I Did Not Think It Possible...

...but Justin Raimondo has sunk to a new low, even for him. Justin is now asking, with regard to the London bombings, "What did Netanyahu know, when did he know it, and how did he know it?" Because, clearly, the Israeli government was behind the bombings.

Not just the London bombings, mind you; the Israelis were behind -- or at least had foreknowledge of -- 9/11. In fact, Raimondo has even written a book expounding upon this conspiracy theory/blood libel.

My longtime readers know that the question of how much the Israelis knew about 9/11 before those planes ploughed into the World Trade Center, and how they knew it, has been taken up in this space on many previous occasions. My short book, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, shows that Israel wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, as many in the Arab world allege, but that they did have some knowledge that a terrorist attack was about to take place on American soil and somehow neglected to tell us about it...

Who benefits from the London attacks, aside from the obvious candidate, which is bin Laden?... Who loses? And who knew? Surely Netanyahu knew, either "days" or "minutes" before the blasts shattered all hope that the War Party might yet be defeated – and it wasn't Scotland Yard that tipped him off. In any case, the key question that must be asked, and answered, before the lesson of London's Terror Thursday can be fully assimilated and learned, is this: What did Bibi know, and when did he know it?

The way to tell that Justin is conspiracy theorizing and not doing actual journalism or even news analysis is that, when the evidence changes, Justin's story does not.

In subsequent versions of the same story, all references to the call from Scotland Yard have been scrubbed, and we are told that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts. This instant revisionism was duly noted by the blogosphere. It took them a while to get their story straight – and I'm not talking about the Associated Press.

No, this wasn't just a case of the news changing as more facts come in; this is a cover-up and thus more evidence of the broader conspiracy. There is no way to falsify a conspiracy theory because any piece of evidence presented against it is just more evidence of the cover-up.

And notice how Justin doesn't actually have the audacity to come out and say what he is thinking. Instead, he makes suggestive, open-ended statements about who he is not talking about, expecting his readers to fill in "The Jews" for themselves. "And it wasn't Scotland Yard that tipped him off." "And I'm not talking about the Associated Press." Who was it that tipped him off? (The Jews?) Who is Justin talking about getting their story straight if not the Associated Press? (The Jews?)

Tell me again why libertarians associate with this loon?

Share this

“Your remarks about

“Your remarks about persuading Cheney to follow a more “libertarian” path “over cocktails” was not in any letter you ever sent to me, or anyone else: it’s on your blog.” -- Justin Raimondo

It's on my blog? Where? Now that really is an astonishing fabrication. I’ve searched my memory for anything that even the most conspiratorial crackpot might construe as boasting of some sort of connection with the vice president and have come up with nothing. I've never met Dick Cheney, anyway. You’re evidently confusing my weblog with yours, where the claim has also been made -- a good example of the quality of your evidence. The claim is as reliable as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the source of your absurd conspiracy-mongering.

Too bad that you got to Mr. Riggenbach and got him to “recall” that, hey, when “Clement” (posting from the very same IP as Justin Raimondo) asserted that Justin Raimondo must have been the person someone else had named on another web site as the one with the extra-source of income, Riggenbach's vivid memory was confused. No doubt Mr. Riggenbach “had no personal knowledge of any acts of prostitution on Justin’s part.” "Personal knowledge" would require a higher degree of intimacy than Mr. Riggenbach would likely have desired. But that’s not what he claimed when he wrote “I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true,” because of boasts by Mr. Raimondo. The one thing that he sticks with is what I have asserted all along, before “Clement” (posting from the same IP as "Justin Raimondo") outed him; who the hell cares? Another pathetic example of making "Justin 'persecuted by the Jews' Raimondo" the center of a story.

(Note that the link to the Willy Brown/Condi Rice story was referring to your KKK-friendly pal and booster, Lew Rockwell, the one who links to your Jew-bashing articles and who posted the most amazingly racist claim that Condoleeza Rice had warned Willy Brown [both black, you see] not to fly on 9/11, a conspiracy theory as plausible as the Raimondoite obsession with the Jews.)

Hey, my non-white boyfriend

Hey, my non-white boyfriend just got home, so I guess I'll have to just give you this link, Brian:


The point is that Israel has a lot of intelligence that they don't share with even their closest ally, the U.S., and there is plenty of evidence, including a Fox News report in December 2001, that that 's just what happened back then:


It's a video, part of a 4-part series Fox News -- hardly an anti-Semitic venue -- did on the Israeli connection to 9/11.

