“Terror – meaning the infliction of physical violence on the innocent, through such acts as suicide bombings in public places – is the quintessence of militant Islamic fundamentalism … [It] rejects any and all coexistence with Judaism and Christianity … like Nazism and Communism, [it] will be a threat to the peace of the world as long as it is allowed to flourish under Saudi patronage.”
So wrote neo-conservative convert Stephen Schwartz in an October 25, 2001 article in National Review. Over the past four years, Schwartz has steadily been building a name for himself as a commentator on Islam, and is working on a book on the subject called the “Two Faces Of Islam." But many have been confused by his changing perceptions of the Muslim faith. After all, it was only a few years ago when Schwartz made his leap from obituary page writer at the San Francisco Chronicle to religious expert stressing the similarities between Islam and Judaism (a way of saying it is similar to being good), briefly converting to a Sufi Muslim, and calling himself “Suleyman Ahmad” on the way. As Schwartz wrote in a December 31, 1997 San Francisco Chronicle article on the story of Ramadan:
“[Praying at night] is among many similarities between Islam and Judaism, in that mystically oriented Jews pray at night.”
And on April 7, 1998, when he described the practices of the holiday Eid Al-Adha, he wrote:
“The killing of the sheep recalls the story of Abraham and his son, which is shared, with some differences, by Jews, Christians and Muslims.”
These reports hardly seem to reflect a rejection of “any and all coexistence with Judaism and Christianity”, as Schwartz would conclude three and a half years later.
Many are wondering how this cheerleader of US intervention in Kosovo and Islamic-Albanian rebellion, described by his friends fifteen years ago as being “short, rotund … with grey and black hair”, converted so quickly to being the spearhead of the Zionist demand to destroy Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi branch of the Muslim faith. But looking into his history – from his days as a reviled member of San Francisco’s far-left anarchist-punk community, to his conversion to Jewish conservatism in the mid-1980s while working on a CIA-funded report on Grenada, to his sudden reappearance on the modern political scene as a spouter of pro-war anti-Muslim hate – one can see that Schwartz has always been perceived as a blowhard making any ridiculous statements he thinks will impress his audience, without any real convictions or evidence to back them up. As Keith Sorel, a former comrade of Schwartz’s, described in Winter 1994 issue of Anarchy! Magazine:
“In the summer of 1984 … I … made contact with ‘Comrade Sandalio’, also known as Steve Schwartz … Schwartz described himself as an internationally recognized surrealist poet. … Schwartz claimed he’d found the philosopher’s stone of the class struggle … Schwartz claimed that the Russian and German revolutions and all the revolts and uprisings since 1917 has been minor footnotes to the union-controlled San Francisco General strike of 1934 ... I began to detect a pattern of screwy activity. Schwartz had a penchant for making grandiloquent statements and later retracting them or refusing to back them up. … In Caffe Trieste in North Beach he repeatedly bragged loudly that he was ‘one of the world’s leading historians of the Spanish Revolution.’”
Sorel’s peculiar portrait of Schwartz was substantiated by Schwartz’s own behavior towards Pravda. The day before this article was to run, Schwartz sent us more than a dozen emails, ranging from threatening to pleading, demanding that we not run details of his personal life, and describing the martyrdom he would have when we did. Typical of this exchange were megalomanic commentaries on his “victimhood” such as:
“I live a reclusive life and social acceptance is not very important … I am also old and tired. Is this funny for you? … I don’t understand why these things are funny … [I have] had the absurd tendency to wear my heart on my sleeve … I am not ashamed to pay the price …”
And from that disturbing – and clearly disturbed – start, we can delve into the history of a man who has re-surfaced on the pages of America’s Judaeo-Christian Zionist propaganda sheets to preach internationalist hatred of the Arab people. And like Dante, we don’t let his self-pity and his wrath keep us from thrusting him back into the mud as we proceed.
“Schwartz assured me he was still an ‘ultra-left communist’ and a ‘libertarian socialist.’”
