The Real News of the Month

November 2002
Volume 9, No. 11

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
   trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
   2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print

Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617      Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-281-1609 or
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 1-800-513-5053. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.

{{ Material dropped from features or changed solely for 
reasons of space appears in double curly brackets. 
Emphasis is indicated by the presence of asterisks around 
the emphasized words.}}

  -> The Return of the Patriot Right
  -> Wartime Journal (plus Exclusives to this edition)
  -> Are the Races Equal?
  -> Hannibal and the Kids
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


The Return of the Patriot Right
(page 1)

     THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, under the editorship of 
Patrick Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, has just made 
its debut, much to the satisfaction of those of us who 
have longed for a magazine that is, well, American (as 
opposed to Zionist) and conservative (as opposed to 

     If you know anything about Buchanan, you already 
know much of what the magazine will stand for. Its first 
issue has few surprises: it confirms that it intends to 
re-open the debates among conservatives that 
neoconservatism has tried to close: over immigration, 
free trade, and imperialist militarism.

     Despite my warm affection and respect for my old 
friends Pat and Taki, I expect to take issue with them 
over some of these questions. But at the moment I can 
only wish them success in persuading patriotic 
conservatives that the United States has nothing to gain 
from another war in the Middle East. That is the really 
urgent task of the moment. And no other conservative 
magazine is doing it. On the contrary.

     The first issue offers anti-war essays by Buchanan, 
Justin Raimondo, Stuart Reid, and Eric Margolis. They 
warn not so much against the proposed war on Iraq as 
against the dangers posed by its aftermath. Margolis sees 
a repetition of the 1956 French-British-Israeli Suez 
operation against Egypt, "a military success that turned 
into a political fiasco" -- with the difference that this 
one could well erupt into a regional maelstrom too. The 
United States could easily find itself holding a fistful 
of wild cards -- not only Iraq, but Iran, Israel, Turkey, 
and the Kurds, to name a few. "There is simply no 
political benefit for the United States in invading 

     Buchanan's one-page contribution, though fine as far 
as it goes, is disappointingly brief, given that he's the 
star of the show. He too predicts that the United States 
will lose far more than it gains when it has to manage 
the chaotic postwar world. True enough, but what about 
the sheer cruelty and immorality of the war itself? This 
"pre-emptive" war will be what is called "a war of 
choice" rather than "a war of necessity." In a few weeks 
countless people, mostly Iraqi boys, are going to die 
violent deaths. They will be killed without 
justification. This should appall us even if it produced 
cost-free geopolitical profit for the United States. It's 
fine to show that your opponent is wrong even on his own 
premises, but the premises themselves should be openly 

     Raimondo reminds us that the greatest anti-war 
movement in American history was not the liberal protest 
against the Vietnam War, but the America First Committee 
during the early phase of World War II. Its chief voices 
were conservative: John T. Flynn, Frank Chodorov,
Robert W. McCormick, and Garet Garrett. Then as now, it 
was globalists, not patriots, who favored war.

     But there was this difference: from 1939 to 1941 a 
war was already under way, and nobody was proposing that 
the United States *start* it. The war the Bush crowd and 
the neoconservatives want would be a dangerous break with 
American tradition; hardly a "conservative" course. It 
took Pearl Harbor to scuttle the America First Committee 
-- a surprise so convenient for the Roosevelt 
administration that many still wonder whether Roosevelt 
himself was really surprised.

     Time will tell how truly THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE 
will keep the faith other "conservative" organs have 
abandoned, but it's off to an encouraging start.

Wartime Journal
(page 2)

     A liberal Republican congresswoman's campaign ad 
boasts that she "puts principle above politics." 
Translation: she votes with the Democrats.

*          *          *

     The Reverend Jerry Falwell, a very nice man with a 
knack for putting his foot in it, has called the prophet 
Mohammed "a terrorist." This, as you may imagine, hasn't 
gone over too well in the Islamic world, where it has 
been widely broadcast. Falwell quickly backed off, saying 
he hadn't meant to offend law-abiding Muslims. Wonder 
what he'd have said if he *had* meant to offend.