It is true that I now

It is true that I now believe the remarks of mine quoted above by Tom Palmer were mistaken. Allegations had been made on a website called Rightwatch that unnamed members of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus had engaged in drug dealing and prostitution during the late 1970s. This spurred discussion not only on the Rightwatch site, but also on Tom Palmer's blog. One contributor to Tom Palmer's blog asserted that the charges of prostitution were being directed at Justin Raimondo. I chimed in and said that I had personal knowledge that both the charges of drug dealing and the charges of prostitution were true. But it wasn't much more than a few minutes after I had posted that comment that I realized I had overextended myself. I did have personal knowledge of drug dealing on the part of certain Radical Caucus members, but I had no personal knowledge of any acts of prostitution on Justin's part. I had heard gossip around the office, and I had heard Justin and Roy Childs cheerfully bantering back and forth about Justin's alleged ad and the supposed side income it generated. But this was hearsay, not personal knowledge. And the more I thought back on the bantering, the more I began to wonder if what I had assumed was straightforward talk about reality had in fact been lighthearted joshing and nothing more. I called Justin to compare notes with him about what I remembered and, in the course of our conversation, became convinced that I had inadvertently libeled a longtime friend. I wanted to post a retraction on Tom's blog, but several days had passed by this time, and no one was discussing the thread any longer. I feared no one would see any retraction I might post. Now that the subject has reared its ugly head again, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight in this venue.

Your remarks about

Your remarks about persuading Cheney to follow a more "libertarian" path "over cocktails" was not in any letter you ever sent to me, or anyone else: it's on your blog.

I have never said that all the world's problems started with "Jews" -- without Jews in the antiwar movement, the movement would be much the worse. Not to mention the predominantly Jewish staff of antiwar.com.

Zionism hardly brought peace to the Middle East, and if the Zionist movement -- founded on socialism, by the way -- had neve existed, it would have been a good thing. Not that "all the problems" of the Middle East would have been solved, or even greatly ameliorated: however, the U.S. would not now be in Iraq, and international Islamist terrorism, if it existed at all, would be barely a blip on the screen.

So go off and play with your neocon friends, whomever they may be. I'm sure you'll get a grant soon enough from some neocon foundation or other, and then you can make the fabrication of false charges of "racism" and "anti-Semitism" a full-time activitiy.

What I can't figure out, however, is what Willie Brown has to do with anything. Who doesn't like him? He's a great guy: I voted for him. Does that absolve me of "racism" in the eyes of Commissar Palmer? Considering that I hang out and live with non-whites almost exclusively it is downright weird to have to "defend" myself against such an off the wall accusation. But then again you don't even know me: we've barely exchanged three words on any occasion that I remember. Which makes your weird stalking of me all the weirder.

I don't doubt your

I don't doubt your contention that Israel has warned the US and other countries of potential attacks in the past. Their intelligence is much more sensitive chatter than ours is, to their credit.

I don't doubt the hints and murmurs by intelligence groups like Stratfor and other news leaks that Israel warned of an attack. You can find numerous sources citing Israeli warnings all over the place. But that doesn't hint at negligence either. Just because there was warning before and then correction afterward futhermore doesn't mean there was anything specious behind it. If you can find some non-conspiracy related reasoning for the change OTHER than the dispelling of rumors, Justin, I'd like to hear it.

Until then don't forget Occam's razor.

Poor, sad Mr. Raimondo. (By

Poor, sad Mr. Raimondo. (By the way, the remarks about Cheney would have made quite a "boast." When one of your colleagues sent me an email attacking me for living in D.C., I responded that "Dick and Condi got a good chuckle when we discussed it over martinis." Evidently, you folks don't quite "get" irony.)

But again, how many red herrings can you drag across a path? Can you possibly defend your obsession with the allegedly world-controlling Jews?

Sadly, as you pile false characterization on false characterization, you just make it harder to defend yourself. Go on, just express yourself...tell us what you really think about the Jewish conspiracy that started all the world's problems, as you express in your latest very paranoid column today:

Halevi notes the "historical irony" in that one target of the London terror bombings "was within a stone's throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel."

Ironic, perhaps, but also entirely appropriate: Middle Eastern terrorism has come full circle, winding up at nearly the exact spot where the cycle of violence was started all those years ago.

Yes, that's right. All the problems of the world are simple. "The cycle of violence was started all those years ago" at .... the World Zionist Organization. Without that group, there just wouldn't be any problems in the Middle East or anywhere else. Why, in your counter factual fantasies, if there just weren't any Jews, there'd be no problems at all.

