Sobran's -- 
The Real News of the Month

June 2000
Volume 7, No. 6

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $59.95 per year; $100 for 2 years; trial 
   subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $59.95 for 1 year ($25 with a 12-
   month subscription to the print edition); $100 for 2 
   years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print 
   edition). Payment should be made to The Vere Company.
Address: Sobran's, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per 
   issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign 
   countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-493-3348. Allow 
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue


The Moving Picture
(page 1)

     The WASHINGTON POST observes that "Clinton fatigue" is 
giving way to "Clinton nostalgia" as Bill's second term draws 
to a close. Well, maybe, though let's hope not. But give him 
this: Clinton is at least interesting. What we are certainly 
in for is *Gore* fatigue. Al Gore's shrill, inane attacks on 
George W. Bush are enough to make anyone sympathize with Bush, 
who ought to be able to win this election by letting Gore 
punch himself out. Gore seems to think he can draw blood by 
accusing Bush of favoring too few new federal programs; Bush 
seems to think he can defend himself against the charge by 
offering more federal programs, thereby risking the generation 
of Bush fatigue. What an exciting campaign we're in for!

*          *          *

     In April, an eight-year-old white boy was playing in his 
great-grandparents' yard in Alexandria, Virginia, when a 
twentyish black male passing by suddenly grabbed him, for no 
apparent reason, and stabbed him to death. The killer also 
badly wounded the great-grandmother and another woman when 
they tried to protect the boy. Then he fled; he is still at 
large. The savage interracial crime was reported by the 
WASHINGTON POST with no mention of race. The paper later 
explained that it has a rule against mentioning race except 
when it's "relevant" -- as in "stories about civil rights 
issues, the problems or achievements of minority groups, 
cultural history, and racial conflict." That is, race is 
mentioned when it's in the interests of blacks to mention it. 
Obviously, the problems of the white majority -- such as 
epidemic black-on-white crime -- don't rate. White-on-black 
violence, though rare, is another matter: it's called 
"racially motivated" or "hate crime" and gets coast-to-coast 
coverage, along with presidential homilies and calls for new 
"civil rights" -- that is, anti-white -- legislation.

*          *          *

     By the time Mother Waco's goons snatched Elian Gonzalez, 
the media had done a job on the Miami Cubans, making them the 
most despised ethnic group since the sneaky Japs. Little 
Havana was a "banana republic," rabidly anti-Communist and 
(ugh!) Catholic, populated by "landed oligarchs" who still 
resented Fidel Castro for dispossessing them. Liberals might 
criticize "both sides," but their sneers and jabs were 
reserved for the Miami Cubans, not for Fidel. And they 
performed all these services for socialism without even 
getting checks from the Kremlin!

*          *          *

     But the dumbest sentence I've heard in years was spoken, 
not very surprisingly, by the militantly bird-brained Eleanor 
Clift: "To be a poor child in Cuba may in many instances be 
better than being a poor child in Miami, and I'm not going to 
gratuitously condemn their lifestyle." What does 
"gratuitously" mean? Since when is living under Communism a 
"lifestyle"? I get it: we're not supposed to be "judgmental" 
about Fidel. The Cuban people, except for those soreheads in 
Miami, love him. Like Lenin, Castro still has his "useful 

*          *          *

     The Clintonites' solicitude for children always reminds 
me of a chilling sentence from Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR. 
After describing the sinister institutions of Big Brother's 
regime -- the Ministries of Truth, Peace, and so forth -- the 
narrator tells us: "But the really frightening one was the 
Ministry of Love."

*          *          *

     A veteran lawyer, commenting on David Irving's disastrous 
lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, asks a 
good question: Why do rightists, knowing how corrupt the 
legislative and executive branches are, think the judiciary is 
any better? Why turn for justice to an ambitious judge who 
knows what he can expect if he rules the wrong way? The forces 
who conspired to destroy a single dissident historian wouldn't 
stick at destroying a judge too, if necessary. Even his 
physical safety couldn't be assured.