So Mr Sorel tells us, and his expose of Schwartz is an enlightening look into how this one-time leftist radical came to be the mouthpiece of CIA war-mongering. Though Schwartz hates Sorel, telling Pravda that Sorel is:
“A frustrated anarchist looking for a leader to follow … a youthful nutcase writing about sectariana completely unknown to the outside world.”
Sorel’s account cannot be dismissed so easily. It is a detailed portrait of Schwartz that largely conforms to other reports, such as that given by Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo. Schwartz, however, defames Raimondo too, telling Pravda that:
“Of course I don’t have to dialogue with Raimondo. He has tried to fabricate a fake history for me … All I have to do in dealing with Raimondo is mention those three famous little words that were thrown in his face by one of my CHRONICLE colleagues: Gays for Buchanan?”
Wow. But that “devastating” argument aside, our investigation of this man begins.
“Schwartz told me he had worked on merchant ships crossing the Pacific … in the late 1960s. In the 1970s he’d participated in anti-union workers’ committees while a clerk in the Southern Pacific Railroad yards in Richmond, California.”
The anti-union aspect being interesting, because, as Raimondo remembers, Schwartz was:
“A former fellow traveler of the Spartacist League, … [who] would show up at the informal conservative journalists round table … at the Union Club on San Francisco’s Nob Hill, trying to convince a rather skeptic bunch of right-wingers about the virtues of labor unions.”
But that contradiction is the least hypocritical aspect of the ever-changing Schwartz. Before Schwartz hit the Trot scene, Eugene, Oregon anarchist John Zerzan, in a November 12, 1985 letter published in the Fifth Estate, stated that he:
“Knew Schwartz … since ’75 and he always struck me as a pretty ridiculous character. … I remember sometime around ’76 – ’77 … a flyer he put out upon leaving Francis Ford Coppola’s employ ‘exposing’ this film capitalist. … Then about a year later he made himself a joke by trying to recruit San Francisco punks – who all laughed at him while spending his money … !”
This was all before Sorel encountered Schwartz in a “rabbit-warren office” working as the official historian of the AFL-CIO affiliated Sailors Union of the Pacific. Schwartz was at the time a member of the Industrial Workers of the World – the Wobblies – and, in his late thirties, was still limited in his commentary to a number of underground and “radical” ‘zines, including The Alarm!, a “left-communist” irregular, and Search and Destroy, a local punk music rag.
Using the pen-names Comrade Sandalio, to lend his tracts on Central America “radical” credibility, and Nico Ordway, for reasons unknown, Schwartz published a number of essays on, as Sorel says, Schwartz’s “unique theories on the crisis in Nicaragua.” As Sorel relates:
“Schwartz claimed … the Sandinistas [would be forced] to invade northern Costa Rica. There they would confront … the former Sandinista Eden Pastora. … Schwartz claimed that Pastora was a closet-case libertarian socialist revolutionary. Schwartz referred to Pastora repeatedly as ‘the Nestor Mahkno of Central America.’ … I pressed Schwartz to justify this ridiculous claim. He hemmed and hawed … As a last resort, Schwartz whined that if Pastora snagged state power, he’d be able to sell copies of the Alarm! in Managua. ... Schwartz exclaimed in a phone call: ‘Comrade Sandalio is back!’”
It wasn’t long after Sorel encountered Schwartz in 1984 that Schwartz converted to the neo-conservative camp. Remarkably, his conversion was during an assignment as a researcher for the Institute for Contemporary Studies, a front group funded by the “Judaeo-Christian” Zionist Bradley Foundation (see my prior article in Pravda “White Zion” http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/11/23/21825.html), which has given it nearly $6 million dollars since 1991. The project Schwartz worked on, a justification of the Reaganite invasion of Grenada called the Grenada Papers, brought him into contact with not only Ed Meese (of “Ed Meese Is A Pig” fame), but also Michael Ledeen – the man who would, two years later, be the CIA-Mossad contact during the Iran Contra scandal, and who would later be a senior editor at the neo-conservative weekly National Review. As Sorel tells us:
“Before the publication of the Grenada Papers, Schwartz had bragged the book was his and that he was its chief editor. As it turned out, Schwartz’s contribution was in a secondary capacity … After reading the Grenada Papers, I brought an abrupt end to my fast fading friendship with Stephen Schwartz.”