So, go hang out with Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Junge Freiheit crowd, make jokes about "Shoa-business" (ha, ha, ha...oh, how they all laughed at the meetings of the German National Democratic Party!), mock "self-appointed victims of the holocaust" all you want. You can't hide the fact that you're an anti-Semite, that you're obsessed with Jews, and that your strange fantasies have almost no point of contact with the world. You'll seize on any bit of news that floats by if it seems to fit into your truly strange conspiratorial view of the world. You had to admit that you lied quite openly and brazenly about that phony memo that you insisted was from the U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, didn't you? (For the evidence: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/020009.php )How many other bits of deliberate deception have you thrown up over the years? It's sad, but by now you probably even believe most of it yourself.

But it's off to bed for me. I have an early meeting at the White House with Condi. (Oh, and tell your racist friends that Willy Brown will be joining Condi and me for lunch: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php ). Ta!

This is fantastic. Do you

This is fantastic. Do you guys do parties?

Kennedy, This is explained


This is explained in my column: do I really have to read it *for* you? The Brits deny getting a warning from the Israelis, and the idea that London would ignore such a warnig is just not credible, especially given the circumstances. By switching the alleged source of Netanyahu's warning from the Israeli intelligence service -- which, from the Stratfor piece, we know had foreknowledge "days" in advance -- they cover their asses. But not quite. As Tommy Preston, a 45 year veteran of intelligence work, says:

"Terrorism expert says at least one person tipped off to London attacks
Tom Kenny
Action News 36
Jul 7, 18:25 PM EDT

Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning's terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. "Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion," Preston said."

This repeats the same pattern that followed 9/11: the Israelis claimed they *did* warn the U.S., while the Americans said the Israeli warning was about an overseas strike, not in the U.S. But since the Israelis were trailing the hijackers in the U.S., they surely knew it wasn't overseas.

Raimondo, "I didn’t make


"I didn’t make up the Associated Press story that reported Netanyahu got a warning before the blasts took place:"

It says the British told Netanyahu. Why do you fixate on Netanyahu and dismiss the part about the warning having come from Scotland Yard?

If this story were true it would make sense to focus on Scotland Yard. The fact that you focus on Netanyahu instead speaks volumes.

Meanwhile, your blog is a

Meanwhile, your blog is a playground for pro-war assholes, while you get all faux-"thoughtful" and quail that "Since that decision [to go to war] was made and cannot be undone, what is now the best path forward?"


-- this at a time when practically everyone is calling for withdrawal. Your "moderation" is as phony as your alleged devotion to libertarian" principle. You just want to smooze around with your favorite Washington powerbrokers and pretend you're real when you're as phoney as a three-dollar bill.

You're a very sick puppy,

You're a very sick puppy, Palmer: go apply for a job with Germany's "Office for the 'Protection' of the Constitution" -- you know, the secret police unit you defend on your blog. You're a bore, and you don't even realize it. One thing you aren't, however, is any kind of a libertarian. Pro-war, pro-secret police, with an obsessive interest in the sexual activities of other people -- a typical frustrated type. Lord, you even once boasted that you have access to Dick Cheney! You're a loser.

I suppose the idea of

I suppose the idea of evolving news reports is just a tool of the neocon dread EMM-ESS-EMM to Raimondo or anyone else mired in conspiracy theories. Bravo to him for having the gall to say anything, as Stephan noted, but to be constantly pegging any situation as a neocon or Zionist plot is just getting a bit old.

Not to mention Raimondo's tired red herring of bringing political correctness into every possible discussion on anything ever. Stop trying to make PC the root of all your problems. Stop hiding behind a mask of an invented rhetorical ill that does nothing but serve your purpose of giving credence to arguments that can't stand alone without it because of their sheer rudeness or audacity.

There is no evidentiary support other than whispers and rumors that Netanyahu was informed of London before the fact. Everything else in this thread has just become a pathetic back and forth that addresses everything but the issue at hand, conspiracy theories be damned.

(And as a final note, "Zionism" is simply the belief that the Jews should have a state. Nothing more nothing less.)

Say what you will, and lord

Say what you will, and lord knows the world is indeed full of loons who revel in spinning intricate conspiracy nonsense, but it is not entirely implausible that the London attacks were simple Al qaeda acts. What happened on 911 is certainly more then the mainstream media have been indicating and there are several highly professional sites that show much compelling evidence indicating this. It is a bad idea to simply dismiss such theories simply because they are "crazy conspiracy mongering" or somesuch thing. Conspiracies are not a myth, they are a fact of history and have been used by governments towards their own ends in the past. I find it funny that those who think that government is often directed by dark motives (most libertarians, myself included) will dismiss the notion that it is capable of secretly planning and executing vile acts that serve its own ends. I also think that ridiculing a fringe idea without analysis just to distance yourself and not be associated with those that most would condemn, is shameful and somewhat cowardly.

