Dishonest Dissent (Not)
- News for Anarchists & Activists:
[This is probably a good place to remind readers that
transmitting an article does not imply endorsement. I
consider these articles utter bilge, but someone may find
them of some use or wish to reply to them.--DC]
By Bill O'Reilly
February 01, 2003
Robust debate is one of the things that has made this
country great. The Founding Fathers really went after one
another during the forging of the Constitution, and
sometimes the verbal rancor was frightening in its
But the Founders had common ground in that they believed in
the concept of a free United States and that individual
rights were the key to that freedom. Theirs was a labor of
love, and they all were proud to be called Americans.
Fast forward to the current debate over Iraq. The intensity
is certainly there, and, for the most part, the differences
of opinion are sincere. But there are major exceptions. Some
Americans who object to any military action against Iraq
believe that the United States is, itself, a terrorist
nation and that anything the Bush administration proposes is
to be scorned.
A few days ago, an organization called "Not In Our Name"
paid for a two-page advertisement in The New York Times,
part of which said this: "We too watched with shock the
horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the
thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the
terrible scenes of carnage-even as we recalled similar
scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago,
What? Is that advertisement saying that the United States is
guilty of crimes akin to those of the 9-11 terrorists?
There is a huge difference between honest dissent and
distorted propaganda designed to denigrate your own country.
Equating the terrorist attack on 9-11 with the United
Nations' mandated removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and
the arrest of the drug-dealing dictator of Panama, Manuel
Noriega, is incredibly insulting to the people of America.
This text goes far beyond protest-this is anti-Americanism.
The advertisement was signed by well-known radicals like
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. But it was also signed by
entertainers like Joan and John Cusack, Danny Glover, Susan
Sarandon, Martin Sheen and Sandy Duncan, of all people.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also lent their names to this
piece of propaganda, which, I believe, puts those gentlemen
into sharp perspective.
Ms. Sarandon, in particular, is lashing out against people
who are calling her anti-American. She recently told the
British press that she is just "raising questions." But
signing on to an ad that implies your country committed
terrorism on the scale of the 9/11 attacks is far more than
just "asking questions." And most people know it.
The "Not In Our Name" group is a front for the Bill of
Rights Foundation, a far left group that has been around for
35 years. It is a tax-exempt organization that, for the past
few years, has given most of its donated funds to the
defense fund of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Philadelphia cop killer
whose case has been appealed to death, pardon the pun. The
evidence against this man remains overwhelming.
Now, the Bill of Rights Foundation has turned its attention
to opposing the policies of the Bush administration and has
convinced some celebrities to get on the train. But where
were these celebrities when President Clinton ordered the
bombing of Belgrade, which led to a regime change in Serbia?
Was Slobodan Milosevich a direct threat to the United
Could it be that some in the anti-war movement are selective
in their strategic targets? Sorry about the military
The sad truth is that there are some American citizens who
consider President Bush to be more of a threat to the world
than Saddam Hussein. These people are entitled to their
opinion, of course, but when the dissent becomes vitriolic
propaganda, then judgments must be made. Saying that the
United States committed terrorism in the Gulf War and Panama
is outrageous and foolish. It is also anti-American.
(Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox
News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the new book
"The No Spin Zone," in addition to last year's best-selling
book "The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the
The New York Post
HATE FOR PROFIT
By JONATHAN FOREMAN
January 31, 2003 -- AMERICA is the new Nazi Germany, and
George W. Bush the new Hitler - according to a front page
article in the London Daily Mirror, a newspaper partly owned
by U.S. companies.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the paper has been a mouthpiece for
some of the most venomous anti-Americanism in Europe -
indeed, it was the first mainstream media organization to
claim that Guantanamo Bay detainees were being "tortured."
But on Wednesday the Mirror's bile reached a new low with
the assertion that "the current American elite is the Third
Reich of our times, although this distinction ought not to
let us forget that they [sic] have merely accelerated more
than half a century of unrelenting American state terrorism
. . . "
Accompanied by a photograph of Tony Blair with bloodied
hands, it was written by John Pilger, an expatriate
Australian journalist who has long specialized in demonizing
the United States.
In the 1970s and '80s, Pilger was so notorious for
ideologically motivated dishonesty that British journalists
took to referring to ludicrously exaggerated or biased
reporting as "pilgering."
But the Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan, last year decided to
make Pilger the tabloid's star columnist and ideological
mainstay, rendering him newly respectable. He is now the
loudest anti-American and anti-war voice in the United
Kingdom, and his articles reach an audience of millions.
Pilger's feverish anti-Americanism is a slightly cruder
version of the theology promoted by U.S. academic Noam
Chomsky, for whom the United States is the root of all
A typical Pilger piece goes something like this (from The
Guardian): "Having swept the Palestinians into the arms of
the supreme terrorist Ariel Sharon, the Christian Right
fundamentalists running the plutocracy in Washington now
replenish their arsenal in preparation for an attack on the
22 million suffering people of Iraq."
Note not only the hysterical jargon, but the false concern
for the people of Iraq.
There is something almost comical about the cliched Marxist
language and content of statements like "the Washington
regime of George W. Bush is now totalitarian, captured by a
clique whose fanaticism and ambitions of 'endless war' . . .
are a matter of record."
But it really isn't all that funny that a major paper should
render this sort of thing mainstream and respectable.
Especially when (in the same article) Pilger goes on to
liken the State of the Union speech to "that other great
moment in 1938 when Hitler called his generals together and
told them 'I must have war.'"
Pilger may be as blind to the vileness of the comparison as
he is to Saddam Hussein's oppression and genocide of Iraqis.
But surely his editor must see the monstrous irony entailed
in labeling "Nazis" those who, like Bush, want to overthrow
a regime that has in fact used poison gas to murder its own
It is true that the Mirror also prints columns by writers
like Christopher Hitchens who favor war to overthrow Saddam.
But these pieces don't represent the viewpoint of the paper
and are not put on the front page. Nor do such pro-war
articles mirror or in any way balance the kind of extremism
that likens the Bush administration to the Third Reich.
The largest shareholders in the Mirror's parent company,
Trinity Mirror, are all American: the mutual-fund giant
Fidelity (12 percent), the Capital Group (13 percent), and
the New York based fund Tweedy Browne & Co. (6 percent).
(Efforts last night to contact the companies mentioned here
All three U.S. firms were reported to have been angered by a
previous front-page attack last July in which Pilger, with
the blessing of editor Morgan, called Bush a "criminal," the
boss of "the world's leading rogue state," and again likened
the United States to Nazi Germany.
Given that this vile comparison seems to represent the
official point of view of the Mirror, those companies should
now seriously reconsider their investment. And U.S. firms
that advertise in the Mirror like Toys 'R' Us, AOL, Dell
Computer, 20th Century Fox and the Ford Motor Co. might also
want to re-evaluate their relationship to the newspaper.
This is not a question of censorship. Pilger may be a
dimwitted fanatic whose head is crammed with leftover
outrage from the Vietnam War and a lot of tired New Left
cant about neo-imperialism, but he's of course entitled to
hold and propagate his views. And if Piers Morgan believes
against all the evidence that he can benefit his paper's
fortunes against its competitors - which include the Sun
(owned, like The Post, by News Corp.) - by taking extreme
positions against the Blair government and America, he
should be free to do so.
But there is no obligation for Americans or U.S.
corporations to subsidize such opinions.
After all, investors can and should think carefully about
the moral and political import of their investments. This
was true during the days of the South African divestment
campaign, and it should be true when it comes to organs of
opinion that objectively side with America's enemies and in
all seriousness liken the United States to Nazi Germany.
This is a comparison that defames those who died fighting
Hitler and defames those whom he slaughtered.
And no American should profit from such slander.
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
News for Anarchists & Activists:
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith