Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stephen Schwartz: Apologist for Mass Murder
Newsmax ^ | July 4, 2003 | Myles Kantor

Posted on 07/05/2003 8:57:28 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo

Sympathy for a Devil

Myles B. Kantor

Friday, July 4, 2003

Some do evil in silence. Others flaunt it.

On Dec. 2, 1917, after the Bolshevik coup in Russia, a 38-year-old Bolshevik said to the Central Executive Committee of Soviets:

"There is nothing immoral in the proletariat finishing off the dying class. This is its right. You are indignant … at the petty terror which we direct against our class opponents. But be put on notice that in one month at most this terror will assume more frightful forms, on the model of the great revolutionaries of France. Our enemies will face not prison but the guillotine."

He ordered a military commander on Aug. 4, 1918, during the Russian civil war, “Root out the counter-revolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps – this is a necessary condition of success. … Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service. …”

In fact, the German National Socialists’ use of concentration camps owes much to this man. Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich observe in “Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present”:

"The notoriety stemming from its use by Hitler should not obscure the fact that the Soviet state was the initiator of this institution. [He] had the honor of being first to use the term. In his order of June 4, 1918, he demanded that all Czechoslovaks who refused to lay down their arms be detained in concentration camps. On June 26 [he] sent a memorandum to the Sovnarkom [Council of People’s Commissars] proposing that all former officers who refused to join the Red Army be considered part of the bourgeoisie and placed in “concentration camps.” On August 8 [he] substantially enlarged the category of those subject to detention and ordered camps established in Murom, Arzamas, and Sviyazhsk for holding “reactionary agitators, counterrevolutionary officers, saboteurs, parasites, and speculators.”

Writing of this man’s founding of the Red Army, Robert Service notes in “A History of Twentieth Century Russia” that he was “not wholly traditional in his military preferences. He attached a political commissar to each officer; he also took the families of many officers hostage to ensure loyalty. Proud of his ruthlessness, he published a book in 1920, “Terrorism and Communism,” which eulogized mass terror.”

That book, written in response to German socialist Karl Kautsky’s anti-terrorist book of the same title, contains passages like:

“Our Extraordinary Commissions [the Cheka, later the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, and KGB] shoot landlords, capitalists, and generals who are striving to restore the capitalist order.”

“We are destroying the press of the counter-revolution, just as we destroyed its fortified positions, its stores, its communication, and its intelligence system.”

“… the historical persistence of the bourgeoisie is colossal. It holds to power, and does not wish to abandon it. Thereby it threatens to drag after it into the abyss the whole of society. We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish.”

“The man who repudiates terrorism in principle – i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism.”

He accordingly advocated systematic violence to produce goods, stating at the Third All-Russian Trade Union Conference in April 1920, “… the very principle of labor conscription has replaced the principle of free labor as radically and irreversibly as socialization of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership.” Socialist Rafail Abramovich asked how this differed from Egyptian slavery since “The pharaohs built the pyramids by forcing the masses to work.”

In March 1921, Russian sailors in Kronstadt near the Gulf of Finland rebelled against Bolshevik totalitarianism. He responded with this address:

To the population of Kronstadt and the rebellious forts: I order all those who have raised their hand against the socialist Fatherland to lay down their arms immediately. Recalcitrants must be disarmed and handed over the Soviet authorities. Commissars and other representatives of the regime who have been arrested [by the insurgents] must be released at once. Only those who surrender unconditionally can count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic. I am simultaneously issuing instructions to prepare to crush the insurgency and the insurgents with an iron hand.

He wrote in 1938, “The Kronstadt revolt was nothing more than the armed reaction of the petty bourgeoisie against the difficulties of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat,” also claiming that he “took not the slightest part in the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt itself, nor in the repressions that ensued.”

In “Russia under the Bolshevik Regime,” Richard Pipes notes the Bolsheviks’ “aggressive atheism” and how they “attacked religious beliefs and practices with a vehemence not seen since the days of the Roman Empire.” Vladimir Lenin appointed this man to head the antireligious campaign in 1922.

(While born Jewish, he once said, “I am not a Jew but an internationalist.” Pipes notes: “… when Jews were perishing by the thousands in pogroms, he seemed not to notice. He was in the Ukraine in August 1919, when it was the scene of some of the bloodiest massacres. A British scholar with access to the Soviet archives found that [he] had ‘received hundreds of reports about his own soldiers’ violence and looting of Jewish-Ukrainian settlements.’ And yet neither in his public pronouncements nor in his confidential dispatches to Moscow did he refer to these atrocities: in the collection of his speeches and directives for the year 1919, the word ‘pogrom’ does not even figure in the index.”)