We need loons like him

We need loons like him because someones got to have the balls to blurt the craziest thing in the room, and just maybe turn out to be right.

"Tell me again why

"Tell me again why libertarians associate with this loon?"

Because he's anti-war.

I agree that Israel doesn't

I agree that Israel doesn't disclose its intelligence with the US completely. But that wasn't the point of your OP. The insinuation that Israel has maliciously and with negligence hid information from the US crucial to national security doesn't correlate with Israel keeping information from its ally. Also, as more of "strategic partner" than an "ally" from collective security times, Israel doesn't feel the need to disclose intelligence, right or wrong.

Finally, I'm thrilled that your boyfriend isn't white. The point? I never denounced you as a racist, I'd much rather argue on actual issues if that's what you're insinuating. However, on that note, how different is telling me that your boyfriend isn't white any different than those who scream "I CAN'T be sexist! Some of my best friends are women!"? Oh it isn't. It's a handwaving argument to a contention I never made.

Oh please, Radzinsky: you

Oh please, Radzinsky: you can do better than that. "Evolving" news stories, eh? This is two separate stories, one containing the "leak" from a "senior Israeli official," and the other containing Israel's denial. We report: you decide. But there are other sources for this story.

Check it out, Radzinsky:


Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks

There has been massive confusion over a denial made by the Israelis that the Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks “minutes before” the first bomb went off July 7. Israel warned London of the attacks a “couple of days ago,” but British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. While Israel is keeping quiet for the time-being, British Prime Minister Tony Blair soon will be facing the heat for his failure to take action.


The Associated Press reported July 7 that an anonymous source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks in the U.K. capital. The information reportedly was passed to the embassy minutes before the first bomb struck at 0851 London time. The Israeli Embassy promptly ordered Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel on the morning of July 7. Netanyahu was scheduled to participate in an Israeli Investment Forum Conference at the Grand Eastern Hotel, located next to the Liverpool Street Tube station -- the first target in the series of bombings that hit London on July 7.

Several hours later, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom officially denied reports that Scotland Yard passed any information to Israel regarding the bombings, and British police denied they had any advanced warning of the attacks. The British authorities similarly denied that any information exchange had occurred.

Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned “minutes before” the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks “a couple of days” previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack.
For more breaking intelligence on this and other stories, please visit premium.stratfor.com.

Jeff Riggenbach is mistaken,

Jeff Riggenbach is mistaken, Tom, as he admitted to me in person: what's amazing is that a shriveled up old queen like you would accuse me of "homophobia" and actually pursue this line of "argument." You really are beneath contempt. Your real problem is that you couldn't even give it away. Some "Ambassador of Homosexuality" *you* are!

I'm not interested in discussing the favorite neocon topic of "conversation" -- who and who is not anti-Semitic. I prefer a much more relevant subject: who is sucking up to the U.S. government and the authors of the glorious "war on terrorism." And you would get the award for being Number One in that category -- except you're not nearly significant enough. Now go back to your pathetic little blog, with ten readers, and I'll go back to addressing my audience of 70,000-plus.

"And why is it a smear to

"And why is it a smear to say that Justin was a prostitute?"


I might be the prude on this list, but I'd say there's plenty wrong with prostitution. For one thing, it cheapens a very personal and intimate act. The greater the supply (the more people you have sex with) the lower the value.

One way of convincing your significant other that he/she (I'm not judging)is special, despite the fact that you have dated plenty of other people, is that you have only slept with that person. Not giving up something that you have reserved for her at any price gives credence to the claim that you would not give her up at any price.

I'll take your word for the

I'll take your word for the benefits of prostitution, Patri, and just note that Palmer's sicko fantasies are not true. That's how come we call them fantasies.

I think, Matt, you are miscontruing what I'm suggesting. Probably because you haven't bothered following the links provided to the AP story and the Stratfor article. Having foreknowledge of an upcoming event and actually causing the event to happen are two different things. So this passes the "surface believability" test in that it would seem that it's the Mossad's job to keep track of Islamist terrorists. So the question is: if they knew enough to warn the Brits. That's all.