*          *          *

     Let's face it: Christianity and Islam are eternal 
enemies. Each makes uncompromising claims of exclusive 
truth. "I bring not peace, but a sword." But this doesn't 
mean that the imminent secularist-Zionist war on the 
Islamic world serves any Christian interest or deserves 
Christian support. This war won't be fought for Christian 
ends, much less by Christian methods. Most Christians and 
Muslims have learned to let sleeping dogs lie, which is 
about the only kind of peace we can hope for in this 

*          *          *

     What is "terrorism," anyway? Except in the West, 
it's really just another word for war as men have always 
waged it. Back when the West was Christendom, it tried to 
codify rules of "civilized" warfare, to spare 
noncombatants. A noble idea, but at odds with the nature 
of war, and even the West itself has found it hard to 
sustain (see World War II). In the rest of the world, it 
has never caught on. Most people still observe the logic 
of war: hurt your enemy any way you bloody well can, and 
don't fight on his terms or by his rules. Can we really 
get indignant when the Muslims, fighting the country that 
created nuclear weapons (and still keeps a few thousand 
in reserve), refuse to fight like Christian gentlemen? In 
short, we talk as if "terrorism" were a deviation, when 
in fact it's the norm. {{ If Iraq is, as President Bush 
insists, an "imminent threat" to the United States, and 
may strike us "at any time," why aren't we taking 
precautions (gas masks, bomb shelters, civil defense 
programs)? For the simple reason that nobody, including 
Bush himself, really believes Iraq has any intention of 
attacking us. }}

*          *          *

     It's conventionally assumed that the Right is more 
patriotic than the Left, but that's now open to question. 
The Left opposes a war that could be disastrous for the 
United States, while the so-called Right wants that war 
chiefly because of its allegiance to Israel. Not that the 
Left goes in for flag-waving; it does tend to "blame 
America first." Still, America would be better off if it 
took the advice of the Left rather than that of the 
neoconservatives who have taken over the conservative 

*          *          *

     Erika Harold of Illinois, a/k/a Miss America, has 
upset the officials of the annual pageant: she wants to 
promote chastity and opposes abortion. Once upon a time 
her views would have been presumed to be those of any 
decent American girl, especially a Miss America. Today 
they are deemed controversial and radical. Maybe in the 
future it should be stipulated that the venerable contest 
is open only to normal American sluts. Anyway, God bless 
Miss Harold.

*          *          *

     A letter to the editor of the NEW YORK TIMES, 
published October 15: "A single sniper (perhaps with an 
accomplice) has created enormous fear and frustration in 
the Washington area for more than a week. The shooter has 
baffled the combined police forces of the District of 
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. If a lone terrorist can 
wreak such havoc locally, we should have second thoughts 
about the ease of defeating a large, amorphous terrorist 
movement globally. How can destroying Iraq accomplish 
this? (Signed) Joseph Sobran."

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     As noted here previously, Patrick Buchanan warns us 
that the real threat to the West is not terrorism but 
demographics. Western women are ceasing to bear children, 
and the void is being filled by immigrants, many of them 
Muslim (especially in Europe). The anarchist philosopher 
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, otherwise strongly opposed to 
Buchanan, notes than since the introduction of the 
welfare state, the Western birth rate has fallen by half.

Are the Races Equal?
(pages 3-5)

     Though I don't pay much attention to sports anymore, 
I recently tuned in on the U.S. Open women's championship 
tennis match between the fabled Williams sisters, Venus 
and Serena. I was duly amazed. These two tall, muscular 
black girls, who serve at more than 100 miles per hour, 
have completely taken over what was once a genteel white 
people's game.

     The same night, I also watched a video of the 
"Thriller in Manila," the 1975 showdown between Muhammad 
Ali and Joe Frazier. It was a punishing fight, stopped 
when Frazier couldn't answer the bell for the 15th round. 
Ali was supposed to be the boxer, Frazier the slugger, 
and nobody had expected Ali to win on power and 

     Between the two events, the legendary heavyweight 
bout and the current tennis match, I was struck anew by 
the astonishing athletic dominance of the Negro, 
especially the American Negro. We hardly notice it now; 
we have come to take it for granted in almost every major 
sport. In just the past two years, for example, Barry 
Bonds has proved he is probably the greatest baseball 
player ever.

     How do you explain the overall superiority of such a 
small minority? Nature seems to win hands down over 
nurture. Sportsmen themselves seem to agree that blacks 
are physically designed for sports, with their long limbs 
and quick reflexes, and according to a recent book, 
scientific studies bear this out.

     The whole subject of heredity makes liberals 
nervous. It undermines their concept of equality, which 
holds not that all men are created equal in a moral 
sense, but that all men (and women) can be *made* equal 
by proper social engineering. Liberalism even tries to 
play down physical differences between the sexes. But all 
such doctrinaire thinking is dying fast.

     Specifically, liberals fear that if we admit that 
blacks are physically superior by nature, it's a short 
step to admitting that whites are likewise superior in 
intellect. They don't want nature invoked on behalf of 
the bogey of racism. Yet racial differences in 
intellectual performance seem just as stubborn as 
athletic ones. It's best not to be dogmatic about this as 
long as most people are educated in state schools, but it 
does seem to be the case. And Jews and Orientals 
generally excel non-Jewish whites in measurable mental 
skills. Efforts to narrow IQ gaps have had unimpressive 

     Why should this be treated as scandalous, or even 
regrettable? It merely means that different people excel 
at different things. Aren't we supposed to delight in 
diversity? Actually, people who demand "diversity" don't 
usually like it when they see the real thing. Personally, 
I prefer the less tendentious word "variety." And when 
some people excel in certain skills, it follows that 
others will lag in them.

     Besides, black athletes are a source of racial 
pride. Would blacks give up the glory of their 
achievements if (supposing it were possible) they could 
have a higher average intelligence in exchange? Don't 
people really prefer distinction to equality? Isn't life 
simply more fun this way?

     Of course we are talking about possible hereditary 
edges, not absolute differences. No matter what the role 
of genetics, there are great white athletes and brilliant 
Negro intellectuals. And such differences as there are 
have no bearing on the rights in which people really are 
equal. As Jefferson argued, the genius of Isaac Newton 
gave him no claim to legal superiority over less 
intelligent people. The difference between Newton and 
others was nothing like the difference between man and 

     Liberal squeamishness about racial difference is 
odd. Of course liberals believe in equality, but they 
also believe in Darwin. If the races lived and developed 
separately for eons, shouldn't we expect them to differ 
in development? Wouldn't it, in fact, be strange if, over 
vast expanses of time, they all developed at exactly the 
same rate? Doesn't the idea of evolution itself challenge 
the idea of equality? Racialism seems a far more logical 
corollary of Darwin than egalitarianism. (Why don't 
creationists make this point in the dispute over teaching 
evolution in public schools?)

     For whatever reason, some racial differences are 
really stubborn. In their never-ending campaign to 
abolish them, liberals now condemn as racist the very 
color-blind, equal-opportunity policies they used to 
espouse. Today they demand "affirmative action," whose 
results aren't much better and create bitterness to boot. 
Both sides know that its unadmitted premise is contempt 
for Negro capacity to achieve. Affirmative action marks 
the end of liberal optimism about race.

     Why should anyone ever have expected blacks to 
duplicate the patterns of whites, anyway? The white race 
is as peculiar as other races. Are we troubled that the 
French don't match the Swiss in skiing, yodeling, and 
making chocolates? Maybe the Swiss just happen to enjoy 
these things more than the French do. There is no reason 
to treat their tastes as norms for others.

     Everyone knows that, when it comes to small matters; 
but we seem to forget it when it comes to education and 
jobs, where a socialist mentality takes over. Then we 
expect identical results of the most diverse people, and 
equality becomes the great imperative of public policy. 
But "equality" has a special meaning here. It doesn't 
mean judging people by the same standards; it means using 
the coercive power of the state to make people *uniform.* 
And since this is sheer fantasy, its pursuit can only 
mean increasing that coercive power indefinitely. "Civil 
rights" in this sense, means less and less personal 

     To say that the races aren't equal is only to say 
that they aren't identical. Pretty obvious, except to the 
state and its liberal avatars. They won't give up on the 
principle of uniformity by force. And this requires a lot 
of motive-hunting, in order to make sure that 
"discrimination" is rooted out. Even when people are 
trying not to "discriminate," the term has to be 
redefined to prove that they aren't trying hard enough, 
or that they are discriminating "unconsciously," or 
otherwise evincing "patterns" of discrimination. And 
since a real pattern can only be judged against a 
putatively ideal pattern, this leads to racial quotas -- 
which everyone professes to oppose -- as the objective 
test of subjective compliance.

     Back on earth, races, like individuals, acquire 
reputations over time. Liberals call these reputations 
"prejudices" and "stereotypes," which to some extent they 
are; but they are also, in large part, empirical 
conclusions. They are like caricatures -- perhaps 
exaggerated, even cruel, but also recognizable. They are 
recognizable because patterns of group conduct are real. 
Whatever liberal etiquette may say, we all know them.

     Sometimes a government propaganda campaign can 
create prejudice and hatred against a racial group or 
social class, though it helps if there is antagonism to 
begin with. But unfavorable popular views about 
minorities also survive the most strenuous efforts of the 
state to eliminate them, because they so often spring 
from the direct personal experience of countless people. 
Jews often complain of the prejudice they have met in 
country after country-- England, Spain, France, Germany, 
Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and now throughout the Arab 

     But how could the same "prejudice" be shared by so 
many cultures? We're entitled to suspect that Jewish 
conduct has had at least something to do with causing 
such persistent unpopularity. Israel Shahak frankly 
examines the negative effect of Talmudic ethics on 
Jewish-gentile relations in his incisive book JEWISH 

     Orthodox Jews, who live by the Talmud, are about as 
far from liberal ideals as a race can get, and they are 
pretty remote from Christianity and Islam as well. Yet 
you have to admit that the Talmudic code has been a 
powerful cohesive, enabling the Jews to avoid the 
dissolution, cultural and racial, that is the lot of most 
ethnic groups over time. Today's Italians bear only 
traces of the ancient Romans, and much the same could 
probably be said of today's Greeks, Turks, and Arabs.

     The Talmud is therefore both divisive and cohesive, 
like a language, which enables its speakers to understand 
each other but appears as a "barrier" to those who don't 
speak it. A century ago there was a movement to create an 
invented "universal" language, Esperanto, with a 
simplified vocabulary and grammar (no irregular verbs!). 
It must have sounded like a good idea at the time, but it 
never caught on: it was a laboratory language without 
roots, history, memories, associations, fragrances -- all 
the things that really make a language what it is. 
Esperanto had no power to unify a real village, let alone 
the entire human race. Nobody could even gossip in it.

     We can't escape particularity. We all have to be 
something finite. Nobody can be everyone, or even anyone 
but himself, in all his tangled relations with the 
particular people who have produced him. Race may not be 
all of our destiny, but it's certainly close to it. It's 
more than mere genetics, but it's that too. It's one of 
the first things others perceive about us, and they are 
as entitled to their impressions of us as we are of them. 
And of course the first thing anyone notices about other 
races is that they are funny-looking. They also turn out 
to be funny in all sorts of ways.

     Humor is a good test of racial experience. Ethnic 
jokes are now as "off-color" as sexual jokes used to be, 
but also as inextinguishably popular, and they have their 
own rules. The chief rule is this: an ethnic joke must 
ring true. A joke about a Jewish mugger or a crooked 
Negro lawyer would fall flat, because these characters 
are outside normal experience. Of course part of the joke 
is that we know it exaggerates the very traits it makes 
fun of: we laugh at our own perceptions as well as their 
targets. The literal truth would be less amusing.

     On the other hand, it doesn't follow that because 
race is real and important, it's all-important. Too many 
racialists ignore prior questions about humanity itself. 
Do men have immortal souls? If so, it's hard to deny the 
essential rights of men of all races. Or are racial 
differences so significant that some races, for example, 
should be excluded from the Catholic priesthood? This is 
a very hard position for a Catholic to maintain, 
believing, as he must, that Christ died for all men.

     After the discovery of America, Catholic theologians 
did debate whether the American Indian was fully human. 
The dispute was soon settled in the affirmative, and 
missionaries commenced trying to convert the Indians. 
Meanwhile, the African slave trade boomed for centuries, 
despite papal condemnations of the grim conditions to 
which the Negro slaves were condemned. A huge number of 
them inevitably died in the passage to the New World in 
crowded, filthy ships, so that to participate in the 
trade at all was to be a party to murder. One needn't 
have believed in racial equality -- a novel notion in 
those days, after all -- to be revolted by the sheer 
cruelty of this form of commerce.

     Yet such humanitarian philosophers as John Locke and 
Voltaire enjoyed shares in the profits of the slave 
trade; Voltaire proudly accepted the honor of having a 
slave ship named for him. It can take men a depressingly 
long time to face the implications of their professed 

     In recent years the drive for equality between the 
sexes, modeled on the civil rights movement at its most 
excessive, has begun to peter out. It was too absurdly 
contrary to nature to be sustained. Women themselves 
killed it. Men, especially the "powerful white males" of 
feminist outrage, were only too ready to yield to its 
demands. (Bill Clinton was always "good on women's 

     Here, if ever, was a case of people preferring 
distinction to equality. From early childhood, women 
revel in being women. They adorn themselves from top to 
toe, baffling men with their obsessive attention to hair, 
makeup, dress, jewelry, shoes, and even cosmetic surgery. 
Rare is the woman who would prefer to be a man; and men 
would rather not even think about the things that consume 
women, and of which women are such avid consumers.

     A unisex world is no more possible than a world of 
Esperanto-speakers; men might adapt to it, but women 
would never permit it. At any rate, neither sex took the 
feminists seriously; they were too obviously misfits, 
whose idea of a better world had nothing to do with this 
one. Despite its label, feminism was actually contempt 
for the feminine, a desire to remake women on a masculine 

     And of course the unisex world, like any other 
fantasy, could only be approached (never realized) by 
applying enormous amounts of coercion. A million things 
would have to be forbidden, a million others enforced, 
exhausting even the resources of a totalitarian state. 
The final result would be a dull universal slavery. At 
bottom, egalitarianism must always mean a regime of 
limitless force.

     More ambitious even than feminism, and therefore 
more absurd, is the animal rights movement. Here we 
should distinguish sharply between a thoughtful plea for 
a more humane dominion over animals (Matthew Scully's 
book on the subject -- see my column of October 1, which 
is reprinted in this issue and which is available at -- is actually titled 
DOMINION) and the doctrinaire extremes of Peter Singer, 
author of ANIMAL LIBERATION. Singer actually defends the 
killing of newborn infants, on grounds that they haven't 
yet achieved sentience, whereas he opposes killing any 
sentient animal.

     It's obvious where this leads. If animals have the 
same rights as people, then not only must man refrain 
from violating those rights himself, he may have a duty 
to police the entire animal world (including the ocean 
depths) to prevent the beasts from preying on each other. 
Such an enterprise, need we say, could cut sharply into 
the Social Security fund.

     Not only would the carnivores be hard to convince 
(will the lion, having tasted the antelope, settle for 
soybeans?); the equality of the sexes would be a hard 
sell for almost any species, particularly those insects 
that devour their mates.

     It all goes to show that if you really want 
equality, you must be prepared to exert a good deal of 
force. The quest for equal rights has barely begun.

Hannibal and the Kids
(page 6)

     Aristotle, in his POLITICS, argues that some 
sentiments are just too base to be uttered in the 
theater, even if they may suit the character who says 
them. The theater, after all, serves a pedagogical 
function, and citizens shouldn't become used to hearing 
indecorous emotions expressed in public. Even popular 
entertainment should be elevated.

     The Greeks dealt with extremes of human behavior -- 
Orestes, Oedipus, and Medea certainly pushed the limits
-- but they kept the violence offstage. We've come a long 
way since then.

     I don't go to the movies much anymore, and when I do 
it's usually to blockbusters I don't really expect to 
enjoy; I just want to keep up with what everyone is 
talking about. I wait for the more critically acclaimed 
films to come out on video.

     So it was that I recently ventured to see RED 
DRAGON, the latest Hannibal Lecter film and the third 
starring the great Sir Anthony Hopkins. In its first 
weekend it was the biggest hit in the country. An earlier 
version of the film, MANHUNTER, cast someone else as 
Lecter and doesn't really count as part of the series. 
The role belongs completely to Hopkins.

     The first film in the series, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS 
(1991), was gory enough, and well done; it was a huge hit 
and won bushels of awards. For all its violence and 
absurdity, it featured a riveting pair of characters: 
Hopkins as Lecter and Jodie Foster as the FBI agent who 
enlists his help, from his prison cell, in solving a 
series of gruesome murders.

     Lecter, the psychotic psychiatrist, doubled as 
villain and Sherlock Holmes, presumably possessing 
special insight into his fellow serial-killer. After a 
most distinguished career playing Shakespeare and 
whatnot, Hopkins became instantly world-famous in this 
melodramatic gag. He was a monster with snob appeal: a 
gourmet anthropophagite with a polished accent, a love of 
the fine arts, and vast erudition, all implying, for the 
groundlings, anyway, a profound mind. The black joke was 
a play on two senses of "taste" -- the cannibal as 
connoisseur. Nothing but the best for his palate! And it 
was funny the first time.

     The second Lecter film, HANNIBAL (1998), was a 
sloppy effort that had the sole merit, to call it that, 
of outdoing its predecessor in grossness: Lecter, having 
broken out of prison and living in Florence, home of the 
fine arts, stir-fried a bit of his living victim's brain 
(the top of the skull having been delicately removed) and 
fed it to him. I found this too silly to be shocking. The 
film was straining for an effect that wasn't worth 

     The story of RED DRAGON takes place before the 
events of SILENCE; in an early scene we see Lecter, in 
his posh home, serving a posh dinner to posh guests who 
don't realize that the exquisite entree -- surprise! -- 
is a friend of theirs. He happens to be a musician in a 
symphony orchestra, whose disappearance has baffled the 
police; needless to say, they discuss his absence as they 
eat what we know at once are his remains. (The film is 
perhaps overly generous with clues for the audience.) The 
play on "taste" is wearing thin. A brilliant young 
detective (Edward Norton) whom Lecter has befriended 
solves the crime in Lecter's own leather-bound library, 
and Lecter goes to the slammer (with a few of his books). 
We arrive at the status quo ante.

     But this time the chief villain (Ralph Fiennes) is 
an admirer of Lecter who, while commendably eschewing 
cannibalism, makes up for it with singular cruelty. He 
slaughters whole families, and we are treated to close-
ups of his victims, children and all, with their eyes 
gouged out.

     His motive? Ah, only the perverse genius of Dr. 
Lecter can fathom such things, so the detective repairs 
to his prison cell for counsel. But before you know it, 
the prey has become predator, with the treacherous 
Lecter's help. The maniacal killer learns where the 
detective lives and is soon holding a shiny butcher knife 
to the detective's little boy's eyeball. That's 

     Of course the killer has no motive, any more than 
Lecter does, except to do inexplicably nasty things 
which, we are to believe, can only be referred to 
psychiatric "science." Fiennes goes through the film 
acting tortured -- inner demons, you know -- but his 
character doesn't even have the thin explanation of good 
taste. It's just a device for revolting, and scaring, the 

     It revolts, but it doesn't scare. A thriller is only 
as good as its villain, and this is a villain you can't 
imagine meeting in real life. Nor does he appeal to the 
imagination, even in the meretricious way Lecter does. 
The only fright the viewer feels is uneasiness at the 
prospect of seeing another child mutilated.

     This sort of thing doesn't require a lot of 
creativity. But judging by the box office, it's America's 
idea of a good time. Carving up kids before your eyes may 
open new vistas for Hollywood, which has here sunk to 
depths beneath pornography.

{{ Text dropped for reasons of space appears in double 
curly brackets. }}

YOU AGAIN! Alan Dershowitz, America's Number One Pest, 
has written a new book on how to fight terrorism. Among 
his recommendations: the government should issue "torture 
warrants," authorizing such measures as sticking needles 
under the fingernails of suspected terrorists. Yes, this 
is "Alan Dershowitz, famed civil liberties activist." (At 
least that's what the press called him when his chief 
passion was defending pornographers.) It sometimes takes 
an effort to remind oneself that under our legal system, 
no defendant may be presumed guilty just because 
Dershowitz is representing him. (page 5)

THE GOOD OLD DAYS (CONT'D): In retrospect, the Ayatollah 
Khomeini seems like a pretty reasonable fellow, doesn't 
he? (page 8)

KUDOS: And may God also bless the Ludwig von Mises 
Institute, which for 20 years now has been promoting 
freedom without compromise. I make it my habit to start 
the day by reading its excellent website, Congratulations to Lew Rockwell {{ for 
carrying on the work of von Mises and the late, great 
Murray Rothbard, both of whom would be justly proud of 
their brilliant, dauntless disciple. }} (page 10)

THE RETURNS ARE IN: Saddam Hussein has been re-elected 
president of Iraq, with 100 per cent of the popular vote. 
Western pundits scoff, but if he was running against his 
sons the figures are quite plausible. By all accounts, 
they make the old man look like St. Francis of Assisi 
(their hobbies include rape and torture), and admirers of 
Saddam can only find them ... well, disappointing. {{ He 
has evidently failed to inculcate his finer qualities. 
Perhaps the Iraqi electorate, in their wisdom, have 
decided that his WMDs must not fall into the wrong 
hands. }} (page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

MISNOMER: The NEW YORK POST dubbed our Beltway killer 
"the Psycho-Sniper." The desire to insult this monster is 
understandable, but why assume he's a mental case? It's a 
glib diagnosis, and it inadvertently implies he could 
offer an insanity defense. If he's crazy, after all, 
maybe he's more to be pitied than censured. But pity for 
this guy seems a bit premature. At this writing, he's 
threatening to kill children.

CRAZY KIM: North Korea, the forgotten member of the Axis 
of Evil, now tells us it already has nuclear weapons. 
Pre-emptive war, anyone? By President Bush's logic, 
destroying the present North Korean arsenal should be 
even more urgent than preventing Iraq from getting nukes 
some time in the future. You can hardly argue that Kim 
Jong Il is a more sane and responsible leader than Saddam 
Hussein. Neoconservatives used to distinguish, with 
reason, between "authoritarian" rulers, who merely 
quashed political opposition while leaving most social 
institutions alone, and "totalitarian" rulers, who 
exercised tyranny over every aspect of social life -- 
religion, the family, art, education, commerce, you name 
it. Hussein clearly belongs to the former category, Kim 
to the latter. But the distinction seems to have been 
forgotten. Or purposely laid aside.


* Before It Was a Sausage (October 1, 2002)

* Why Not War? (October 3, 2002)

* Drugs and the Law (October 10, 2002)

* Taking Care of Peewee (October 15, 2002)

* Anarchy without Fear (October 17, 2002)

* The Law of Force (October 22, 2002)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran

You may forward this newsletter if you include the 
following subscription and copyright information:

Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package. 
or for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2002 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.