Befitting his totalitarian temperament, he advocated the subjugation of the imagination to ideological standards, writing in “Literature and Revolution” (1924) of “a watchful revolutionary censorship” and that “the party must repudiate overtly poisonous, destructive tendencies in art, applying the political criterion.” His elaborations on Bolshevik aesthetic orthodoxy included:

“If the revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to arouse the internal forces of the revolution, that is, the proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political, imperative and intolerant.”

“During the period of revolution, only that literature which promotes the consolidation of the workers in their struggle against the exploiters is necessary and progressive. Revolutionary literature cannot but be imbued with a spirit of social hatred, which is a creative historic factor in an epoch of proletarian dictatorship.”

“… if your comedy will try to say: ‘See what we have been brought to; let us go back to the nice old nobleman's nest’ – then, of course, the censorship will sit on your comedy, and will do so with propriety. But if your comedy will say: ‘We are building a new life now, and yet how much piggishness, vulgarity and knavery of the old and of the new are about us; let us make a clean sweep of them,’ then, of course, the censorship will not interfere. …”

Having lost power but not dogma, in 1935 he wrote regarding the murder of Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, and their five children on July 17, 1918:

The decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no retreating, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom. [Murdered with the imperial family were their physician and three servants.]

He wrote in his will a few months before being murdered in Mexico City in August 1940 by Spanish communist Ramón Mercader:

For forty-three years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for forty-two of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again I would of course try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of mankind is not less ardent, indeed it is firmer today, than it was in the days of my youth.

Born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein, this mass murderer and pioneer of savagery is better known as Leon Trotsky. And among his defenders today is the supposedly conservative author Stephen Schwartz.

Schwartz is a senior policy analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and has written books on subjects ranging from Kosovo and California to Nicaragua and Spanish Marxism. Author most recently of “The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror,” he has included himself among “ex-Trotskyists who moved over to the conservative and patriotic side of the spectrum.”

Yet one finds claims such as these in a June 11 article by Schwartz on National Review Online:

“… Trotsky, a man of moral consistency if nothing else, took responsibility for the crimes of the early Bolshevik regime.”

“It is certainly true that Trotsky's role at Kronstadt was abominable. It is also true that very few people today know or care about Kronstadt, which may or may not be bad.”

Defending the crushing of Kronstadt, denying his role in it, defending the murder of the imperial family – yup, lots of responsibility taken there. And even assuming Trotsky had taken responsibility, how would that diminish his immense criminality as an architect of history’s most monstrous political system?

As for Schwartz’s claim that general ignorance of Kronstadt “may or may not be bad,” would he write the same of the Nazis’ bombing of Guernica in 1937 or Stalin’s 1940 Katyn Forest massacre? Or was the body count of those murdered and sent to concentration camps at Kronstadt insufficiently high to deserve remembrance?

Political sympathies are often an affair of the heart as much as the mind, and Schwartz’s continuing sympathy for Trotsky is a case in point. “I come from the radical left, and in many respects, I haven't changed,” he said in a March interview with The Atlantic Monthly.


Contact Myles Kantor at

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: communism; leontrotsky; stephenschwartz; trotskyism
It's okay to defend Trotsky and his program of mass murder, but just don't defend the Constitution and the foreign policy of the Founders of this country, because you'll be branded an "extremist" and, who knows, maybe even "anti-American." But the "Trotsky-cons," as Schwartz calls his little clique of ex-commie "conservatives," are A-OK with the editors of National Review and the Weekly Standard, where Schwartz appears regularly. So much for the "conservative" movement of today....
1 posted on 07/05/2003 8:57:28 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
check out the original Schwartz piece from NR on "Trotsky-cons":
2 posted on 07/05/2003 9:05:56 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Obviously you are irked because Schwartz connected you to Randall Royer the other day. I find it interesting that your counter-attack by proxy deals with silly Trotskyite politics rather than Royer. In any case, Horowitz-on-steroids Stephen Schwartz is not a conservative anyway, nor has he ever claimed to be one.


3 posted on 07/05/2003 10:00:58 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
I think being regularly published in National Review, and the Weakly (sub)Standard, as well as proclaiming your "conservatism" in an interview with The Atlantic: Here is what Schwartz and his fellow neocons consider to be "conservatism" (neocon-style):

"If there's anything right now that's painful for me to have to say, because I do consider myself a conservative on issues like private property and privatization, it's that the record of big oil—Standard Oil and its successors—has been so negative in the history of our country for so long that maybe the only solution is to have congressional hearings on the role of big oil in covering for and fronting for the Saudis. Maybe the only solution is to do what people wanted to do in 1907, which is to nationalize big oil."

Yeah, "nationalize 'Big Oil'"! Neocons = Neo-communism.