*          *          *

     Which reminds me of an old Jewish joke. Two Jews are 
sitting in a bagel shop reading the papers. One is reading a 
Yiddish journal; the other pores over an anti-Semitic sheet. 
"Why are you reading that anti-Semitic dreck?" the first 
demands. "I like good news," the second replies. "What do you 
mean?" "Your paper is all bad news," the other explains: "'The 
Jews are being persecuted! Synagogues are being torched! 
Cemeteries are being vandalized!' It's so depressing. My paper 
tells success stories: 'The Jews own the banks! The Jews run 
the government! The Jews control the media!' Give me good news 
any day."

*          *          *

     Old movies often give us glimpses of life in a free 
country that no longer exists. The other day I saw an old 
Humphrey Bogart movie in which Bogey has a serious auto 
accident. In the next scene he's lying on a hospital bed with 
his arm in a cast -- and he's smoking a cigarette! Those were 
the days. If Cuban hospitals still let patients smoke in bed, 
maybe Eleanor Clift has a point.

*          *          *

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     Bush seems to be drawing ahead of Gore in the polls, 
especially among white married women. Could we be in for a re-
realignment? In 1994 the Republicans took Congress with large 
majorities of white Christian voters, while the Democrats had 
to settle for landslides among blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and 
homosexuals. Clinton, a brilliant politician, aided by the 
bungling of Bob Dole and the Republicans, prevented further 
GOP consolidation in 1996 and 1998 but didn't really reverse 
the trend. He was reelected with less than 50 per cent of the 
popular vote and, in 1998, the Republicans did gain a few 
seats; they merely fell short of their scandal-whetted 
expectations. He may have been a brilliant fluke. Gore isn't 
brilliant and lacks any skill or appeal that might add to his 
natural base, so we could be looking at a return to the 1994 
pattern this year.

*          *          *

     Up in New York, Hillary Clinton may yet win that Senate 
seat, thanks to the unforeseen Giuliani family scandals. The 
New York mayor, it transpires, has prostate cancer, a string 
of girlfriends, and a wife who isn't too happy with him. Mrs. 
Giuliani, an actress who prefers her maiden name of Donna 
Hanover, recently announced that she'd be appearing off 
Broadway in the feminist hit THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES -- an 
inauspicious signal for a candidate who was passing himself 
off as a conservative (albeit a pro-abortion and pro-
homosexual conservative). She canceled the performance, but 
made further waves by holding a distraught press conference at 
which she aired her grievances with Rudy. Taking a leaf from 
his opponent's spouse, Rudy is arguing that his private life 
has no bearing on his ability to serve the public. (It's, as 
it were, the economy, stupid!) If New York wants a senator who 
can at least simulate a happy marriage, the seat is Hillary's.

Message from the Publisher
(page 2)

Announcing ...

     The Sixth Annual SOBRAN'S Anniversary Celebration for 
Charter Subscribers who have contributed $1,000 or more to 

Saturday, November 18, 2000
Washington, D.C.

     For information on how to become a Charter Subscriber, 
call Fran Griffin, Publisher, 703-255-2211

*          *          *

SOBRAN'S Marketplace

     Shop for items you need and help SOBRAN'S at the same 
time. Our Website now includes a Market Place where you can 
buy thousands of items ranging from books, videos, toys and 
flowers to office supplies, airline tickets, steaks and 
cigars. A percentage of every purchase will go to SOBRAN'S. 
Visit the SOBRAN'S Market Place at www. today.

*          *          *

Renew early and get a discounted E-Package

     Everyone renewing a subscription can get the E-Package of 
Joe's columns at a big discount. This includes two columns per 
week e-mailed to you within a few hours after Joe writes them, 
and an e-mailed edition of the newsletter. To order, send a 
message to

Fran Griffin

(pages 3-6)

The Real News of the Century

     Whenever people praise my courage, I think: "If only they 
knew how little I really have!" Much as I venerate martyrs, 
I've done nothing to put myself in their company, and I dread 
the true test, especially after reading about those heroic 
souls who have endured it (as I'll shortly explain).

