’s the connection? They both work for the same employer. Raimondo is supposedly a “promoter” of Sapienza, but that is gibberish. Raimondo never promoted Sapienza’s “Stupid Muslims” tirade, and in fact took the opposite tack from Sapienza on the issue.

    You love calling people names: sick, wacko, hate-filled, etc. etc. But the real whack-job is you. In your crazed obsession with Raimondo — and Lew Rockwell — you connect EVERYTHING and EVERYONE you don’t like with them and their views. It’s all a Vast Raimondo-Sapienza-Rockwell Conspiracy.

    Speaking of embarrassment, go back and review your own writings on this subject. If you don’t feel dirtied by your own mud-slinging, then at least have the sense to be embarrassed by your laughable pretentiousness.

  9. I just gotta jump back in on this. “Juanita” really tries to make a damn good case. It’s just not clear what it is. Is it so awful to point out in the pretty tame language Tom used that Sapienza is a wacko for writing what he wrote about Muslims? Juanita tries to deflect attention from that and make whatever case she’s trying to make turn on whether Sapienza is an acolyte of Raimondo. So that’s it? Hey, there’s no connection there at all! Raimondo just praises and promotes and hires people randomly! And how awful that Tom has ever in the past criticized Lew Rockwell and his circus. It’s JUST A COINCIDENCE that Sapienza was a columnist for Rockwell and works for Raimondo, the guy that rockwell plugs on his site so often. There’s no connection among any of them! It’s all a COINCIDENCE. They’re just random guys. They’re standins for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.

    Juanita, it’s really appropriate that you started your defense of all things Rockwellian with the phrase “really lame.”

  10. Oh, I forgot one thing. Anyone who can follow the twisted logic of Raimondo or Sapienza has a screw loose. The most important thing they have in common is that both of them are utterly crazy. Raimondo’s conspiracy theories are about as loony as you can get. And Sapienza’s display of hatred is sickening.

    One set of dots can be connected, though. Rockwell and Raimondo and Sapienza are connected; they boost each other, support each other, praise each other, write for each other. They may not be connected with much else (reality, for example), but when Tom points out that those three are connected, it’s backed up by something more credible than the paranoia you find in Raimondo’s rants.

  11. What bull you’re spouting, Tony. You have no idea who hired Sapienza at, or whether Raimondo has anything to do with hiring. So Sapienza wrote articles that were posted on — Tom Palmer has addressed the Iraqi parliament. Does that mean he’s full of Shi’ite? He’s also written for National Review: does that make him a neocon shill and a complete sell-out? No, of course not.

    The fact is that if you put Sapienza’s piece and Raimondo’s piece side by side, it is Sapienza who seems to be in agreement with Palmer’s view of the Denmark controversy. Sapienza says Muslims suck, and Palmer says, tut tut, those rude Muslims (not that there’s anything wrong with that) are doing terrrrrrible things, threatening “free speech” by exercising their own right of free speech in protesting sacrilege.

    The whole point of Palmer’s post is to associate Sapienza’s exercise in unintentional humor with Raimondo — somehow, some way. Palmer has only succeeded in — once again — exhibiting his peculiar obsession with even more embarrassing and incoherent results than usual.

  12. Tom G. Palmer

    Poor Juanita. In order to deny that Sapienza’s rants are truly sickening (they’re just “unintentional humor”), she has to put words into my mouth and assert that I have condemned people for peacefully expressing their views. Hardly. I am — astonishing, I know — opposed to people burning down buildings or threatening to behead or blow up people who draw cartoons. (Even if the threatening did not lead to a beheading or an explosion, it’s a threat of violence.)

    Juanita can’t quite get her head around the idea that whether I approve of someone’s views or not, that person has the right to express them peacefully. That includes drawing cartoons and holding picket signs (certainly those that express an opinion and don’t threaten to kill people with different views). Juanita evidently sees no difference between the peaceful manifestation of views in London over the weekend, on the one hand, and the violent mob in Damascus and the earlier open threats of violence in London, on the other. I do. Which of us is incoherent?

    In any case, it’s not worth my time to engage Juanita any further. Any fair-minded person can make up his or her mind. I invite anyone to hold his or her nose and read the rantings of the Senior Editor of Then I suggest taking a shower.

  13. I’ve asked this several times, but never got a good answer for it:

    Who pays Raimondo, Rockwell and Sapienza?

    Where do they get their funding? How do they make their rent payments?

    Do they pay trolls like “juanita” to pimp their sick views?

    I’ve seen many nasty posts over at Kult Central (aka Center for Libertarian Studies) about who funds Tom,, etc. But not once do they ever talk about who pays their saleries. I have some theories about who might pay…but I don’t want to speculate until I try to find out some answers.

  14. It fascinates me as a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian that Raimondo, Rockwell, Sapienza et al would so insistently claim a libertarian spirit for their bilious rants. For what other discernible reason do they “endorse” liberty other than to rub into every civilized person’s face the fact that no one can force them not to be drooling bigots? How high-minded.

  15. Otto Kerner

    That which is linked here is not Sapienza’s best work, that’s for sure. One should read it in light of his normal style, which is exaggerated and sometimes foul-mouthed. It doesn’t really bother me that he curses and that he is insensitive — that’s his schtick. He’s entitled to his opinion that Islam is (and hence Muslims qua Muslim are) stupid; he can certainly be faulted for obnoxiousness, and I doubt that’s a charge he would do much to deny. However, the really serious flaw with this tirade of his here is that he lumps all Muslims in with specific ones who did specific bad things. Even if you don’t find that offensive for some larger reason of context, it’s just plain dumb and a logical fallacy. You’d expect to see that sort of thing from a football-watching Republican or a caller-in to FOX News or something. Normally, Sapienza is a little more cogent than that.

  16. I think Juaniti is right; it’s inaccurate to lump Sapienza with Raimondo. After all, Sapienza didn’t once blame the Joooos. How can any acolyte of Raimondo’s forget that everything traces back to the Joooos?

    (In the second paragraph of Raimondo’s piece, he implies it… but, showing unusual restraint, he doesn’t come out and say so explicitly until the fifth paragraph.)

  17. “Jooos?”, as if you’ve ever heard him pronounce the word. I guess some communities are just automatically beyond criticism! This is known as “responsible libertarianism.” You are all also advanced skeptics, with nary a “kult” feeling for G_d’s Older Brothers.