The Real News of the Month

September 2006
Volume 13, Number 9

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year. For special discounted 
   subscription offers and e-mail subscriptions see, or call the publisher's office.

Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617      Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 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.

  -> The Coming Fury
  -> Publisher's Note
  -> Prescriptions for the Public Good?
The Sobran Forum
  -> The Political Victory of Political Correctness
Cartoons (Baloo)
"Reactionary Utopian" Columns Reprinted in This Issue


The Coming Fury
(page 1)

     As Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, 
cuddled with the ailing Fidel Castro on the occasion of 
the latter's eightieth birthday, I found myself thinking 
of a name from the past: Manuel Noriega. Remember him? He 
was the pocky-faced dictator of Panama toppled by the 
first President Bush in 1989, on the pretext that he was 
trafficking in drugs, with the usual Hitler analogies 
justifying the latest U.S war in Central America. After 
he finally surrendered, Noriega was somehow tried under 
U.S. law (though he hadn't set foot in this country) and 
of course convicted. The last I heard, he was in an 
American prison and had converted to Christianity.

     This remains the most recent of America's many 
little interventions in the region. We tend to forget 
them quickly, but those on the receiving end remember 
them. This is why rulers like Castro and Chavez are as 
popular as they are in Latin America: whatever their 
faults, at least they defy the bullying Yanqui.

     About all I remember about the Panama war is that it 
seemed quite unnecessary to me, while my conservative 
friends were all for it. I never understood their 
enthusiasm, except that the Cold War was coming to an end 
and they relished the chance to exercise American power 
abroad against an enemy, any enemy, and Noriega would 
serve. I thought it was shameful. Obviously Noriega was 
no threat at all to the United States; you might say he 
was the Saddam Hussein of the Eighties. And we wonder why 
there is so much anti-Americanism around the world.

     Lately I've been reading Pat Buchanan's latest book, 
STATE OF EMERGENCY, a warning that immigration by 
unassimilable aliens now threatens not only America but 
Europe. Given our history of absorbing newcomers 
peacefully, I was disposed to be skeptical. But after 
only a few chapters I found myself, against my will, 
shaken and convinced. The new influxes, chiefly Mexican 
here and Muslim in Europe, are totally different from 
early waves of immigrants -- and far more dangerous. At 
present rates, it won't be long until there are no 
majority white Christian countries on earth. And the new 
nonwhite majorities will be deeply hostile to the 

     In his brilliant, neglected book, THE MIGHT OF THE 
WEST (1964), Lawrence Brown observes that we remember the 
nineteenth century as a period of peace only because the 
white nations seldom made war on each other. The rest of 
the world experienced it differently. The white man's 
technology, chiefly gunpowder, enabled him to invade and 
conquer red, brown, yellow, and black men around the 
world, with enormous attendant slaughter and disruption. 
To these peoples it must have seemed as if a strange race 
of pale aliens, armed with malevolent magic, had arrived 
from another planet to destroy them. They were all but 
helpless against the enemy's guns, then a terrible 
novelty and mystery to them.

     We ruled the world, and it seemed we would go on 
ruling it forever. But now -- suddenly, in historical 
terms -- the tables are turned, and it is we who seem 
helpless against the colored races' explosive 
populations. They are driving us out of their world and 
moving into ours in huge numbers. And they are in no mood 
either to adopt our ways or to forgive us.

Publisher's Note
(page 2)

Dear Loyal Subscriber,

     Several months ago, I wrote to you about the great 
financial need we have in order to continue publishing 
SOBRAN'S. I'm grateful that a number of people responded. 
I was encouraged, too, by the feedback and by the many 
prayers that were offered for the success of the 
newsletter. So far, we have met about half of our goal. 
There is still time -- and still a need -- to make a 
pledge or send a gift to assist us in meeting our 
financial crisis. Frankly, keeping the doors open 
requires the participation of those who believe that 
SOBRAN'S plays a vital role in the battle of ideas.