Poor Mr. Raimondo. When

Poor Mr. Raimondo. When it's not the Jews who are after you, it's...well, everyone else. Creating persecution by outing yourself, blaming it on others, and then acting like you are being persecuted is a rather transparent "plea for help," as the therapy mongers used to put it. In any case, here is what your former colleague Jeff Riggenbach wrote about your sad bit of theatre:
Well, like Clement (and like Tom), I've known Justin since the late '70s. I was there every day from June 1978 to January 1981 in the Libertarian Review offices (next door to the SLS offices and down the block from the Cato Institute offices), and I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true. Justin used to brag in the office about his "Italian Stallion" ad and the part-time income it provided him.

I agree with Tom that whatever victimless crimes he and other members of the Radical Caucus may have committed thirty years ago is unimportant. I don't agree with him about LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com, which I think are two of the best libertarian sites on the Internet. His efforts (and those of a handful of others) to make a mountain out of a molehill in connection with Lew's staunch anti-Lincolnism and Justin's hatred of the U.S. war machine do not impress me.


Posted by: Jeff Riggenbach at June 22, 2005 11:44 PM
So, from this point forward, could we please focus the discussion on your paranoid fantasies about how the Jews control the world, and not on your fantasies about other people having fantasies about you?

And while on that topic, it's worth pointing out that your defense of such openly anti-Semitic publications as "Junge Freiheit" tends to drain credibility from your insistence that you're focused on the "Zionists" and not on "the Jews."

Poor Tom Palmer. Hitting the

Poor Tom Palmer. Hitting the bottle again. Who is "Clement"? Does he have a last name? Nobody reads Palmer's blog except himself and a few people who could well be extensions of his own prissy self, that's how pompous and boring they sound.

In any case, Palmer links to a blog, "Rightwatch," which carries an account in which it is quite clear who the anonymous author is talking about, in which it is stated that I made a living as a prostitute, naturally without any evidence to back it up. By linking to this account, and perhaps having a hand in collaborating with the anonymous smearer, Palmer is indeed spreading his garbage and extending his obsessive smear campaign against me to the outer limits of what is tolerable. That he preens over his own moral "decency" has got to be some kind of sick joke.

Go back to writing about "The Girl Without A Face," Palmer -- leave the pornography to those who aren't as dried up and old-maidish as you apparently are.

Yeah, right: *I'm* a "homophobe" and I "hate gay people" -- another case of Palmer projecting his own self-hatred others. I was openly gay during the SLS era, bud, while you were still cowering in your not-very-effective closet. Roy Childs, whom you credit with giving you the "courgae to come out," used to call you "Miss Palmer," too -- and not because he was any kind of "homophobe" (how can a homo be "homophobic"?), but because you weren't fooling anyone. Just like you aren't fooling anyone now.

Well, there you have it. No

Well, there you have it. No anti-Semitism here, friends...move along now. (I'll leave the other matters where they should have been left, had not Mr. Raimondo raised them. The whole matter is distasteful. But nothing would stop Mr. Raimondo in his pursuit of attention.)

Still, on the matter of anti-Semitism. Let's just note that Mr. Raimondo has reverted to his well practiced mimicry of the squid, which squirts out a cloud of ink to confuse its enemies before darting away. Unsubstantiated claims, ex cathedra assertions, personal attacks, shifting of issues, etc., etc.....well, it just won't do. Mr. Raimondo has an obsession with "those people" and it's an itch that he just can't resist scratching. Like his friend Joe Sobran, he keeps coming back to the eternal topic of ... the Jews.

Patri makes an excellent

Patri makes an excellent point: there's nothing wrong with selling your ass for cash.

Patri, as far as analyzing conspiracy theories, I say that you give a few a chance, but Ockham's razor may well apply here. The error's are often prima facie (i.e. where did all the passengers go? Or why don't simple conspiracies like the planting of WMDs in Iraq (less risky and more beneficial than targeting an attack on your own country, obviously) occur more often?) As a result, I should be upfront that I don't intend to look seriously into the allegation of an Israeli attack on Britain, as it seems about as likely as a French attack on Germany. That's not a french joke by the way (I find those to be in poor taste), I just felt a bit silly typing it the other way around.


I don't think there is

I don't think there is anything wrong with speculating about crazy conspiracy theories. Occasionally, such theories are true. We should reject such theories on their merits, not their surface believability. But we can still reject them. And surface believability is a fine heuristic for deciding what stories are worth further investigation.

And why is it a smear to say that Justin was a prostitute? I mean, it may be false, and false is bad, and that's fine. But where is the shame in a profession of consensual positive-sum interactions? I'm a bit disappointed by a libertarian responding as if being a hooker is a bad thing. I can imagine plenty of situations where I'd trade sex for money. And after that, of course, its all just haggling about the price.