     One reason I write as I do is to avoid living in a 
country in which I'd have to be truly brave. Here, at least 
for the time being, I can't be jailed and tortured for my 
views, and I'd like to keep it that way. I have just enough 
courage to risk ostracism by people I would gladly ostracize 
myself, even if it costs me some income to incur their 
displeasure. We live in an age of hypocrisy that makes the 
Victorian Age seem an era of rowdy candor.

     The Victorians were notoriously hypocritical about sex; 
that is, they spoke of it with excessive delicacy. Some people 
think we've gone to the opposite extreme, but this isn't 
exactly true: we've merely managed to combine hypocrisy with 
vice, prurience, and obscenity. La Rochefoucauld called 
hypocrisy the tribute that vice pays to virtue; but among us, 
it's become the reverse, a tribute that virtue pays to vice. 
We are all forced to pay lip-service to vice now, pretending 
it isn't vice.

     On the last weekend of April, thousands of homosexuals 
gathered in Washington to stage an orgiastic political 
demonstration, which was addressed, appropriately enough, by 
Bill Clinton and Al Gore in taped messages. (Clinton spoke of 
the need for teaching "our children" that we must "respect 
each other.") The WASHINGTON POST, forgetting once more that 
it's supposed to be a newspaper, covered the event in the 
style not of journalism but of promotional literature, 
celebrating the "diverse crowd" (diversity, him good) with 
lavish upbeat color photos, such as a picture of a homosexual 
lad with his parents, all wearing T-shirts attesting their 
pride in the gay family member. (The "diverse crowd" included 
open pedophiles, but the decorum of fashionable opinion 
forbade the Post to mention them.)

     At the same time, Clinton made a separate declaration 
that an international AIDS epidemic now constitutes a "threat 
to national security," whatever that means. It certainly 
doesn't mean discouraging promiscuous sodomy or acknowledging 
that sodomy is, among other things, a major sanitation 

     But the real hypocrisy consists in pretending that there 
is nothing amiss in homosexuality. Everyone knows better; 
homosexuality is a torment that nobody would wish on a loved 
one, and the torment is not simply that "society" still 
disapproves of it, or that it's the target of "prejudice," 
"hate," and "homophobia." The forced brazenness of "gay pride" 
is part of the hypocrisy. What's to be proud of?

     Are we really expected to believe this nonsense? Of 
course not. We're expected to *pretend* we do. Otherwise 
we're bigots, like the execrable John Rocker. What the 
enlightened sportswriters call Rocker's "bigoted outburst" was 
really a bit of penetrating, if unauthorized, social 
criticism. He was talking about trashy people of all races, 
who, if you haven't noticed, teem in our big cities. And in 
keeping with "gay pride," they are *defiantly* trashy. That's 
why Rocker's infamous list started with kids with purple hair.

     The new hypocrisy consists in pretending nothing is wrong 
when everything is all wrong. This is now called "tolerance" 
and "diversity" -- "our greatest strength," according to 
Clinton, the perfect homilist for perverted hypocrisy.

     How fitting it was that during the impeachment debate the 
porn peddler Larry Flynt should emerge as one of Clinton's 
defenders. If Clinton's body were to be fished out of a river 
after soaking for a couple of weeks, it would look like Flynt.

     Because he deals in raw filth, Flynt poses as an enemy of 
hypocrisy. He adopts the view that anyone who espouses 
morality is a hypocrite, and he assumes he's immune to the 
charge because he has no standards. By his logic, only decent 
people can be hypocrites. To uphold principles you may not 
always live up to makes you, in his book, a hypocrite (as 
Clinton would probably agree). Thus Flynt becomes the moral 
superior of Henry Hyde. What's wrong with this picture?