     Because of your support, votes of confidence, and 
prayers, we are indeed making progress:

* Patrick J. Buchanan's new website,, 
reprinted one of Joe's WANDERER newspaper columns in 
which he reviewed Pat's blockbuster book, STATE OF 
EMERGENCY. Joe's column got thousands of "hits" from 
Buchanan website readers. Joe's lead piece in this issue 
is being reprinted by MIDDLE AMERICAN NEWS 
(, a widely circulated conservative 

* Joe's column, "The Real Bill Buckley," (see the July 
060530.shtml) was reprinted by the "Conservative 
University," an on-line classroom ( 
that gets nearly 50,000 visitors. Also, the column came 
to the attention of Mr. Buckley himself, who wrote a nice 
note to Joe about it.

* Joe's recent speeches in Detroit and Washington, D.C., 
were well received, as was his appearance on James 
Edwards's nationally syndicated radio talk show. To set 
up a speaking engagement or fundraising party, please 
call John Mangopolous. (See side panel for his contact 

* Of course Joe continues to be attacked by the left-wing 
press -- another sign of our success. The October 9, 
2006, NATION magazine says that Joe doesn't "fall into 
that [racist] category," but claims he is a "right-wing 
columnist drummed out of his post at NATIONAL REVIEW for 
his anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." For the 
record, Joe holds neither view.

     In the meantime, Joe has his nose to the grindstone 
as a contributor to a new college textbook on 
"Shakespeare" plays for a major publisher. (See his piece 
on page 8 or see 
060912.shtml for a sneak preview.)

     Finally I am delighted to announce that our 12th 
anniversary SOBRAN'S Charter Subscribers' luncheon will be 
held on Saturday, December 9, at Maggiano's Little Italy 
restaurant in McLean, Virginia. As usual, Joe will be 
giving a talk and we will have two special guest speakers 
as well: Tom Fleming, editor of CHRONICLES magazine, and 
author and policy analyst Doug Bandow.

     This event is for benefactors of SOBRAN'S who have 
already pledged or wish to pledge at least $1,000 to 
support the newsletter. Please note: we have now 
established a flexible payment schedule, so if you wish 
to donate on a long-term basis, we would be grateful. An 
invitation and handy reply form outlining the options is 

     As you might imagine with avid readers of SOBRAN'S, 
those attending are well-read and fascinating dinner 
companions. In past years such luminaries as Pat 
Buchanan, Howard Phillips, Taki Theodoracopulos, Dr. 
William Campbell Douglass, Tom Bethell, Ann Coulter, 
Grover Norquist, and Michael Peroutka have been sitting 
in the audience. Space is limited and reservations have 
already started to come in, so let me know as soon as 
possible if you plan to be there.          

     If you cannot come but would like to help sponsor 
the event or wish to make a pledge to help Joe and the 
newsletter, you may contact me directly by writing, 
e-mailing, or calling -- or simply push that "Donations" 
button at Remember, your financial, 
moral, and prayer support are vital to the continuation 
of this modest enterprise. And, as always, my deepest 
appreciation goes out to every loyal supporter of 

                               Sincerely yours in Christ,

                               Fran Griffin

Prescriptions for the Public Good?
(pages 3-4, 6)

     When, early this year [1983], the Department of 
Health and Human Services required that parents of 
children receiving prescription contraceptives be 
informed of this fact, the regulation was greeted with 
catcalls by the enlightened. Editorials in the NEW YORK 
TIMES denounced "the squeal law," and the WASHINGTON POST 
reported with pokerfaced prose that "civil liberties and 
family planning groups" were filing suit to prevent 

     The rhetoric is interesting. Words like "squeal" and 
"civil liberties" imply that the child's privacy is at 
stake. Only one thing is forgotten: that a public agency 
is interposing itself between members of that most 
private of all human institutions, the family. The 
protesters are in effect arguing (though not very 
candidly) that distributing contraceptives is properly a 
matter between child and state and that parents have no 
legitimate interest in the transaction.