Fallen From Grace
After his time with Sorel, Schwartz’s history becomes somewhat obscure, as he himself faded into obscurity. It is known that he initially, in 1984-85, took over as editor of the Institute for Contemporary Studies’ publication, the Journal of Contemporary Studies. It was at this time that Raimondo spotted him “associated with the Institute for Contemporary Studies, the unofficial think tank of the arms industry.”
While there he published a number of articles demanding US anti-communist intervention in Central America. This push, which was masterminded by the US CIA, was the same program that would later lead to ex-leftists like David Horowitz being shipped off to Nicaragua to teach propaganda techniques to the Contra rebels.
And during this time of conversion into a CIA shill, Schwartz remained a member of the Wobblies, who refused to expel him for technical reasons. In fact, in May of 1985, Schwartz took out an ad in the Wobbly publication Industrial Worker, advertising his membership and his role in promoting Reaganite war-mongering. As Zerzan stated:
“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!”
And anywhere is where he landed – working for Reaganites and whoring information on his old leftist comrades for contracts on his future books.
In the late 1980s, Schwartz joined conservative “watchdog” groups engaged in spying on his former comrades on the left. Though Schwartz denies it, telling Pravda:
“Notwithstanding a lot of loony fantasies by people I have never spied on anybody.”
He was unable to explain a November 10, 1987 NBC radio broadcast entitled “Private Spies”, where he was profiled as a member of an ADL-like organization, working for the Department of Justice. As anchor Sylvia Chase said:
“People and groups who speak out against Reagan administration policies put themselves in jeopardy of surveillance by private intelligence gathering organizations. … Target 4 has learned it’s a kind of private spy network: conservative groups, with close ties to the White House. Members say they pass the information that they collect to federal agencies, like the Justice Department.
"Stephen Schwartz is a member of what he calls the commie-watching network. . [Schwartz:] We'll be seeing all of the NSC (National Security Council) people, I'm sure. . Schwartz says he addressed a White House meeting attended by Oliver North and even met former CIA director William Casey."
When asked about it, Schwartz grew defensive and incoherent, telling Pravda:
“I never said to anybody that I was spying on anybody. I said I was part of a group of experts who kept track of Communists. … That's all. Nobody can claim anything else except for stupid people trying to twist an ambush interview. … I said I do not want any contact with you. Your communications reflect mental instability and a propensity for threatening behavior. Do not send me any more communications. You are evil.”
In 1988 he co-authored a book “Spanish Marxism Versus Soviet Communism: A History of the P. O. U. M”, using information gained from Spanish POUM archives through his fraternal membership in a group called FOCUS, Fomento Obrero Revolucionario Organizing Committee in the United States. As Sorel tells us:
“By attaching himself to FOR, Schwartz could gain notice among Trotskyists … He … went after the FOR to hustle first hand information from [Spanish POUM leader] Grandizo Munis about Munis’ role in the armed uprising of the working class in Barcelona in May 1937. … Schwartz also went after FOR for information about the poet Benjamin Peret. … Munis had a violent hostility to bourgeois historians and hated the appropriation of the experience of radical proles by academics and careerist hacks. After several meeting with ‘Comrade Sandalio’, the people in the FOR decided that Schwartz was a two-faced low-life, a liar and a fraud. They told him to f*ck off, even threatening him with violence … Schwartz parroted the FOR’s perspectives. After being rejected by the FOR, he was left adrift, and parroted a variety of other opinions.”
Schwartz viewed those who made such criticisms of him with contempt. In an August 26, 1985 letter to the anarchist journal Fifth Estate, he wrote:
“It is really quite amusing to be called a ‘disappointment’ by yourselves … I owe you no explanations whatsoever. … In attacking me without any attempt to learn from me what has happened … you are availing yourselves of the classical Stalinist method. … World War III is about to break out … What are you going to do when OUR journal publishes articles by Frank Fernandez of Guangara Libertaria? …”
Schwartz also got busy working his way in as a voice in the mainstream media. His first noticed appearance in the San Francisco Chronicle was an April 11, 1986 editorial where Schwartz demanded US intervention in Nicaragua on the side of the Contras. Soon he was taken on staff – as the paper’s obituary writer, later also dabbling in the local crime beat. Raimondo tells us Schwartz was unhappy in this position, writing that:
“He bitterly denounced the Bay Area Stalinists who he insisted were out to get him: according to him, he lived in perpetual fear of his job due to the all-pervasive atmosphere of political correctness in the news room.”