     But we aren't absolved of responsibility to the moral law 
just because we refuse to acknowledge it. The moral law is 
real; we all know it. It isn't a matter of "belief," in the 
sense that one may or may not believe in a controversial 
doctrine. Morality is an inalienable aspect of human nature. 
We all know in our hearts that sexual desire must be 
controlled and properly directed, even if we aren't always 
clear how; we all recognize degradation when we see it, though 
our sense of it may be dulled by bad or vicious habits. No man 
in his right mind is indifferent to his daughter's becoming a 
prostitute; and even a prostitute has some meager residue of 

     In fact the forms of feminine modesty are so nearly 
universal as to seem instinctive. Deviations from them exist 
mostly among isolated tribes in hot climates; but of course 
degenerate societies as well as individuals may depart from 
the norm now and then. The chief proof that sexual morality is 
basically universal is that even where men allow themselves to 
be promiscuous, they usually hold their women to a stricter 
standard. The libidinous sultan expects his harem to be 
perfectly chaste. In pagan Greece and Rome, such goddesses as 
Diana and Vesta were honored for their virginity. According to 
the myth, Diana was so angry when Actaeon came upon her 
bathing and saw her naked that she turned him into a stag and 
he was torn to pieces by his own hounds.

     Natural sexual morality is perversely confirmed by the 
universal phenomena, especially in wartime, of obscene sexual 
insults, sexual torture, and rape, all of which are felt to be 
ultimate degradations of enemies. Moral relativism is a luxury 
of peacetime; when hostilities explode, men passionately 
intent on doing evil instinctively express their real 
convictions in violence against the wives, mothers, and 
daughters of their foes.

     In other words, it's hypocrisy to pretend we don't know 
evil when we see it. And it's only in the area of sex that 
contemporary man sustains this pretense. Nobody pretends not 
to know whether theft, bribery, and treachery are wrong; 
liberals can be extremely moralistic about everything but sex. 
They aren't moral relativists when it comes to smoking, owning 
guns, or simply preferring to associate with members of one's 
own race or sex; on such matters they see no need for 
tolerance, and they even demand that the state totally 
eradicate practices they disapprove of. They merely single out 
sexual conduct as a privileged circle, where normal moral 
thinking doesn't apply.

     It's likewise hypocritical to pretend that our 
differences about abortion are due to differences of "belief." 
Abortion advocates have kept shifting their ground over the 
years, first agreeing that abortion is an evil but arguing 
that legalizing it would control it; then turning agnostic, 
and adopting the line that "when life begins" is a "religious" 
question; and finally insisting that abortion is a "right," 
which the state should actually promote and subsidize. Even 
now they shuttle between saying that we should try to make 
abortion "unnecessary" (through sex education and birth 
control) and demanding full public approval for it. If they 
were, as they insist, "pro-choice," they would be horrified by 
forced abortion in China; but they are not, and some of them 
even defend the barbaric policy ("You have to understand that 
it's a poor, overpopulated country ..."). We are dealing not 
with conscientious differences, but with hardened consciences. 
Such people are willing to pretend that killing isn't killing; 
they shrink from using the word "kill" to describe what 
abortion does, though they would presumably acknowledge that 
bug sprays kill bugs and weed-killers kill weeds.

     Christ himself expected everyone to recognize and 
acknowledge the truth. He didn't speak of pluralism and 
religious differences; he didn't warn the Apostles that they 
might meet philosophers with sophisticated doubts about 
whether the evidence of the senses might be trusted. He was 
quite emphatic that if men rejected the truth -- *his* truth 
-- when it was offered to them, they condemned themselves; and 
the Apostles were to shake the dust from their feet and move 
on. Forgiveness, yes, even for those who crucified him; 
tolerance in the modern sense, no. His truth was so 
authoritative, so compelling, that he seemed to assume that 
nobody who encountered it, simple peasant or learned 
epistemologist, could deny it in good faith. He warned that 
rejection and persecution would be the normal lot of 
Christians, because the world would hate the light and 
willfully refuse to convert, not because it might be 
innocently misinformed.