Oh. Did I forget remarkably

Oh. Did I forget remarkably vicious homophobia? Well, no need, as Mr. Raimondo makes his hatred of gay people quite obvious, through such very subtle means as using feminine pronouns to refer to gay men he hates, putting quotation marks around the word marriage whenever it is preceded by the word gay, and introducing the sexuality of those he slimes into the conversation regardless of how "off topic" it may be.

Since he claims to be best friends with Patrick Buchanan, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and other bigots, he eagerly fills the role of "house nigger," by denouncing gay marriage and other steps toward legal equality. Observing Raimondo in action is remarkably like watching an old-fashioned minstrel show.

Now here's a good example of

Now here's a good example of Justin Raimondo the tirelessly buffoonish self-promoter. The only reason that there is any internet chatter anywhere about any, uh, extra sources of income for Mr. Raimondo is because ... Mr. Raimondo eagerly caused himself to be outed, first by using his internet sock puppet of "Clement" (Mr. Raimondo and "Clement" post from the same IP: who stepped forward to say that any rumors in the past about such behavior could only be about one person, someone that no one else had named and that person is....Justin Raimondo! Then, under the name of Justin Raimondo, he stepped forward to say that other people are smearing him. Whatever. I couldn't care less how Mr. Raimondo has amused himself or others and wouldn't spread such claims; no need, in any case, since Mr. Raimondo has been so eager to do so himself. (For anyone who's interested in watching someone completely humiliate himself and who has some time and patience, Mr. Raimondo does an elegant job at: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/021918.php#comments

It wouldn't be such a bad thing if he only embarrassed himself. The problem is that he mixes anti-Semitism, really over-the-top anti-immigrant remarks (like how our borders should be "sealed"), utterly wacko conspiracy mongering, and ... if it were possible...even worse into a toxic brew that he then labels "anti-war" and "libertarian." No person with sense would drink it.

Stephan- the media is under

the media is under government sway in a sense, but we're not talking about literal control so it's doubtful that the government could engineer such a coverup. As is the case with most conspiracy theories, a careful consideration of motives given the risks involved almost always renders the theory implausible for reasons of simple rational slef-interest of the actors.

Israel has been an Arm of the united states since 1967, not the other way around. Conspiracy theories of this sort, while not directly anti-semetic (or even neccesarily anti-semetic) simply put the cart before the horse.


Oh, and "Matt": Go to the

Oh, and "Matt": Go to the creepy "Rightwatch" site and check out the accusations of prostitution. It would be flattering if it wasn't so ... off the wall. And this is what Palmer, and his coterie of ass-kissers, is promoting. Yeah, that's the "D.C. Libertarian scene" -- pretty boring, I'd say.

I didn't make up the

I didn't make up the Associated Press story that reported Netanyahu got a warning before the blasts took place:


Nor did I make up the Stratfor.com analysis that said the Israelis knew "days" in advance:


It's in the news: deal with it. Covet action is part of what governments -- and other entities -- do: the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a "conspiracy" -- on the part of the hijackers.

Tom Palmer goes to Iraq to "advise" the US government on how best to administer a conquered province -- and *I'm* embarrassing myself? Get real, Miss Palmer -- you're a slime ball. And you know it.

With a media that is quite

With a media that is quite clearly under government sway, it would not be too difficult. One would not have to keep everyone quiet about the odd facts, just the main sources of information and opinion.

Right, because lord knows the collusive agreement among the single-minded media leaves no room for the lone defector to win a Pulitzer exposing this vast conspiracy (a conspiracy so well covered-up that no one knows about except for Raimondo and other Internet loons). Yup, that passes the bullshit test.

The United States always

The United States always supports the Israeli government, even when it causes harm to the United States' foreign policy objectives. Therefore Israel is the center of many conspiracy theories.

Just what is the US getting out of our unpopular support for Israel? The theorists think: maybe nothing. Maybe Israel runs the US, behind the scenes.

It's not that hard to understand why people are suspicious of the US-Israel connection. What's hard to understand are the motives behind the United States' foreign policy.

And no, Micha, when people blame Israel they are not blaming "The Jews". The last I checked, Jews in general and the Israeli government were not the same entity.

I don't think the government

I don't think the government is directed by dark motives. In fact, that's what makes the state so pernicious; it's easy to show people why Hitler and the Nazis need to be fought against. But government officials are generally well meaning; they genuinly believe that they are serving the public. And as C.S. Lewis famously remarked,

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I also don't think the government is "capable of secretly planning and executing vile acts that serve its own ends." As any libertarian should know, the government is inept. It can't do anything all that well, and it certainly can't keep a secret. The government did a great job covering up Watergate and Monicagate, right?