     If the argument were put so boldly it would be 
breathtaking. But of course the enlightened are loath to 
admit there is a any serious principle at stake here at 
all. Who can approve of squealing? Who can oppose civil 
liberties? Who is so heartless as to wish that young 
people, succumbing to the common weaknesses of this our 
flesh, should therefore be visited with the twin blights 
of disease and pregnancy? Who would obstruct "family 

     I deliberately saved the worst for last. Skin should 
crawl when that innocuous phrase -- "family planning" -- 
is invoked. The family! Ah, yes, we all revere the 
family, don't we? Planning! Excellent thing, planning. 
The very opposite of improvidence, by which so many have 
been brought to ruin. Put them together and you get a 
doubly good thing: families *should* plan.

     Except that what is really meant, as appears from 
the squeal-rule controversy, is not that the family will 
plan, but that it will be planned by somebody else. 
Family-planning groups are groups that have plans for the 
family. We now see that they are not necessarily eager 
that the family be informed. (That might upset the 

     On the one hand we are told that sex is a purely 
private affair; on the other we are told (convolutedly) 
that public agencies -- including the federal government-
-- have an interest in teenage sexual behavior, but that 
parents of those teenagers don't. Parents are to pay 
their taxes and not ask any questions as to what the 
money is spent on.

     The POST reported that even the Salvation Army -- 
seldom thought of as a radical or even trendy 
denomination -- had protested the squeal rule. This was a 
detail that saddened me, I confess. It was no surprise 
that some other churches would join the pack, but the 
Salvation Army! That genuinely Christ-loving and 
consequently fashion-free sect, whose sacrifices for 
others are so constant and palpable. For *them* to be 
drawn into this conspiracy against the family was worse 
than disgusting. It hurt.

     Parents, it used to go without saying, have not only 
a biological and economic but a moral and spiritual 
interest in their children's conduct. It used to go 
without saying because it didn't need to be said. Today 
it goes unsaid because so few in leadership positions 
have the courage to say it. Churchmen are urged to "speak 
out" on the issues, but everyone understands that this 
loaded locution is really an invitation for them to speak 
out on the side of "social change." Those who speak out 
on the other side can count on being ignored, ridiculed, 
and reviled for "resisting change." This may seem a 
rather light cross to bear, but it is evidently too heavy 
for many in the clergy, and we should pray that they will 
be given the strength to do it, because what is in 
progress is a concerted assault on the core of society, 
and many elements within the churches have become part of 
that assault -- reverse martyrs.

     In what I consider the most seminal book of our 
time, THE SOCIALIST PHENOMENON, Igor Shafarevich argues 
that we now call "socialism" is really a recurrent 
process of social dissolution. When the central 
institutions of society -- religion, the family. and 
private property -- lose their vigor, power flows to the 
state, and the seekers of power in turn rationalize the 
destruction of these institutions or their transformation 
into mere appendages of the state (like the Orthodox 
Church in the Soviet Union, where the family may be 
broken up if parents instruct their children in the 
Christian faith, and private plots of land are tolerated 
only because there would be mass starvation without 

     Since the great apostasy of the West, the same 
process has been under way generally. Here it is 
disguised, not spearheaded by a powerful Left. Still, it 
is noteworthy that the American Civil Liberties Union, 
which has predictably opposed the squeal rule, began as a 
socialist legal agency. Its founder, Roger Baldwin, often 
praised the Soviet Union, taking the view at one point 
that, where you have the workers themselves in charge of 
the state, you don't really need civil liberties quite so 
much: i.e., civil liberties are a means, not an end in 
themselves. Like most socialist organizations, the ACLU 
has put distance between itself and the Soviet Union. 
This is incidental; the principle is what counts, and the 
ACLU's selected liberties do not, contrary to popular 
rumor, encompass the entire Bill of Rights with 
indiscriminate passion. (What about the Second Amendment? 
the Ninth? the Tenth?) Instead it supports those 
liberties best calculated to weaken the bonds of the 
family, the influence of religion, and the security of 
private property.