     In time, miraculously, much of the world did convert, 
thanks to the witness of the martyrs; and a whole Christian 
civilization grew up. It was not, and could not be, a tolerant 
civilization, by liberal standards; it assumed that Christ had 
really revealed the essential truth about the world, and it 
regarded those who persisted in rejecting his truth -- such as 
the Jews -- as perversely backward, somewhat as modern men 
regard flat-earthers. They couldn't understand treating the 
truth, revealed by God and available to all, as a matter of 
indifference or private opinion, as something that might or 
might not be true, or as something about which reasonable men 
might sincerely disagree. Not only individual minds but 
society itself required orthodoxy. Christians still remembered 
the everyday evils of the pagan world, which quietly 
disappeared during what liberalism would later call "the Dark 
Ages": abortion, infanticide, pederasty, sexual license, 
slavery, crucifixion, arbitrary persecution and murder, the 
savage amusements of the Coliseum. There was no real doubt -- 
or pretense of doubt -- that these things were evil. Heresy 
and apostasy, if tolerated, might lead to their return. As 
indeed they are now doing, and have been doing for some time.

     Liberalism has become the hypocrisy of pretending we 
don't know good from evil. It even treats Communism -- the 
most virulent form of apostasy the world has yet seen -- as a 
matter of private belief, and the most impenitent agents of 
Stalin as victims of persecution. Only in Christianity does it 
see threats to freedom: the freedom of the Communist, the 
pornographer, the fornicator, the sodomite, the abortionist, 
and, ultimately, its most precious freedom of all -- the 
freedom of the modern state, which is to say, the freedom of 
enlightened, progressive rulers to remake society without the 
inhibitions of Christian morality. For liberalism, God himself 
is a tyrant, the *only* tyrant. This explains liberalism's 
utter indifference to (and secret approval of) the persecution 
of Christianity, the untold story of the twentieth century.

     Liberalism would lead to an age far darker than the Dark 
Ages -- the age of totalitarian states, with persecution and 
thought policing far beyond anything the Roman emperors could 
conceive. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other "progressive" 
despots, ruling in the name of Science, would claim absolute 
authority over the minds of their subjects. Even in America 
education has become the province of the state, and private 
education, though tolerated, is heavily handicapped and 

     The proclaimed principles of liberalism contradict those 
of the totalitarian state; and classical liberals -- now 
called "libertarians" to distinguish them from the prevalent 
type of leftist "liberals" who control the Democratic Party -- 
still want to limit the state to the most basic functions (or 
to eliminate it altogether). But as this distinction suggests, 
the dynamics of liberalism are very different from its 
Jeffersonian rhetoric. In the real world, liberals have often 
shown sympathy for Communist regimes, have moved constantly 
from a libertarian to a socialist paradigm, and, in contrast 
to conservatives, have proved susceptible to Communist 
infiltration. Emotionally, liberals are far more hostile to 
"right-wing" than to "left-wing" regimes around the world; 
they rarely use the label "left-wing" as a term of censure. 
Verbally devoted to religious freedom, they are alarmed by 
anything they see as an encroachment of religion in American 
public life -- the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public 
building -- but silently indifferent to the persecution of 
religion by any state they regard as "progressive." They see 
racial discrimination anywhere as a "human rights issue," but 
religious discrimination, even to the point of savage attacks 
on believers, never shows up on their moral radar screens.

     This is why conservatives speak of liberal hypocrisy and 
double standards. But the real problem is not that liberals 
apply their standards inconsistently, but that they don't 
acknowledge their real standards. Behind every double standard 
lurks an unadmitted single standard. Deep down, liberalism 
shares Communism's hatred of Christianity.

     A large part of the story that liberal journalism and 
liberal history have left untold has now been thoroughly 
recounted in a 430-page book by my dear friend Robert Royal, 
WORLD HISTORY, published by the Crossroad Publishing Company 
in New York.