4 posted on 07/05/2003 11:24:58 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: beckett
And as for The Schwartz "connecting" me to Randall Royer: that's true only if you mean by "connecting" putting my name in the same sentence with Royer's. Otherwise, there is no "connection."
5 posted on 07/05/2003 11:27:50 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
"The notoriety stemming from its use by Hitler should not obscure the fact that the Soviet state was the initiator of this institution. [He] had the honor of being first to use the term. In his order of June 4, 1918, he demanded that all Czechoslovaks who refused to lay down their arms be detained in concentration camps.

Actually, the concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War. The conflict cost the lives of 5,000 combatants, and 30,000 civilians who died behind British barbed wire of malnutrition and disease. This was a major demographic catastrophe for the Afrikaaner community.

6 posted on 07/05/2003 11:44:53 AM PDT by TomSmedley ((technical writer looking for work!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Please -- you picked a quote that made my case for me! Schwartz is no conservative, a few cryptic words about "private property" notwithstanding.
7 posted on 07/05/2003 11:52:10 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Considering the writer of this piece of fecal matter is a Sodomite, the anti God bias is understandable. I guess nobody except you is allowed to have a change of heart? And of course that Jooooooooo Saul of Tarsus was a bad bad man. he became the Apostle Paul by the way. You wouldn't know the constitution if it came up and smacked you in the face.
8 posted on 07/05/2003 11:57:01 AM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
If I'm a "sodomite," no doubt you have the pictures to prove it, oh "CARepubGal." Or a good lawyer....
9 posted on 07/05/2003 12:03:22 PM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Ooooh! I am sooo scared now.
10 posted on 07/05/2003 12:09:27 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
Oh, and the writer of this piece is Myles Kantor, who is heterosexual. You idiot.
11 posted on 07/05/2003 12:09:32 PM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
:yawn: Have fun at Pride. Will you be marching with the leather boys?
12 posted on 07/05/2003 12:10:56 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
Hey, was that you on the "Trotsky-cons of Lesbos" float? I really liked the goatee, but I thought the ice-pick stuck in your head was a little much....
13 posted on 07/05/2003 12:31:12 PM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Steven Schwartz has your number... just a Jew obsessed cuckoo clock. That's what really gets your ire. Obviously you have an axe to grind with Trotsky (because he's Jewish) yet you, along with your silly website, bemoan us taking out a world class mass murderer such as Saddam.
14 posted on 07/05/2003 12:42:02 PM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Nope. Where in your dope infested swill of a "brain" does trotsky con come from?
15 posted on 07/05/2003 12:52:23 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal; Justin Raimondo

16 posted on 07/05/2003 12:54:47 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (game on in 10 seconds....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: viligantcitizen
Don't be gay Sparky!
17 posted on 07/05/2003 1:04:06 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Bobby Byrd was in the Invisible Empire?

18 posted on 07/05/2003 1:04:53 PM PDT by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
And as for The Schwartz "connecting" me to Randall Royer: that's true only if you mean by "connecting" putting my name in the same sentence with Royer's. Otherwise, there is no "connection."

Ah, but there is a connection. Royer quoted you in a polemic he addressed to Schwartz. Great minds think alike.

19 posted on 07/05/2003 1:07:51 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
Mr. Hat has a thing for Brett Favre and thousand island dressing, don'tcha know. ; ^ )>
20 posted on 07/05/2003 1:19:35 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (game on in 10 seconds....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
By the way, I prefer to quote more sensible sources, like Paul Johnson, who wrote a few weeks ago:
For America, September 11 was a new Great Awakening. It realized, for the first time, that it was a globalized entity itself. It no longer had frontiers. Its boundaries were the world, for from whatever part of the world harbored its enemies, it could be attacked, and if such enemies possessed weapons of mass destruction, mortally attacked. For this reason America was obliged to construct a new strategic doctrine, replacing totally that of National Security Council paper 68 of 1950, which laid down the doctrine of containment. In a globalized world the United States now has to anticipate its enemies, search out and destroy their bases, and disarm states likely to aid them.

For you and your fellow fantasists at, apparently the drawbridges across the Atlantic and Pacific can still be raised, and Fortress America can securely ensconce itself on its snug little continent. Missiles, planes and satellites pose no danger, and mass communication no platform for attack for our enemies among the 6 billion people outside our borders.

Such naivete is not only dangerous, it is part of an unrecoverable past history of the human race.

21 posted on 07/05/2003 1:23:26 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beckett
I'm confused, wasn't Leon Trotsky a monster?
22 posted on 07/05/2003 1:39:26 PM PDT by Dstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dstorm
I'm confused, wasn't Leon Trotsky a monster?