During those times the following incident, reported in the San Francisco Examiner, occurred on May 6, 1987:
“When ‘New Age Rightist’ Stephen Schwartz discovered graffiti calling him ‘the philosophical whore of North Beach,’ the former Trotskyist turned red with rage … He uncapped his felt-tipped pen and was printing a reply to the scurrilous scribblings when he was busted by Mayor Feinstein’s anti-graffitti police squad. …”
In 1992 Schwartz published a book on Nicaragua entitled “Strange Silence: Emergence of Democracy in Nicaragua”. According to the Barnesandnoble.com sales rankings, no one has ever bought a copy from their system. When asked, Schwartz would not tell Pravda how many copies were in print.
Schwartz also has claimed he spent time in Bosnia during the mid-1990s. According to Raimondo, in 1999:
“Schwartz boasted about how many times he had been to Bosnia, and declared that he would soon be leaving the Chronicle for an unspecified position in the Kosovo-Bosnia region.”
However, exactly what time he spent in the Balkans is unclear, unless he continued to file local news and obituaries with the Chronicle from half way around the world. His published news coverage is a relatively unbroken and regular stream of articles throughout the period 1995-99. And the earliest published first-person account of Bosnia Pravda uncovered was a piece entitled “the Rabbi of Stolac”, which appeared in March, 1999. Though Pravda has uncovered 84 pieces Schwartz has published on the subject since then, it seems that Schwartz waited to travel to the region until the fighting in Bosnia was over and the US was planning to bomb Kosovo, when he was sent over to, as he told Pravda:
“set up a joint trade union of Serbian, Bosnian Muslim, and Croatian journalists”
Remarkably just what David Horowitz had been sent to do by the CIA-backed US Information Agency in Nicaragua in 1988. Officially, of course, Schwartz was there as a representative of the International Federation of Journalists. But Schwartz assures Pravda that his experience in the Balkans has been more than just casual, though he seems to have managed to avoid being there when any of the actual fighting was taking place. In fact, as he told the Naqshbandi-Haqqani Sufi Order of America in a speech:
“I made three trips to Bosnia … during the 1990s”
The first was in 1990, before the breakup of the Soviet Bloc, and before the emergence of the Serb-Croat-Albanian/Bosnian/Muslim war. As he puts it to Pravda:
“I first went to the Balkans in 1990, and I have no respect for people, whatever their opinions about the Balkans … [who] never … had the guts to go there … even after Dayton when it was safe.”
The other two trips appear to have started in 1999 - totally avoiding the decade of actual fighting. None of the trips appear to have lasted more than a month or two, and occurred in a brief period in 1999. Schwartz eventually moved there, and stayed until July 2001, when he tells Pravda he gave up his apartment and returned to the States. But what qualifies him as an 'expert' on the subject remain unclear, as his experience with the actual conflict appears limited.
So it’s not surprising that when Pravda asked him to name the current largest Croatian Nationalist Party – the Party led until 1999 by Franjo Tudjman – he couldn’t tell us the HDZ. Neither did he know that a group with a similar sounding name, the HOS, had dressed as SS soldiers and committed atrocities against non-Croat populations in 1991-92.
When Pravda then sent a letter to several publications that carry Schwartz, including the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and the Nation, asking them why their “expert” on the Balkans couldn’t answer this simple question, we received an e-mail response from Schwartz several hours later. He told us his editors had contacted him, and did provide us with the right answers at that point – but it was unclear whether or not those right answers had been given to him by an editorial staff trying to cover their rear.