     The book begins with a meditation on the meaning of 
martyrdom. Repeatedly and emphatically, Christ told his 
disciples to prepare for it as the inevitable price of 
following him. Yet most Christians believe that the age of 
persecution belonged to the early centuries of Christianity, 
and since the conversion of Constantine they have come to take 
for granted their security as the majority religion of the 
West. Yet the return of terrible persecutions in the twentieth 
century confirms Christ's prediction.

     Christians are well aware of the gruesome general record 
of atheistic Communism, which, in ruthless cruelty and numbers 
killed, far surpass the persecutions of the Roman Empire; but 
Royal's account of it adds remarkable detail and stories of 
heroic personalities unknown to most Westerners. Among these 
are two Ukrainian Catholic churchmen, Archbishop Andrew Graf 
Sheptytski and his successor, Joseph Slipyi, who defiantly 
endured Soviet rigors. Sheptytski was arrested, beaten nearly 
to death, and, during his hospitalization in 1944, poisoned by 
a Soviet doctor; Slipyi survived decades in the Gulag and 
finally went to Rome, where he worked to organize support for 
the Church in his native country. When he died at age 92 in 
1984, Pope John Paul II said: "He passed through the tortures 
and sufferings of the Cross, similar to those of Christ at 
Golgotha.... May his memory last forever!" Despite Communist 
rhetoric of "class struggle" and "working classes," the 
Soviets hated Christians far more than capitalists.

     Most Americans think of Mexico as a Catholic country; 
they are on the whole remarkably ignorant of the Mexican 
government's long and bloody war on the Church, beginning in 
1914 and finally repealing its anti-Catholic legislation only 
within the last decade. The most famous of the thousands of 
Mexican martyrs was the priest Miguel Pro. The dictator 
Plutarco Calles ordered Padre Pro's execution by firing squad 
in 1927 and, far from wishing to conceal the deed, invited the 
world press to cover it, in the expectation that the world 
would see the priest begging for mercy. Instead, Padre Pro 
extended his arms in a Christ-like pose and cried: "Viva 
Cristo Rey!" ("Long live Christ the King!") The resulting 
pictures, which Calles desperately tried to suppress, were 
reproduced countless times and inspired thousands of other 
Mexicans to accept martyrdom. Tens of thousands defied 
Calles's orders by attending Padre Pro's funeral; the police 
could do nothing. But the day after his death, U.S. Ambassador 
Dwight Morrow and the humorist Will Rogers joined Calles on 
his presidential train for a triumphant tour of Mexico. The 
government banned the Church outright and killed hundreds of 
thousands of Catholics. Yet the Church, though the hierarchy 
discouraged armed resistance by lay Catholics, could not be 

     Spain was another story. There the Catholic side won, 
after a terrible civil war (1936-69). As the liberal press and 
historians tell the story, it was the overthrow of the liberal 
democratic Republic by the fascist forces of Francisco Franco, 
who restored the Catholic monarchy while retaining dictatorial 
power. But (apart from the fact that Franco was no fascist) 
the standard account omits nearly everything that led up to 
the war: the Republic's attempt to strangle the Church by 
legislation, while tolerating widespread harassment violence 
against the Church and the clergy. The government cut off 
public funding of the Church, banned religious education, and 
announced its right (and therefore its intent) to limit 
religious festivals and to expel religious orders. Communists, 
active in the government, didn't conceal their aims: "We are 
determined to do in Spain what was done in Russia," one 
socialist leader proclaimed. The sincerity of these avowals 
was duly attested by the leftists' many tortures, rapes, and 
murders of nuns, priests, and ordinary believers throughout 
Spain, which became common years before the civil war began. 
During the war, nuns were shot in the streets; priests were 
killed for refusing to break the seal of the confessional, and 
one was castrated before his murder. Yet few of the clergy 
renounced the Faith even in the face of death. (Royal notes 
that among the famous foreign sympathizers on the Republican 
side, Ernest Hemingway was much more candid about anti-
Catholic atrocities than George Orwell.)