Yes, but you have understand where Raimondo is coming from in order to his atack on Schwartz. Trotsky, while a bloody revolutionary and marxist, later in his life came to represent the more moderate forces on the left because of his opposition to Stalin. Therefore some convicted marxists (a mental defect in itself, but that's another matter) like pragmatist Sidney Hook and even the liberal pragmatist John Dewey defended Trotsky. Later leftwingers like Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Schwartz, among many others, also distinguished themselves from totalitarian Stalinism by calling themselves Troskyites.

Schwartz has built a name for himself as an expert on Islam, and, apparently, over the years has become a strong defender of Israel. Not long ago he (or one of his enemies looking to start trouble, I can't remember which) put forward an argument which purported to show that Trotsky's concept of pre-emptive war and aggressive defense had much in common with the so-called neo-conservative foreign policy doctrine that has taken shape in Bush administration post-911. It's a specious claim, really. If it emanated from Schwartz, it's simply a boneheaded attempt to make Trotsky relevant again. If it emanated from one of his enemies who knew of his Trotskyite affiliations, it's simply a boneheaded attempt to tar the Bush foreign policy.

In any case, post-911 US foreign policy is driven, as Paul Wolfowitz has persuasively argued, by US national security requirements. Trotsky has nothing to do with it.

23 posted on 07/05/2003 2:10:36 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
I guess nobody except you is allowed to have a change of heart?

This pains me to say, but Raimondo is right. He's pointing to something that Schwartz has not taken back (unless Schwartz has taken it back since then, but I doubt it). The question is not whether Schwartz is allowed to change his mind, but whether he has changed.

If Raimondo is trying to suggest that there are a lot more "Trotsky-cons" that would be wrong, but I don't really see him saying that (at least not here, I think he's said that sort of thing before)

24 posted on 07/05/2003 2:16:34 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Trotsky, while a bloody revolutionary and marxist, later in his life came to represent the more moderate forces on the left because of his opposition to Stalin.

All true. Trotsky was seen as the Russian communism that could have been. A human communism. I don't endorse stating fact. Trotsky was being eliminated from Communist inner circles as early as 1927. Plus as far as conquest, blood and gore Trotsky was nothing compared to Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein

In 1928-29 Stalin managed to have  Trotskypurged.” Stalin then chose policies which were very similar to what Trotsky had been suggesting: rapid industrialization and immediate transformation into socialism. This was to be achieved through economic planning.

25 posted on 07/06/2003 6:51:30 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: beckett; Cachelot
Obviously you are irked because Schwartz connected you to Randall Royer the other day...

Portrait of a Wahhabi

Former CAIR Officer Indicted (Randall Royer)

26 posted on 07/06/2003 7:09:54 AM PDT by veronica ( - Confirm Daniel Pipes to USIP ......sign this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Veronica, I'm surprised you're not out peddling your "art" -- unless the smears you're retailing can be called the art of bs. It must be tough on someone like you -- trying to explain how shilling for a foreign country is "pro-American."
27 posted on 07/06/2003 7:34:26 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"A human communism" -- yeah, just like in Israel, eh?
28 posted on 07/06/2003 7:35:16 AM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Now now, all I did was post some links. Shooting the messenger is a rather pathetic defense. :))
29 posted on 07/06/2003 7:37:18 AM PDT by veronica ( - Confirm Daniel Pipes to USIP ......sign this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
I still say Trotsky is most famous as Mr. Body in the Clue case, "Raoul in the Library with the Ice Pick".
30 posted on 07/06/2003 7:44:07 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS, WE PRINT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
"A human communism" -- yeah, just like in Israel, eh?

 Run along Jihadi wannabe. You have no flipping idea what Jews are about and Israel is about. All you have are raw wounds from L_rd knows what. You try to expiate your demons via Jews/Israel. Same as many sad people down through the ages. You are hardly an original Justin.

31 posted on 07/06/2003 7:48:02 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Obligatory "hairy-back dwarf" graphic to accompany every Justine thread.

32 posted on 07/06/2003 8:40:25 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
BTW>> Steven Schwartz is Sufi. There are a lot of Jewish born Sufis out there. Many live near my sister in her nice neighborhood outside Philly.

Sufism is as good as Islam gets. They are mystical and take some Hindu teachings.
33 posted on 07/06/2003 8:43:48 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
Yeah ... very good and clever composition of Shiekh Kahlid Raimundo
34 posted on 07/06/2003 8:44:42 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Hey, Justine? Your whole family was here looking for you.

And as if that wasn't enough, your dance partner showed up...

35 posted on 07/06/2003 4:22:26 PM PDT by Cachelot (~ In waters near you ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
only if you mean by "connecting" putting my name in the same sentence with Royer's. Otherwise, there is no "connection."