And as an amusing aside, when Pravda sent a letter to one of Schwartz’s neo-conservative associates, David Horowitz of FrontPageMag.com, asking Horowitz to confirm Schwartz’s activities during the early 1990s, and to, separately, explain some rumors about Schwartz’s ex-wife, Horowitz flipped out, going red with rage, telling your humble correspondent in an angry, shouted email:
“GO F*CK YOUR NAZI SELF!”
Strange though that statement was coming from a man who is himself regularly smeared as a neo-racist.
Given that Schwartz’s career in the 1990s seemed as dead as his subject matter, it seems odd that the ruling class would resurrect Schwartz from the bowels of oblivion to lead their anti-Serb and anti-Saudi campaigns. But resurrected he was. As Raimondo tells us:
“On day 2 of the [Kosovo] bombing, no sooner had I turned on my television set but there [Schwartz] was, on a local cable news channel … ranting about how the United States had to liberate the Serbian people … I hadn’t seen Schwartz in years, but there he was, calling for an all-out American effort and confidentially predicting victory over Serbia in a week. … In both his appearances, the host had introduced him as Stephen Schwartz of the San Francisco Chronicle. What they had tactfully left out was that his reporting was confined to the obituary page …”
And Schwartz is sensitive about his role there. When Pravda made a comment questioning how his history of writing obituaries qualified him as an Islamic scholar, he retorted in a series of e-mails:
“The fact that you, like the dementia case Raimondo, think there is something contemptible about obituary writers shows that you do not know anything about newspapers … [T]hrough th[at] period I worked … [on] my book From West To East: California and the Making Of the American Mind. … There were a lot of people I was tracking for the book, and if they died I wrote their obituaries to have a printed reference source for the book.”
But how has he parleyed that work writing death notices into being an “expert” on Islamic politics, hawked on the pages of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal? One can only think the ruling class is hoping that no one notices what a fool he is until they have concluded their peace, in the manner of the Romans, “ubi solitudinarem fecunt, pacem appellant.”
Out From Under The Bridge
In 1997 Schwartz somehow managed to add the Muslim community to his work as obituary writer and occasional crime reporter at the Chronicle. Working the mosques of Southern California, he published articles of local interest on the celebration of Muslim holidays and the good work of the Muslim community during the period 1997-1999. This appears to have been Schwartz’s only experience with Islam, before briefly converting in Bosnia, and seems to be all that is qualifying him to write his upcoming theological work. When Pravda tested his qualifications, by asking him in a softball question to explain the meaning of the terms “greater” and “lesser” Holy War in Islamic doctrine, he told us:
“I have been studying Islam for 30 years. When my book on Islam comes out you can judge my knowledge as you see fit. I have forgotten more about the topic of jihad than you will ever know, since I spent a great deal of time in the company of actual mujahidin. I doubt you have ever met a real mujahid in your life."
Which of course tells us nothing except that he’s a blowhard who can’t explain a concept critical to any understanding of the motivations behind the Islamic resistance he calls “terrorism”. (The answer, of course, is that the lesser holy war is the war fought against infidelic peoples to bring them into submission to Allah, while the greater holy war is the internal war fought to bring one’s self into submission to Allah.)
Schwartz, in his characteristic hypocritical style, has made intense statements about the Bosnian Muslims and their leader Alija Izetbegovic, now President of Bosnia, celebrating Izetbegovic as he once celebrated Eden Pastora as the “new Nestor Makhno”. He published his views in a 2001 book, Kosovo, co-authored with Christopher Hitchens, pro-war leftist writer for the Nation. But as mentioned, when quizzed on some basic facts about the Balkans conflict, he was just as unprepared to give factual answers, telling Pravda:
"I know the entire history of all the forms of Croat nationalist activity in Croatia and Bosnia; I have interviewed some of the leaders. I also know the entire circumstances of the trial of Tihomir Blaskic. I have no need to or desire to share any of this knowledge with you.”
Therefore preferring to write three sentences denouncing us than giving us the three letters – HOS – which would have answered the question correctly.