     Royal's chapters on the fate of Catholics under Nazi rule 
should dispel the libelous myth of any sort of affinity 
between Catholicism and Nazism; Nazi hostility to the Church, 
combined with Catholic resistance, produced plenty of martyrs.

     But nowhere was persecution more dreadful, more 
ferocious, degrading, and downright satanic, than in Communist 
Romania. The torturers compounded physical suffering with 
obscene desecrations of the Host and parodies of the 
sacraments, "baptizing" their victims by pushing their faces 
into unflushed toilets.

     Albania was not far behind: a Jesuit survivor recorded a 
litany of physical tortures so sickening that one marvels at 
the mere fact that the regime found men willing and able to 
inflict them without passing out:

           Most of [the Catholics in the prison camps] 
         were beaten on their bare feet with wooden 
         clubs; the fleshy part of the legs and 
         buttocks were cut open, rock salt inserted 
         beneath the skin, and then sewn up again; 
         their feet, placed in boiling water until 
         the flesh fell off, were then rubbed with 
         salt; their Achilles' tendons were pierced 
         with hot wires. Some were hung by their arms 
         for three days without food; put in ice and 
         icy water until nearly frozen; had electrical 
         wires placed in their ears, nose, mouth, 
         genitals, and anus; burning pine needles 
         placed under fingernails; forced to eat a 
         kilo of salt and having water withheld for 
         twenty-four hours; boiled eggs put in their 
         armpits; teeth pulled without anaesthetic; 
         tied behind vans and dragged; left in 
         solitary confinement without food or water 
         until almost dead; forced to drink their own 
         urine and eat their own excrement; put in 
         pits of excrement up to their necks; put on 
         a bed of nails and covered with heavy 
         material; put in nail-studded cages which 
         were then rotated rapidly.... 

     As the brave Romanian Bishop Iuliu Hirtea put it before 
his death in the 1970s: "It is not we who keep silence here. 
It is not we who are the Church of Silence, but the members of 
the Church in the free world who are the real Church of 
Silence, for they do not speak on our behalf." Of course we 
American Catholics had so many more urgent things to worry 
about: the Pope's refusal to let us use contraceptives or to 
allow women to be ordained as priests.

     Much more remains to be said about the tremendous story 
of the modern world's war on Christendom. But Robert Royal, to 
his eternal credit, has made it possible to say it.

Boxed Copy

RATHER NOT SAY: Somehow the major media neglected to mention 
that the "housewife" who organized the Million Mom March for 
gun control, advertised as a "grassroots" movement, was 
actually an employee of CBS News (she works for Dan Rather) 
and a friend of Hillary Clinton. It just goes to show that we 
need more investigative reporting on journalism. (page 8)

OUR FRIEND THE STATE: The state is a monopoly of the means of 
destruction. And those who are skilled in the *acquisition* 
of coercive power -- an amoral pursuit -- are forever trying 
to persuade us that they are wise and benevolent in the 
*exercise* of it. The masters of force always pretend to be 
philanthropists. (page 10)

Sir John Gielgud (1904-2000): It was John Gielgud's fate to be 
overshadowed as a Shakespearean actor by the flamboyant 
Laurence Olivier. Gielgud's refined, quavering style seemed a 
nineteenth-century anachronism; yet he was generally 
considered the greatest Hamlet and Richard II of his time. 
Nobody was so great for so long: only a few years ago he 
recorded a Lear that displayed his voice and intelligence 
amazingly undiminished in his 90s. (page 11)

Reprinted Columns (pages 7-12)

* The Critics of Christ (April 11, 200)
* The "Dangerous" David Irving (April 18, 2000)
* Subsidized Consensus (April 20, 2000)
* The Weirdest Sister (April 25, 2000)
* Why Fear Castro? (April 27, 2000)
* Changing the Story (May 2, 2000)

All articles are written by Joe Sobran

Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved.
SOBRAN'S is distributed by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate (
Individuals may now subscribe to an e-mail version 
of Joe Sobran's columns and newsletter. For more 
information contact or call