     To what extent the leaders and members of the ACLU 
are consciously socialist is not for me to say, nor is it 
my primary care here. What really matters is the 
compulsive assault on traditional social order in the 
name of individual freedom. However, the individual who 
will remain when all the institutions that support and 
unite individuals are gone will be a naked little fellow 
indeed. Literally. There is now a pederast's 
organization, the North American Man/Boy Love 
Association, whose avowed goal is to legalize sexual 
"love" between men and boys -- in the name of the boys' 
sexual rights or, as they put it, "liberation." The 
founder of this outfit, David Thorstad, has described 
himself as a Marxist-Leninist, by the way, and tellingly 
informed one interviewer that "this society is a real 

     Many people on both sides seem to feel that way now, 
and I can't help wondering (without, I hope, unfairly 
prejudicing a serious issue) whether much of the power of 
the nuclear-freeze movement doesn't come from the sheer 
demoralization of people who might otherwise be disposed 
to insist on the essential incompatibility of East and 
West. In January I went to Washington for the annual 
Right to Life march, and on the way back chatted with a 
neighbor of mine, a goodhearted, apolitical woman who has 
become extremely worried about nuclear war. She quite 
naturally and properly fears for her children, and she 
may be right. All the same, there was a tone in her words 
which I doubt would have been there 15 years ago -- a 
tone of despair and confusion, as if to suggest that, in 
the wake of things such as the legalization of 
pornography and abortion, the exclusion of religion from 
public life, and so forth, East and West have become, 
grimly, compatible. Why perish in a conflict between two 
secularized, socialist -- dying -- societies? We used to 
call the Soviets things like "godless" and "atheistic." 
Now we have been taught to ridicule these once 
uncontested terms, as Richard Weaver called those terms 
that stand for the great unchallenged values of any 
culture. We have ourselves become, operationally, godless 
and atheistic.

     This is not to say that a godly and theistic people 
should lightly aim nuclear weapons at other countries' 
population centers. It is to say that we may be seeking 
the wrong kind of peace for the wrong reasons. I suspect 
we want to avoid war, not out of love for our neighbors, 
but out of indifference to what *makes* them our 
neighbors. I have friends who are devout Catholics of 
politically conservative principle who with deep 
sophistication hold that nuclear weapons are essentially 
immoral, not because such weapons are apocalyptic, but 
because they are indiscriminate to an utterly intolerable 
degree. This is a serious position, to which I have no 
good answer. I mention it because it represents a healthy 
opposition to nuclear war, in the sense that my friends 
love God, believe in the Redemption, oppose socialism, 
support the family, and are totally convinced of the evil 
of the Soviet Union. This places them in sharp contrast 
to those vague souls who seem to think that the surrender 
of faith and principle are somehow necessary to physical 
survival -- and *worth the price.*

     All this leads to a practical conclusion. Christians 
-- those who believe that the Son of God died on the 
cross to redeem us -- must be prepared to go 
eyeball-to-eyeball with progressives, planners, peace 
movements, and the rest. We have to get in the habit of 
asking them, as a lobby so to speak, what their policy 
prescriptions imply *for us.* Is what they advocate 
compatible with our faith? Does it depend on our 
acceptance of their premises about man's nature? Does it 
require us to behave as if God had not revealed himself 
to us?

     We will have to beware of the old trap of trying to 
persuade them on their own principles, and insist that 
they either persuade us on ours or be prepared for our 
opposition. So far we have allowed public policy to be 
based increasingly on purely secular assumptions; we have 
been needlessly cowed, I think, by the charge that in 
bringing our own principles to bear we are seeking to 
"impose our views" -- a charge that comes oddly from 
people who are ready, willing, and eager to regiment all 
society into a new order as soon as possible. The essence 
of a healthy polity is that it acts corporately for the 
common good, The common good must be understood in an 
inclusive sense, that is, to include things of the 
spirit, and the only practical test of this is whether 
the Christian community is able to make itself heard and 

     As it has not yet learned to do. Christians tend to 
assume that they are a majority and that under a system 
of majority rule there is no special reason for them to 
bestir themselves. Neither assumption is true. Jews wield 
far more political clout than Christians. Even homosexual 
groups, opposed and despised by the great majority of 
Americans, mange to get tax money, while Christians can 
hardly get tax relief for their schools. More 
insidiously, the mass media award publicity mostly to 
those Christians who "speak out" for the progressive 
agenda, giving only fleeting and negative attention to 
those who oppose it. When was the last time the press 
mentioned the Salvation Army before it joined the 
opposition to the squeal rule?