His rhetoric on Izetbegovic has as little basis in fact as any of his prior efforts – he seems to simply know that others are impressed by his ability to name an obscure foreign leader, and that because few can name the Bosnian Muslim or know anything at all about the Bosnian conflict, that he can attribute any view he likes to the man, with few being able to argue. As Justin Raimondo wrote in a February 4, 2002 response to a letter from Schwartz:
“I know all about your phony ‘two faces of Islam’ thesis – your hero, President Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia, is supposed to be the ‘good face’, while those evil Wahabbi Sauds are the bad guys. Never mind that the Bosnian government has not just tolerated but lionized … the Balkan branch of Al Qaeda.”
Schwartz' first article praising jihad, whose greater and lesser aspects he couldn't explain, and the Muslim "martyrs" of Bosnia appeared in the Chronicle January 10, 1999, in a review of the book "Sarajevo Blues" – what Schwartz described as "A Muslim Bosnian's poignant and surreal synthesis of the horrors of the conflict:"
“With considerable effectiveness, Mehmedinovic has synthesized the sentimental traditions and idealistic illusions of the Sarajevans, … He writes of the prayerful burial of a Muslim martyred in the fighting … Elsewhere he describes how Serb terrorists expelled the mental patients from a suburban asylum.”
And you know you can’t be a neo-con without making a ridiculous reference to the Holocaust, Hitler, or Nazi-ism every time you talk of war. Schwartz cynically made use of World War II in that piece by saying:
“Mehmedovic’s book is an incisive answer to the claim by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno that poetry could not be written after Auschwitz, Poetry survived Auschwitz, and poetry has survived the atrocities of Bosnia …”
Later Schwartz would praise Izetbegovic, describing him as “an authentic warrior in a legitimate jihad.”
But what is even more amusing is that Schwartz, still in search of an identity despite his advancing age, appears to have briefly converted to Islam in 1999, referring to himself as “Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz” in an essay published on the website Naqshbandi.org (http://www.naqshbandi.org/events/articles/conversion_schwartz.htm):
“I am a new Muslim, and cannot comment on matters of doctrine. But I can speak about my own life. My road to Sufism, as represented by the Naqshbandi-Haqqani tariqat to which I belong, comes from three streams in my own personal experience. … Regarding my Jewish background: I read in our generous Quran the beautiful, beautiful surah 28, about the life of Musa. I cry when I read the Quran's description of Musa's life, because although the account in Torah, in Jewish scripture, is very beautiful and moving -- it also makes me cry -- Quran has something extra: that when Musa had killed the Egyptian oppressor, and was then forgiven by Allah swt, that he said to Allah swt. "Oh my Lord! For that thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!" That is, as Muslims, we must never aid oppressors; we are, as Muslims, the children of freedom.”
Meaning that Schwartz’s current writings attacking the Wahhabi faith are coming from the perspective of a man who is not only an infidel, but an actual apostate – as he appears to have stopped observing the tenets of Islam soon after speaking those words. And he is not any apostate, but an apostate from a Muslim denomination that is as opposed to the Saudi Wahhabis as Bob Jones is to the Pope. As Schwartz told Pravda:
“[T]he conflict between Wahhabism and Sufism is in virtually every book on Islam … I do agree with them in believing all the Wahhabis are dangerous.”
And so we see Schwartz, who has always tried to play the role he has assumed for the moment, playing the role of Sufi Muslim against the Wahhabi heretics in the same way he played the role of Trotskyite militant against the Stalinists twenty years ago.
It wouldn’t take long for old “Suleyman Ahmad” to take those same “jihad” Muslims “martyrs” that were surviving “Auschwitz” in Bosnia, and pick up the flag of Zion to pose them as creating “Auschwitz” in Palestine and the Holy Land of Mecca and Medina. Speaking of the doctrine that Schwartz, in the National Review of October 25, 2001, described as “like Nazism and Communism”, he wrote in the October 8, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, where he is now published, that
“Wahhabism … seeks to impel Islam centuries back in time, to the faith’s beginnings .. It achieved its culmination, the establishment of the Saudi kingdom, only in the 1930s, in parallel with fascism and Stalnism. Although it appears to be a rejection of modernity, Wahhabism, can usefully be thought of as a variant of the nihilistic revolutionary ideologies that spilled oceans of blood in the twentieth century …”
It was the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a man who has never believed in anything, who has been such an empty void, such a blank slate, that anyone giving him money and social recognition was able to buy the service of his pen and the “courage” of his convictions, accusing a group of real men dedicated to giving their lives in what he himself had only three years before described as martyrdom, of being “nihilistic” – even as he penned essays for the ideological movement of terror that is early 20th-Century Semitic nihlism’s heir – the neo-conservative/neo-liberal movement.
But what Schwartz is doing, remarkably, can only be seen as harmful to the neo-cons and their fantasy of Jewish Holy War against the Middle East. Schwartz has sold the leaders in Washington a line that if they denounce the Saudis as "desert rats," as Bill Buckley has on the latest cover of the National Review, that all the other Muslim nations will take up arms and join their Zionist-Oil crusade - a view that is as erroneous and ignorant as one would expect from a man whose only experience with Islam has been writing local interest pieces about Muslim Holy Days in between half-felt cynical "conversions" and the writing of obituaries of his editor's Grandma Betty and the local Mayor's Uncle Jack. It is almost a joke that a man like this is being allowed to publish a scurrilous and evil work defaming the faith of Islam, just as he did in his history of the Sailor's Union, derided by his fellow anarchists, and just as he did in his history of the POUM, derided by POUM survivors. He is alone the stereotype of what has happened to America's publishing and media industry as it has collapsed under the weight of Jewish censorship and Israeli lobby interests - any Jew, no matter how wacky, is being allowed to print any insane and degrading nonsense he pleases, while all non-Jews, no matter how reasonable and well-researched their arguments, are being denied a platform for their principles. His power over US policy on Saudi Arabia is as insulting and degrading as the power to torture that the Jewish Bolshevik commissars wielded over the good and simple men and women of peasant Russia.
And of interest too is a recent piece he wrote in the December 17, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, justifying Ashcroft's role in police state terror after the confiscation of Holy Land Foundation assets. Read it, and think of what lobby these words could most truly be applied to:
“They do not run candidates on a [their national] ticket. Rather they work behind the scenes to demand special consideration for their agenda by media and government. They do not propose political discussion or interfaith dialogue. Rather they stress ‘sensitivity’ to ‘[their people’s] feelings.’ They do not make open claims for [their people’s] causes. Rather, they complain about injuries allegedly done to [their people], which must be recognized and apologized for before any dialogue takes place. They purport to know the feelings of all [their people], and arrogate to themselves the right to speak for all [their co-religionists]. Further, they recognize no diversity within [their faith]; for them there is one [faith] and they are it, and their goal is to make sure that any examination of [their religious] issues, from the White House down, begins and ends with them.”
The chutzpah! Schwartz of course is describing the “Muslim lobby”, but one could just as easily substitute “Jew” and “Israel” into his blanks. Not since the days when Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg stole a line from Julius Streicher and advocated the extermination of the Germans has a post-communist writer showed such a brazen penchant for deception! Schwartz says that:
“This hideous doctrine rationalizing terrorism is a pure expression of the Wahhabi totalitarianism emanating from Saudi Arabia,” but in reality this hideous doctrine rationalizing racial war is a pure expression of the Jewish-Zionist totalitarianism emanating from the Washington-Jerusalem Axis!
And of course Schwartz’s arrogance and hubris doesn’t end with attacks on the Wahhabis. His hatred for non-Semitic, non-cosmopolitan, non-urbanized American White people – the same White workers he would have shipped out to fight his masters’ wars – becomes evident in essays like his “Seeking Moderation”, which was published October 25, 2001 in the National Review, and which reads:
“Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and ‘a few other places’ no more represent the entire Muslim world than Arizona, Indiana, Idaho and Texas represent the entire United States!”
One can only presume the alien nihilism of the pseudo-intellectual neo-cons doesn’t have broad readership among the good people of those states. In fact, it’s scant 20,000 subscribers can be reasonably described as being huddled together in the bastions of US-Semitic power: New York City, Washington, DC, and Southern California (with Palm Beach and London set aside as vacation zones) – places where the real working people of states like Idaho and Arizona seem a lifetime and culture away.