Tell me again why

Tell me again why libertarians associate with this loon?

When we brought Justin to Wash U in 2002, that was the biggest audience we had for any speaking event we had on campus in at least the past three years, maybe longer. I haven't read anti-war.com in a while, but when I met Raimondo he was really a cool guy. I feel like he helps bring alot of middle-of-the-roaders over to the libertarian side of the spectrum, especially in times like these, when the US is so imperialistic.

Matt27, I did not claim to


I did not claim to agree that it was jews that were responsible for most supposed modern conspiracies, it could be damn near anybody with a gain. Furthermore, I don't believe history is entirely made by evil conspiracies, I simply think that they do happen from time to time. And yes, I do think that 911 could be covered up, at least in a general sense. With a media that is quite clearly under government sway, it would not be too difficult. One would not have to keep everyone quiet about the odd facts, just the main sources of information and opinion.

Did you know that Bibi

Did you know that Bibi Netanyahu was also NOT in the World Trade Center on.....September 11, 2001? Quite the coincidence, no? What's up with that, eh? As if the "Zionists" (wink, wink) weren't in on it. Yeah, right.
But seriously, folks, consider how colorless the world would be without Justin Raimondo's acts of amazing self-embarrassment. Mr. Raimondo, always eager to label others as "liars" when they dissent from his view, caused much amusement when he was so obviously caught in an obvious lie that he had to admit it in public. The details. including the humiliating "apology" his colleagues forced him to make, are here:

So look on the bright side. Clowns can be amusing.

The downside is that this one keeps on calling himself "anti-war" and even a "libertarian."

What's up guys? These last

What's up guys? These last comments have been awesome- are we really on an issue that involves allegations of male prostitution? Allegations being made by a "queen"? This must be the DC Libertarian scene Micha's been raving about- I'm sold.

Anyway- there are plenty of guys like this on the left who give us a bad name too, always quick to use the age-old "jewish conspiracy" bunkum, or some such thing. At least on the left you're starting to see alot more of the "US government CIA coverup" stuff that at least gives the jews a break (though of course they insist that the jews "run america" anyway, so we're really not that far off.)

I wouldn't be too swayed if I were you. There have been a few real conspiracies in history (the reichstag fire comes to mind, though that's not exactly a jewish plot if you catch my drift) but they are hardly a major feature of history. Massive coverups on a scale that'd be required for something like 9/11 are basically unimaginable. The truth is quite a bit more subtle- the real crimes (like the capture of the Fallujah General Hospital, a violation of the laws of war) are bragged about on the front page of the NY Times, and we're supposed to quibble over whether waking prisoners up with Christina Aguilara is a rights violation. These crimes are of course perpitrated by nice men in air conditioned offices, doing what they think is right based on ridiculous ideologies. That is the truth, and while things would be easier if things were more straightforward (evil men conspiring to take over the world, etc.) it simply isn't so.


"Rightwatch," i.e. George

"Rightwatch," i.e. George O'Brien, is full of it.

And *you* are one to accuse anyone of "venom," when "Rightwatch" is accusing me of being (or having been) "a male prostitute." No wonder you're anonymous. George, if only I *had* been a hustler back in those days, no doubt I would have some money in the bank today. Instead, I wasted my time working at SLS with idiots like you -- before you were fired for incompetence, that is.

You are free, of course, not to read antiwar.com. But someone who spends full-time trying to smear me, and others, in order to get some sort of revenge for slights that occurred some 25 years ago, is one sick fool. You and that dried up old lip-less queen you've been collaborating with should apply for a grant from one of those big neocon foundations: I'm sure they'd love to subsidize your "work."

For the recond Raimondo is

For the recond Raimondo is hardly mainstream libertarianism. I'm proud to oppose this war because it was wrong and I have no love for Raimondo or his crowd. And I know lots of anti-war libertarians who are anti-war in spite of the lunacy, conspriacy theory, venom, etc that one gets from the crowd at antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. And my feeling is that more and more libertarians are getting tired of people who are malicious and work with bigots and racists.

Politicians get warnings

Politicians get warnings about stuff all the time, tons of them. Because of that, the odds are heavily leaning towards "coincidence" instead of "they had something to do with it/they allowed it to happen".

What were they supposed to do, run screaming towards the subway station yelling "everyone out!!" within seconds of the bombs going off? Fat lotta good that would've done....