     We are not facing a heresy in the traditional sense, 
with clear-cut doctrines that may be met by argument. If 
only we were! We are facing, instead, a kind of 
generalized decadence whose representatives resist 
defining their terms or admitting that key principles 
*are* at stake. Our main order of business, in my 
judgment, is forcing the public to see the real 
implications of a mass of hypnotic slogans that are by 
now too familiar to seem sinister. Satan, in our time, 
speaks in a bland and offhand idiom.

[This essay originally appeared in Center Journal (Spring 
1983) of Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana.]


The Political Victory of Political Correctness
by Paul Gottfried

(pages 5-6)

     According to recent reports, French politician Jean 
Marie Le Pen must stand trial a second time for remarks 
made to a reporter from the right-wing newspaper RIVAROL 
in January 2005. In his controversial interview, Le Pen 
had expressed the opinion that the German occupation of 
France "wasn't particularly inhumane, even if there were 
some blunders, which were inevitable."

     The new suit for group defamation and, by 
implication, for criminally denying the official facts 
about the Holocaust that were issued by the international 
Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946, is being brought by the Sons 
and Daughters of Jewish Deportees of France, an 
organization with long-standing and transparent 
connections to the French Left.

     A convenient peg for suits of this kind is the Loi 
Gayssot legislation, which builds on a law against 
collective defamation going back to the early 1970s. This 
important law -- both sponsored by and named for a Jewish 
Communist deputy in the National Assembly, Jean-Claude 
Gayssot -- criminalized speech that might offend 
self-designated victim minorities, while making sure that 
denials of Communist mass murder, however explicit, would 
be exempted from prosecution.

     In a response to anti-Communist critics in the 
French Assembly in November 1997, Premier Lionel Jospin 
refused to condemn the mass killing done by the 
"anti-fascist" Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, Jospin did not 
run the risk of being accused of a delit d'opinion (a 
crime of opinion). The premier, by this act, was not 
condoning anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic deeds or opinions 
but doing something deemed less reprehensible, refusing 
to be judgmental about Stalin's efforts to deal with a 
class enemy.

     Although most of the Loi Gayssot designates and 
criminalizes hate speech against religious and ethnic 
groups, Article 9, Title 2 condemns specifically the 
public expression of views that conflict with the 
condemnation of genocide and crimes against humanity 
enumerated by the Nuremberg Tribunal. In this postwar 
judgment by, among others, Stalin's handpicked judges, 
only certain kinds of mass murder and violence could 
incur legal action. In fact, only those crimes that the 
Communist condemned as "fascist" would be subject to 
criminal prosecution.

     If the Communists, who were the coalition allies of 
Jospin's Socialists, had nothing unkind to say against 
Stalin's or Mao's campaigns to rid their countries of 
"fascist" collaborators, what right then do French 
progressives have to raise objections?

     In his response, Jospin accused his critics of 
treating on an equal basis two "incommensurable 
phenomena": a set of not particularly blameworthy 
Communist blunders and the most evil of all evils, 
"fascist racism."

     In Germany, such vile mistakes can bring legal 
actions in addition to professional ruination. Those with 
insufficiently anti-fascist opinions can be listed as a 
"danger to democracy" by the governmental Protectors of 
the Constitution or else be dragged into court for 
"trivializing the Holocaust." This last misstep might 
include paying excessive attention to Stalin's mass 
murders, which has been interpreted as deliberately 
diverting public attention from the inexpiable enormity 
of German fascist crimes.

     Whatever may have been Le Pen's reason for uttering 
his statements, his historical judgment is certainly 
defensible. The Nazi occupation of France was not 
exceptional for twentieth-century occupations carried out 
by unfriendly invaders. A comparison with the Soviets' 
takeover of the Baltic countries may be instructive. 
There the French Left's "anti-fascist" former Big 
Brother, then allied to Hitler, succeeded in carrying out 
a far higher proportion of political murder and 
deportation than did the Nazis during the German 
occupation of France.