And as a further insult to Pravda’s intelligence, in an attempt to “justify” this remark, Schwartz told us:
”The comparison was intended to indicated parallels in influence – since these states are powerful in American politics.”
Idaho? Powerful in American politics? Do you really think this humble correspondent is gullible enough to swallow that?
In a world where on February 8, 2002, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby can publish mindless missives demanding that Steve Emerson, a reporter described by the Jerusalem Post on September 17, 1994 as having "close ties to Israeli Intelligence," be recognized "as the nation's foremost expert on Islamist terrorism," it's not surprising that a man once relegated to the obituary section of a second-string newspaper can be plucked from obscurity to spout the most hateful rhetoric against one of Islam's major denominations.
Schwartz, who embodies the crude anti-Semitic stereotype of the loud-mouth Jew, has been bought up by the "Judaeo-Christian" CIA-Zionists of the Bradley Foundation, and their lackeys in the media like Rupert Murdoch, and their allies in the Israeli Lobby, like David Horowitz and William Kristol, to lead the charge in denouncing Islam as a religion of hate and demanding the US break ties and change its foreign policy to conform to the foreign policy interests of Israel. Like Kevin Coogan, the Autonomedia anarchist who now writes missives attacking anti-war leftists in publications like David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, Schwartz is an ex-"libertarian socialist" turn-coat who, being rejected by the left, has become part of a totalitarian imperial-globalist movement designed to betray the United States Constitution, and his old leftist colleagues, in return for the social acceptance that his history has shown his personality alone unable to sustain.
But Schwartz has let the fact that people in power find him useful go to his head. Writing to the Center for Libertarian Studies’ website Antiwar.com on February 4, he told columnist Justin Raimondo that:
“You are deep in the dustbin of history. You have been wrong about every prediction you have made, in your pretentious fashion. You will never be published anywhere except on your own website because wisecracks and bluffing cannot replace serious argument. … Not even the Freepers pay attention to you anymore. You will have the thrill of being the new Lawrence Dennis – discredited and forgotten forever.”
This coming from a man who once predicted that Eden Pastora would rule Nicaragua and that Soviet intervention in Central America was creating “another Iran” that would lead to World War III; a man who would be choking in obscurity if his masters had not dusted him off and found new uses for him; a man who has no insight into the spiritual concept that a good deed done – an act of justice or of charity – has value in itself even if no man witnesses it, while the most evil of deeds witnessed by many are not made less evil in the doing.
Schwartz is a self-caricature of the decadence of the Jewish bourgeoisie, with his arrogant, posturing ego doing nothing but spouting words in service to arbitrary intellectualisms designed to enrich his bosses’ pockets while bringing suffering on the poor. His publishers know Schwartz is, as Sorel says, “a bargain basement David Horowitz whose poor analytical skills and flatulent bovine prose could be had by anyone who would buy his lunch for him.”
What Americans must ask ourselves is, should these angry little trolls of men with their hateful words and their boundless evil and ignorance be allowed to lead us into war against the world? Should we sacrifice our friendly relations with Europe, with Russia, with China, and with Islam so that this race of men can guide us into massacre just as they guided the government of the Soviet Union into the massacres of its own people and the people of Eastern Europe? Are we to be brought into the service of these neo-Bolshevik neo-conservative commissars? Or are we to reject this race of lesser men for a return to our traditions of peace and declared war with honor, our traditions of liberty and the respect for the sovereignity of other nations and the self-determination of their peoples?
These questions are vital if we wish to survive the darkness. These men, and their sick politics, are a disease. Their culture has spent its lives destroying nation after nation, rotting it from the inside and then fleeing the corpse like rats abandoning a sinking ship. Either we too will succumb to their machinations, or we will cleanse them and their evil, imperialist ways from our government and our ruling class.
The choice is ours and we must make it – a future of apocalyptic darkness, or a new life and golden rebirth.
US military analysts are concerned about the appearance of a new Russian sniper rifle known as T-5000
On December 14, President Putin holds his annual Q&A session with Russian and foreign journalists. This conference is considered to be the beginning of his presidential campaign