"Because he’s

"Because he’s anti-war."

So? Not all libertarians are anti-war. In fact, "anti-war" is a meaningless term without further context to clarify the aggressive and defensive use of violence. You ought to know this after all the feces flung your way by the "peace at all costs" crowd.

"Because, clear, the Israeli

"Because, clear, the Israeli government was behind the bombings."

I never wrote that, and I don't believe it.

The question is: what about the Associated Press news story that cites a "senior Israeli government official" who had to remain anonymous "because of his position" as saying that Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a warning "minutes before" the blasts?

You say this report was "corrected" -- but a government spokesman denying it doesn't necessarily make the "new" version correct.

There is also the Stratfor.com report, which says that the Israelis knew "days" in advance.

Are we not allowed to even discuss these two reports -- both from credible sources -- without being subjected to a PC-ectomy?

A lot of anti-war

A lot of anti-war libertarians I respect - like Jim Henley for instance - have admitted to finding this asshole an embarrassment. I think though that the guy is utterly beyond the pale. It is all rather a pity since Raimondo writes well on certain issues like economics but seems to have signed up in full to the "black helicopters over Washington" mindset when it comes to international relations.

Raimondo's Razor Occam's

Raimondo's Razor
Occam's Razor says that when multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. Justin Raimondo prefers to employ a different principle in evaluating evidence.

In the wake of the London bombings Raimondo asks ...

Regardless of the facts and

Regardless of the facts and issues, Raimondo has clearly won the bitchslapfest. My Aunt Todd declared me a suitable judge of such matters.

Note that Raimondo's lies

Note that Raimondo's lies about "defending Andrew Sullivan" offer an opportunity to raise the somewhat embarrassing incident again, complete with links! ("I will not lower myself to the level of discussing my opponent's many sordid personal affairs," is a classical rhetorical move to slime someone while denying that one is doing so.)

So if it's not the Jews, it's the "queens" and faggots! Raimondo is an embarrassment in every way.

Classic Raimondo. After

Classic Raimondo. After sliming Andrew Sullivan in a particularly hateful and homophobic way (see above; Raimondo has now changed the posting on the grounds that "I wouldn't want to sink the level of my enemies." !!!! Then, in his latest posting, he drops his own history down the memory hole, since Raimondo was the one who kept linking at antiwar.com to some personally embarrassing anonymous "personal ads" that Andrew Sullivan had posted (pure malicious hatred of a gay man again, with lots of attention to details of a sexual nature), he writes this today:

It's funny, but I once had a rather polite e-mail exchange with Andrew Sullivan, back when I was defending him on gay websites during the brouhaha over his alleged online sex ad....

What a vicious liar! Raimondo ran mention after mention after mention, with links, to Andrew Sullivan's personal ad, and has peppered his writings with numerous vicious references to his HIV status (with lots of references to AIDS-related dementia). There is no more vicious homophobic scumbag than Justin Raimondo.

Justin Raimondo: Keep

Justin Raimondo: Keep talking dear. No doubt you are increasing your proceeds from Islamists, racists and anti-semites. Your stock among decent folks is almost zero, so scrape the bottom for what donations you can get get from the nutter crowd. Scientologists and LaRouschies get paid well, you are not the first to think up this scam.

(For everyone else: How DOES Justin make his living? Is he paid by the nutters at Lew Rockwell's group? Is anti-war.com a 501c3 corporation? Let's follow the money trail and see where it goes.)

The OTHER Italian

The OTHER Italian Stallion...
If Rocky were a weird, conspiracy theory peddling, anti-Semite, self-hating homophobe, then this Italian Stallion would be Rocky. If you don't believe me, check out this Catallarchy thread, whom I thank for the tip.

Here's typical Justin

Here's typical Justin Raimondo "argument". (Note that the words "for whatever reason" are linked to an article on AIDS-related dementia. And notice the last line, which is so clearly viciously homophobic. What a sick and twisted jerk Raimondo is.) So, with no further ado, Justin Raimondo, master debater:

Sullivan is a pompous has-been whose IQ seems to be falling rapidly -- for whatever reason. He concludes his smear-job with this:

"I see little to distinguish these people from the Democratic Underground types. Except that the mainstream right is too squeamish sometimes in condemning them. Ever seen one of these guys ripped up on O'Reilly? Thought not."

Please, please, please -- put me on O'Reilly! With Sullivan, prefferably. I'll rip both of them new as*holes -- a modification I'm sure at least Sullivan will know how to make good use of.