Um, except for publishing Royer on your site:

'Pro-Democracy' Think Tank is Front for Israeli Lobby - by Ismail Royer

36 posted on 07/07/2003 9:42:26 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
PRESS RELEASE: Neo Con spokesman, Stephen Schwartz, self-destructively attacks the CIA, the Cornell English Department, "Big Oil" and harasses numerous innocent victims in San Francisco's Bohemian North Beach virtually immolating himself with his all too familiar fiery vicious scatological homo-erotically tinged predatory foul language.

This is more than a North Beach San Francisco issue. What is at stake here is the real defense of democracy and freedom of expression not the Orwellian double think of Stephen Schwartz who is like the pig "Napoleon" in "Animal Farm"

"'Napoleon stood sternly surveying his audience; then he uttered a high-pitched whimper. Immediately the dogs bounded forward, seized four of the pigs by the ear and dragged them squealing with pain and terror, to Napoleon's feet... When they had finished their confession, the dogs promptly tore their throats out, and in a terrible voice Napoleon demanded whether any other animal had anything to confess.'

Before long, there is a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon's feet and the air is heavy with the smell of blood. Even so, the terror and senseless death are both shattering experiences, but they are at least comprehensible; far more terrifying is the overt alteration of consciousness, which follows the slaughter, the blatant misrepresentation of the past, which goes unchallenged. [9] Lacking the right words to express her thoughts after the slaughter, Clover begins to sing Beasts of England , the patriotic song of the Rebellion. Squealer stops her and tells her that Beasts of England is of no use anymore, because the better society portrayed in the song has already been achieved. The irony in this statement is almost absurd, yet the animals have failed to grasp its meaning."

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 09:45 AM, wrote:

Stephen Schwartz, as is obvious from his writing below, thinks he is untouchable, immune to the rule of law. He sees himself, like all the totalitarian dictators before him, as the embodiment of the state. Therefore, any attack on him personally or his writing is, in his twisted paranoid vengeful mind, equivalent to a terrorist attack on America. The man is clearly insane filled with a desire for revenge, but is a menace because he seems to have the trust of the Neo Con Cabal in the Bush Administration including, or so he alleges, James Woolsey ex-DCI. He also boasts that he is on intimate terms with Paul Wolfowitz and that he will be Wolfowitz's "official biographer." Schwartz, drinking excessively as usual, told me at the bar in Enrico's Cafe in San Francisco's North Beach in January 2003 that Woolsey was disappointed that Schwartz did not quote him on the jacket of "The Two Faces of Islam" lauding his book that NYRB's Clifford Geertz and Princeton's Michael Doran, and other respected orthodox Islamic scholars have panned as a simplistic "obsessive" fabrication using the Wahhabi sect of Islam and the Saudi government as the scapegoat for the Al Qaeda 911 attack.

Synopsis of the breaking news story re:

Stephen Schwartz is a Neo Con spokesman on the Beltway employed by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies whose website suggests a Mom and Pop operation listing only Stephen Schwartz and Clifford May as active members with ex-DCI James Woolsey as an "advisor." The Foundation is allegedly involved in anti-terrorism work. Schwartz is Johnny One Note that the official Saudi Royal Government is the real source of evil responsible for the 911 attack because of their "protection money" payments to the Al Qaeda that is the terrorist arm of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. This may or may not be true. Our story has nothing directly to do with that issue except that Schwartz makes wildly irresponsible, indeed insane, charges that innocent people, such as myself and others like the renowned American writer Herbert Gold and his film maker son Ari are, if not directly in league with Al Qaeda and the Saudi "CAIR" are in league in a conspiracy with their close allies the "Serbs". Schwartz, in his fevered paranoid imagination fueled by his desire for revenge against a large list of the personal enemies he has accumulated over the years, has concocted a huge fictional conspiracy like that of the Elders of Zion that apparently has been embraced by some key members of the Neo Con Cabal that appears to be a kind of semi-secret society of Illuminati based on the occult techgnostic writings of Leo Strauss. One would normally dismiss all this except for Schwartz claiming he has the active support of James Woolsey and other powerful Neo Conservative Powers in the Bush Administration in his Gestapo-like jihad against innocent Bohemian artists, scientists, and literati in San Francisco's Bohemian North Beach who know him for almost 30 years. Schwartz in his desperate attempt to reinvent himself in his plan for a Trotskyite Coup d' Etat in the White House and Congress, with himself as "Hamlet" avenging "Trotsky's Ghost" the Master Mind, The Puppet Master, needs to reduce all the people who know the many skeletons overstuffing his closet to "human dust." In his fantasy, written in his e-mail we see his dark side bubbling out into clear view. For example Schwartz very un "wisecracked" that he and his influential neo con friends in DC and NYC would like to "nuke San Francisco" because people like me live in it. Schwartz is obviously a madman and is dangerous because he appears on national TV and appears to have the confidence of the neoconservative faction in the Pentagon and the White House if not also in the Department of Justice. Schwartz is like a Trojan Horse virus eating away at the conceptual landscape of policy planning in the Bush Administration. Note that I am a member of the National Republican Business Advisory Council and I have contributed funds to the Bush administration. I am not another "lefty" attacking Bush. Finally, we need to mention that Schwartz and I were working together up until Feb 8, 2003 when a split happened over Michael Savage of "The Savage Nation." Basically I refused to lie for Schwartz that Michael Savage was working for the Milosevic Serbs and used me to deliver a "veiled death threat" (Schwartz's words) from the Serbs to him. Schwartz also thought I intentionally "snitched" to Savage about his plan to defame him. Schwartz then had his "pilot fish" groupie Richard Torre write me a very insulting series of threatening e-mails on Feb 8, 2003 calling me a "Quisling". That led directly to the current situation you see below. It should not be inferred that I agree with Michael Savage's politics 100% or that I am a Savage groupie as Schwartz alleges. I am no one's groupie not even Schwartz's and because of that I am the victim of his harassment and lame attempts at entrapments that is his characteristic pattern. Note how David Horowitz had to apologize for Schwartz's slander against Serge Trifkovic in Front Page Magazine on the same kinds of false allegations Schwartz makes about me, writer Herbert Gold and his son Ari. The e-mail record shows that I quietly tried to patch things up with Schwartz in the period between Feb 8 2003 and end of March 2003. I did not go public and contact Schwartz's associates and the media until his harassment and bully intimidation became unbearable with his charge that the late Marshall Naify was a "murderer" as bad as "Ira Einhorn".

Background information:

Schwartz's title for his book seems to have been used earlier?

More evidence is at

Stephen Schwartz, the loose cannon of the Neo Con Cabal alleges that ex DCI James Woolsey supports his Robespierre Reign of Terror of lies and threats.

Stephen Schwartz wrote on August 8, 2003
"Herbert Romerstein has, as so often before, stuck his dick in a place it doesn't belong, and if he continues to involve himself with this nonsense, will suffer to the end of his days."

According to Alex Dore's eyewitness testimony below, it is Stephen Schwartz, not Herbert Romerstein, who should worry where he has stuck his. Stephen's continual, indeed characteristic, use of foul scatological violent homosexual epithets shows the profile of a predator and supports Dore's allegations. His homoerotically based harassment of Kim Burrafato who he smears as "Kimberley Buttboy" below, also supports Dore's allegations. Methinks that Schwartz doth project too much. Schwartz, a notorious bully, has been symbolically "raping the child" in Kim since the late 1970's with his well-known in North Beach sadistical taunts and insults of Kim. This story goes back a long way 25 years.

P Segal's article shows that Schwartz was claiming libel and slander from his critics as far back as the late 1970's. We agree with Schwartz that he has "not changed" since his days at as a teenager with Communist Party USA when I, in contrast, was in the Civil Air Patrol and USAF ROTC at Cornell. Schwartz falsely charges me with saying I was a "veteran". I never made any such claim in writing or in conversation with anyone at any time.

"Once in a while you'd run into someone else along the way, stop and have a something, but eventually you'd be back at the Savoy. And if you waited long enough on the terrace, the person you were looking for would at least saunter by. Sitting on the terrace, Jack Sarfatti would tell you about his newest theory, his personal war with a huge figure in New Age big business, or books, or you'd nod at the funny rants of Kim, whose first claim to fame was being the subject of an article in Esquire, about golden boys who have surprised everyone by not being famous yet. Stephen Schwartz would come in with plenty to say, about his current book or this week's attempted assassination of his character. " P. Segal in

So this is what the Neo Con Cabal has in store for dissidents? These unrepentant Reds who have bamboozled some conservatives want to turn North Beach into the Gulag. David Bohm had Joe Mc Carthy, I have Stephen Schwartz I am Jean Valjean in Les Miserables to Schwartz's Javert. When will Schwartz jump into the Potomac and end his misery?

On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 06:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

As I predicted, Schwartz -- whom we previously thought almost unsatirizable -- will degenerate into
a walking self-caricature and destroy himself practically unaided.


I suspect that when this supposed fancy law firm actually gets a look at the e-mail record they will
give Schwartz the bad news and tell him to save his money.

Schwartz *is* a Norman Quebedeau cartoon.


X wrote:

"if [Schwartz] had a lawyer two things would happen: one, you and others would receive a letter from same saying he was hired to represent Schwartz against you in a defamation action, and two, the lawyer would forbid Schwartz from contacting you by email or any other method. No lawyer, let me repeat, no lawyer would tolerate a client who sent out emails like Schwartz is doing. Thus, you can be sure, he is acting without any legal advice whatsoever."

Schwartz is gutless and bluffing. You asked him 5 days ago to name his lawyer and he hasn't. Richard Torre, the good Fascist, is shaking his fists at people in North Beach because they refuse to talk to him.

This proves that Schwartz is a liar.
This certainly helps my lawsuit against Schwartz and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
BTW I never accused Stephen Schwartz of pedophilia. Someone else Alex Dore, who claimed to be an eyewitness, gave strong evidence that pointed to that. The record clearly shows that.

"Apology and Correction
By David Horowitz
January 15, 2003

Correction of Statements Made On This Site About Serge Trifkovic:
Frontpage regrets characterizations of Serge Trifkovic, author of Sword of Islam, that were made in an article by Stephen Schwartz (CAIR's Axis of Evil) to the effect that Trifkovic, is an Islamophobe, is associated with Pravda or, and "was the main advocate in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Serge Trifkovic is not associated with either Pravda or He was not a supporter of Slobodan Milsoevic. He is not an Islamophobe nor would Frontpage have given extensive space to a summary of his book if he were. Frontpage regrets any pain or injury this may have caused to Mr. Trifkovic."-- David Horowitz)

Reply to Stephen Schwartz by Serge Trifkovic:
"It is troubling and disappointing that Frontpagemagazine (FPM) has allowed Stephen Schwartz to slander me. Had the diatribe been launched privately I would never have stooped to replying, directly or otherwise, to this deeply troubled man. Since FPM has seen it fit to provide the vehicle, however, I have no choice but to react. To be called "the noted Islamophobe" is not only an invitation to a fatwa, it is doubly sinister coming as it does from a convert to Mohammedanism. Schwartz writes that "Trifkovic is much more closely identified [with] the Russian 'red-brown' (Communazi) newspaper Pravda." This comes as a genuine surprise to me. What foreign websites carry my articles is beyond my control, but since I have never written anything for "Pravda" or spoken to anyone associated with it, this slanderous little aside only reinforces the way in which Mr. Schwartz has not allowed mere facts to stand in the way of his creativity. Schwartz accuses me of being in league with Slobodan Milosevic's apologists at - although the site's only mention of my name in this context came in the form of a scathing personal attack by one of its former columnists: "Kostunica's American worshippers, including Fleming and his Chronicles colleague Srdja Trifkovic continue to indulge themselves in their puerile fantasies." (George Szamuely,, September 29, 2000) But it is the claim that I was "the main public advocate in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic" that is as unfunny as it is untrue. It is also hurtful to me personally in view of the many risks I have taken with my long and well documented position vis-a-vis Mr. Milosevic."

NY Review of Books, Volume 50, Number 11 · July 3, 2003 Which Way to Mecca? Part II By Clifford Geertz:
"Stephen Schwartz, who has also run into political difficulties in the capital, and stirred thereby a teacup-storm on the right, is a strange and outlandish figure. He grew up in San Francisco as part of the City Lights literary crowd around Lawrence Ferlinghetti, whom his father had published; he became a so-far-left-he's-right Trotskyist-anarchist under the nom de guerre "Comrade Sandallo," worked for a while as an obituary writer and street reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, shifted his affections and his energies to Reagan during the micro-war in Grenada, and ultimately made his way as a freelance journalist to Sarajevo in the 1990s, where he converted to Islam and joined a Naqshabandi Sufi order. He changed his name again, at least for some purposes, to Suleyman Abmad, and found the Medusa's head every conspiratorialist needs: "Wahabism."

... His book consists in a monomaniacal tracing out, laborious and repetitive (the word "wahhabi" or "Wahhabism" appears in almost every paragraph), of the thousands of ways, ingenious, insidious, and implacably relentless, in which the machinations of the House of Saud in the service of this mad creed reaches out to poison the souls of Muslims, turn them against one another, against us, against everybody. Mobilizing their petro-dollars to found religious schools all over the world, set up popular-front-type propaganda foundations, finance lobbying efforts, bribe the powerful, infiltrate legitimate organizations, recruit supporters, eliminate enemies, and most especially to finance jihad, terrorism, and the destruction of Israel, the Saudis work tirelessly to turn Islam, in its essence a peaceful, mystical, unifying force "preaching love and healing," into a world-dividing, world-destroying "two-faced" one. There is, of course, more than a grain of truth in this, as there is in any comprehensive indictment of faction-ridden politics, and the Saudi factions, like the Ayatollahs, Hamas, Syria, and Mubarak are, surely, playing for keeps. But Schwartz's discussion (he has virtually nothing to say about the concrete details of intra-Islamic conflict and, except for the Koran, he does without source references) is a prime example of how to transform an arguable argument into an obsessional fantasy"

Stephen Schwartz July 17, 2003, 11:15 PM

"The claim that I ever invented anything in any of my work is libel, and cannot be sustained. Nobody has ever made such a claim. Geertz and Doran disagreed with my interpretation but did not charge me with fabrication."

Stephen is lying, Doran, in fact accuses Schwartz of serious fabrication. Doran wrote:

Michael Doran - Washington Post - December 22, 2002

"Instead of judiciously analyzing the policies and beliefs of Saudi Arabia, Schwartz peddles the outlandish thesis that the country ranks -- together with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- as one of the greatest threats to world peace in the modern era.

Because a danger of such magnitude cannot be something completely new, Schwartz has no choice but to rewrite the story of the modern Middle East, depicting the Saudis as the primary villains. Claiming that his study "constitutes a 'secret history' comparable to the hidden archival record of Soviet Communism," Schwartz manages to find the fingerprints of Riyadh at crime scenes that no Saudi ever visited. Thus, with no proof whatsoever, Schwartz asserts that it was Saudi -- not European -- expansionism that presented the Ottoman Empire with "the deadliest challenge" to its rule. And thus, based on the weakest circumstantial evidence, he equates Wahhabism, the official Saudi ideology, with Islamic fundamentalism in general, thereby saddling the Saudis with more guilt than they deserve for the general Islamic resurgence in the Middle East.

When Schwartz is not planting evidence against the Saudis, he is busy concocting alibis for proven offenders. He claims, for example, that Khomeinism has been misread by the United States as intolerant and threatening. The Saudis reinforced this misperception, he argues, so as to prevent us from realizing that they -- not the fascists in power in Tehran -- are the true enemies of pluralism. This kind of dirty detective work destroys the author's credibility."

Michael Doran is an assistant professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
37 posted on 08/12/2003 7:27:53 PM PDT by Jack Sarfatti (Napoleon P. Schwartzky in Orwell's "Animal Farm")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jack Sarfatti
Republic or Empire?
"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.
For I have come to praise Caesar..."
This calls for the wisdom of King Solomon with Israel and Palestine as the "baby." The American Conservatives are clearly also dangerously split like the Greeks before the Persians.

Now we understand why Stephen Schwartz lumped Pat Buchanan in with Michael Savage. He is also contemptuous of Colin Powell and the CIA that he calls "The Chumpany." Having only recently awoken from my 1000 year slumber,
it will take me some time to catch up with what has been happening. One can be a friend to Israel and yet reject the arrogant extremism of several prominent neocons.
The tunnel-visioned Likud Party does not speak for The Spirit of Israel and The Lions of Judea Keepers of The Eternal Light Beyond The Cave.Patrick Buchanan is not an enemy of Israel and he speaks wisely in
. The neocons rush in where angels fear to tread. They are raging bulls in the china shop. Is the neocon cure worse than the disease? What Price Glory? Rashi Commentary
38 posted on 08/12/2003 7:51:33 PM PDT by Jack Sarfatti (Napoleon P. Schwartzky in Orwell's "Animal Farm")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jack Sarfatti
Aw shucks, I thought your reply was gonna be J.R. explaining
"'Pro-Democracy' Think Tank is Front for Israeli Lobby" by Ismail Royer on his site.

Never mind…
39 posted on 08/12/2003 10:55:26 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jack Sarfatti
Update on Stephen Schwartz.
I removed the Schwartz directory on the WEB.
However, scholars wanting access to the information should contact me at

Apparently Stephen Schwartz was "let go" from Foundation for Defense of Democracy in August of 2003 for shooting off his big mouth half-cocked accusing a large number of innocent people of being in league with Al Qaeda, Saudi or Serb agents. Curiously enough the Serbs have recently been courting me asking me to give papers at their technical meetings in various places in Europe both inside and outside Serbia like Italy and Spain. I hear that Stephen is on a ship writing and making a lot of money as a merchant seaman and he is approaching 60 - very overweight ripe for a heart attack with such strenuous work if his ship mates do not throw him overboard on a stormy night pissed at his big mouth. ;-)
40 posted on 02/04/2004 9:55:50 PM PST by Jack Sarfatti (Napoleon P. Schwartzky in Orwell's "Animal Farm")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
I haven't seen you on freerepublic for a long time. Were you excluded, and are you allowed back on now because it turns out there were no WMDs, so you've been rehabilitated?
41 posted on 02/04/2004 10:00:25 PM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson