Yesterday's anti-Semitic screed against billionaire George Soros was nauseating -- but it won't be the last coming from the "old" far right.

Nov. 19, 2003  |  That old-time "conservatism" Whoever decided to post a nauseating anti-Semitic screed about George Soros on the GOPUSA Web site has apparently reconsidered, after embarrassing exposure in Eschaton and other blogs. As of this morning, the essay titled "Satan Lives in George Soros" had disappeared. A commercial Republican site that features fourth-rate columnists and flashing ads, GOPUSA's "issues and action" conference in Washington a few weeks ago attracted the likes of Grover Norquist, Bob Barr, Kellyanne Conway, Reps. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Steve King (R-Iowa), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

None of those individuals is responsible for the Soros-bashing essay, of course, but the proprietors of GOPUSA have some explaining to do. The only reasonable assumption is that they endorsed the vile gutter bigotry that suffuses this piece from the first paragraph, in which the liberal philanthropist is described as a "Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock" and "the embodiment of the Merchant from [sic] Venice." It goes on to quote accusations against Soros by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed and other notorious anti- Semites on the Russian far right. (The semiliterate author, identified by Josh Marshall today as James Hall, uses the pen name "Sartre" -- perhaps unaware that the French philosopher had much to say about this particular form of mental illness in "Anti-Semite and Jew.")

Hall's essay can still be found on his own site, which offers such interesting clues to his ideological disposition as the links on this page (scroll down) to the works of the late Francis ParkerYockey, an American fascist activist and author.

Although GOPUSA has no official connection with the Republican Party, the occasion for spewing this filth was the recent announcement by Soros that he will commit his financial and intellectual power to defeating George W. Bush. Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who honed his propaganda skills on behalf of Enron, has commenced a bitter campaign against Soros. Gillespie evidently believes that wealth can only be used legitimately to support Republicans.

More such filth will no doubt emanate from the precincts of the "old" far right. Soros is simply too tempting a target for the paleo-cons -- and he obviously isn't alone among prominent Jews in opposing Bush. But just as black leaders are expected to denounce Louis Farrakhan, will anyone demand that Gillespie publicly reject such anti-Semitic attacks on his new nemesis? [11 a.m. PST, Nov. 19, 2003]

salon.com

Well, sir, in response to your article, I feel I should inform you that I am not a NAZI. Nor am I a book burner. Nor am I a great philosopher such as yourself. I am not an Ayn Rand fan. Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian. I'm not much of a party man regardless of current party affiliation. I'm simply an average guy and a Vietnam era USN veteran who happens to love his country.

I love America, but that does not mean I love our current government. In fact, I started this website to try to do something about the rampant government corruption and abuse. Like most conservatives, I am alarmed at the continuing expansion of government power and erosion of our individual liberty.

To let you know where I stand politically, I believe completely in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government should be strictly limited to the the dozen and a half powers granted it by We the People and enumerated in Article I of the U.S Constitution. The congress and the courts should not be eroding away the Bill of Rights. Most of the ABC agencies set up by the federal government are unconstitutional and should be abolished. The federal government was not intended by our founders to be involved in crime or social issues. These were reserved for the states and the people and should be under local control. The founders did not intend for a huge and powerful central government. And they did not intend for the people to be taxed on their income. The 16th amendment should be repealed and the Income Tax and the IRS abolished. The war on drugs should be ended. Federal meddling into our personal affairs and businesses should be stopped. The 17th amendment should be repealed and the balance between federal and state powers should be restored.

I am no fan of expanding federal power. I am not in favor of "compassionate" conservatism. Nor am I in favor of federal involvement in education or any other social issue. I am not in favor of expanded security at the cost of lost liberty. I want no part of a national ID card. I support the 2nd amendment as I do the 1st and the 3rd through 10th.

But, getting back to your article, you seem to be bothered by something I wrote and posted to Free Republic. I wrote the paragraph you quoted sometime after our country was brutally attacked by a foreign power. I feel that one of the few valid duties of our federal government is to defend the nation when attacked. I not only support our President in his military response against this attack, but I demand and expect these actions. As a nation, we cannot allow attacks such as this to go unanswered.

And I fully support our military and our intelligence agencies during wartime. I am not going to allow Free Republic to be used to undermine these efforts. There were several blame America first people who were posting all sorts of conspiracy theories about our own government being involved in a plot to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon. Sorry, but that does not pass the smell test. They got banned and their posts deleted. And I then posted my desire (the paragraph you quoted) NOT to have that sort of garbage posted to FR. Those of you who believe that President Bush or the CIA blew up the twin towers to expand his or their federal powers are more than welcome to spew your nonsense somewhere else. It will not be allowed to stand on FR.

Otherwise, thank you for your interest in FR.

Jim

124 posted on 1/17/02 4:21 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

Mr Robinson,

I am honored that you can make the time to reply to an article that was published in EtherZone. The original work appeared in BREAKING ALL THE RULES and was written to bring attention to a concern that many traditional conservatives have; namely, Free Speech.

First off, I totally support your right to set whatever rules you wish for Free Republic. I also find in your response several aspects of agreement, when applied to principles, upon which any geniune American should accept. Since we have never corresponded before, it is all too possible that you may be reading into my comments more than you should.

Our concern is that the American people have embraced a hysteria of blind support for a foreign policy that actively promotes an Empire and will lead to the total destruction of our Republic. Since you acknowledge that you wish to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, why are you supporting a war policy that guarantees perpetual intervention when the real enemies of our nation reside in the forces that are creating this New World Order?

We all share the horror and sadness for those who perished, and wish to bring all criminals to justice, but do you really believe that another bombing war will accomplish the goals that we both seek? The fundamental reasons that the U.S. is hated throughout much of the world, rests upon a specious Internationalist Foreign Policy that has existed for over a hundred years. If this is really wartime, have Congress declare war. That is exactly what the Constitution demands.

I trust you will agree that we can differ on this aspect of policy and conduct ourselves as gentlemen. You certainly have established your conduct along those lines, and you can be assured that SARTRE will gladly post any replies on BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Glad that Free Republic is willing to present these views.

James Hall SARTRE http://sartre.info sartre@frontiernet.net

130 posted on 1/17/02 5:10 PM Pacific by SARTRE