     Almost half of the Balts were deported or killed 
under Stalin, a figure that was reached in France only 
for foreign-born Jews during the German Occupation. Most 
of the French Jewish indigenes (more than 190,000) 
managed to escape with their lives, and the vast majority 
escaped deportation, largely because of French Christian 
assistance. Of the 330,000 Jews who were in France before 
the war, 170,000 stayed in France and almost all of them 
survived the Occupation. Moreover, the German occupation 
was far less destructive for French Christians than the 
German presence in Poland or Russia was for inhabitants 
there. And if one takes into account the hideous 
slaughter wrought by the Japanese on the Chinese and 
Filipinos, or the far worse slaughter of Jews in the East 
than in France, Le Pen's statements were not as 
outrageous as one might guess from looking at the press.

     Certainly they are not the sort of thing that a 
civilized country should throw someone in jail or 
threaten with a huge fine and public disgrace for 

     Note, Le Pen's assertions are also far less 
questionable as historical statements than the 
Holocaust-denial that they are imagined to illustrate. 
They should not be compared to those greatly reduced 
figures for the Holocaust that were associated with 
British historian David Irving, before his recent arrest 
and incarceration in anti-fascist Austria. This 
comparison is worth making, despite the fact that 
Irving's fate for his politically incorrect history was 
both outrageous and typical. It was outrageous, given the 
self-promotion of Western "liberal democracies," which 
have become controlled hothouses of politically correct 
opinion. And this jailing of an aged scholar for his 
historical judgment made in a different country at a 
different time is all too typical.

     The victory of multiculturalism in the "Western 
democracies" has given rise to a totalitarian domination 
as loathsome and intrusive as the real Marxist-Leninism 
that it is replacing. Whether it goes by the name of 
multiculturalism, sensitivity-training, or cultural 
Marxism, this combination of ideas and sentiments has 
taken over Western administrative states and their 
cultural industry.

     There is no way of combating this danger, save for 
an angry mass rejection of what the destroyer preaches, 
and a disempowering of the mind-snatching states that 
impose "tolerance" by force and through public education. 
Immigration from the non-Western world and particularly 
of Muslims, who are now streaming into Western and 
Central Europe, has been a tool for breaking down the 
pitifully little that remains of Western social and 
cultural authorities.

     Not all immigration expansionists are misguided 
fools. Many of them dislike or fear what Western 
societies were and did in the past, and have set out to 
reconstruct them by supplanting their old core 
populations. Others of those who are now engaged in this 
enterprise are, of course, useful idiots. Here, one 
thinks of the leadership of the Republican Party, who 
seem to be reaching out in the wrong direction even 
strategically by joining the vanguard of the immigration 

     But the effect of such politics, no matter what the 
motivation, is to aggravate the trend toward cultural 
breakdown, thereby helping along the multicultural 
experiment that is now unfolding throughout the West.

     The demographic erosion of Western peoples, the war 
waged by state and culture against inherited structures 
of authority, and the "celebration of diversity" all 
belong to the same process of orchestrated change that 
has contributed to the legal difficulties of Jean Le Pen.

[Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities 
at Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania. He is the author 
article originally appeared in at]


DICTATORSHIP MAY DEPEND on torture chambers, but 
democracies run to bamboozle.
            -- from page 29 of REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT 
            HOME by Joe Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with 
            a renewal of your SOBRAN'S subscription.

THE FINAL STEP: Gay marriage is not enough. We won't have 
true equality until there are gay shotgun weddings.
            -- from page 49 of REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT 
            HOME by Joe Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with 
            a renewal of your SOBRAN'S subscription.


REPRINTED COLUMNS ("The Reactionary Utopian")
(pages 7-12)

* Everybody Knows (September 14, 2006)

* Wild Justice (September 12, 2006)

* Victim of McCarthyism (September 5, 2006)

* Heavenly Turmoil (August 17, 2006)

* Nation-Building and Islam (August 15, 2006)

* Language in Rubble (August 10, 2006)


All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except where
explicitly noted.

You are receiving this message because you are a paid 
subscriber to the Joe Sobran column or a subscriber has 
forwarded it to you.

If you are not yet a subscriber, please see
for details or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2006 by the The Vere Company, All rights reserved.

[ ENDS ]