We started this web site as a full-time operation about 15 years ago. Sadly, we may have to start winding it down significantly due to lack of support from our readers and past contributors. I am making this appeal in the hope that we can salvage Antiwar.com – before it’s too late.
Fifteen years ago, you’ll recall, we had a Democratic president, one who was popular with liberals of the "progressive" variety and who was engaged in several "little" wars – Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans – as well as in overt acts of aggression against Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan. In short, we faced a very similar foreign and domestic political situation to the one we find ourselves in today: an effectively moribund "antiwar" movement, and a willing blindness on the part of many on the left to a reckless foreign policy they would have condemned had it been implemented by a Republican White House.
Nothing’s changed!
Except, maybe, things have gotten worse — and, in another sense, better. Let me explain…
Today we have a Democratic president popular with liberal voters whose wars are even more extensive and brazenly aggressive than anything Bill Clinton managed to pull off. From Afghanistan to central Africa, US troops are in the field fighting a "war on terrorism" that seems to have no end. More than that – worse than that – That Man in the White House sends his drones out to eliminate those on his "kill list," striking at will, without consultation or any attempt to justify these murders to the public. We are about to intervene in Syria – openly, that is, instead of in the covert manner we’ve been employing for months. Our unconditional support for Israel is firmer and more unreasonable than ever, with Palestinians being subjected daily to the kind of treatment that would evoke horror in our elites if it was visited upon any other people.
Most ominously, the American campaign to target Iran as the next victim of our "regime change" agenda has gathered momentum, and is about to culminate in punishing economic sanctions that are but a brief prelude to war. The phony "negotiations" we are presently engaged in with Tehran evoke memories of George W. Bush’s treatment of the Iraqis just before the invasion of that country – our "peace" proposals are ultimatums, essentially demands that the Iranians surrender their sovereignty and their rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty. Unsurprisingly, Tehran has rejected these. The US has been involved in a covert program to destabilize Iran for years, starting under George W. Bush and continuing under Obama: the next step is open warfare.
War clouds loom on every horizon and there’s no end in sight. So what have we accomplished in the years since Antiwar.com’s founding?
We never expected to change the course of our bipartisan foreign policy of global intervention in a few years, or even in the course of a decade: our ambitions have always been a bit more modest than that. My hope was that we would gain a considerable audience, far beyond the already-converted groups of libertarians and anti-interventionists on the left (and the right) who made up our initial readership. In that we have succeeded: this web site regularly brings in 60,000-100,000 readers daily, very often much more than that (depending on the news). Our audience is international, with readers in virtually every country on earth. Although there wasn’t much competition to begin with, we’ve established Antiwar.com as the brand name for anti-interventionism: this is the leading antiwar web site, for what that’s worth.
For many years, we sought to educate and influence those who consider themselves conservatives, encouraging them to rethink the cold war worldview that had led America into disaster on so many occasions. With the end of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of a real anti-interventionist movement on the right, we saw our initial efforts beginning to succeed – until September 11, 2001, that is, when the blowback years of misguided policy had created blew into Manhattan and changed the course of events beyond what any of us could have predicted.
We survived those dark years in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, albeit not without some difficulty: death threats, FBI surveillance, and vicious attacks from such paladins of the War Party as Andrew Sullivan, who tried to link us (scroll down, and see here) directly to terrorist activities in the US. The attacks also came from some "libertarians" who accused us of supporting "terrorists" in Iraq. We ignored them, and soldiered on – confident in the knowledge of our future vindication.
When the going got tough, the wafflers and summer soldiers of the official "peace movement" got going. Yet here at Antiwar.com we stood at our posts and upheld the classical libertarian view that "war is the health of the State." And we didn’t just engage in abstract theorizing: we did real reporting and the kind of investigative journalism sadly neglected by the "mainstream" media.
When the War Party unveiled "evidence" of alleged Iraqi nukes, we debunked their claims – and were proved right in the end. When the neocons told us the Iraqis would receive us with showers of rose petals, we predicted a fusillade of bullets instead – and history proved us correct. When the Iraqi government began to take shape in the shadow of the US occupation, we said they were setting up a dictatorship that would soon ally itself with Iran – and our prediction has come true, in spades.
As the post-9/11 war hysteria died down, and elements of reason began to work their way back into the public discourse, our intransigence in the face of so much pressure to cave began to pay off. Not that we were suddenly taken up by the Establishment and showered with praise: far from it. But our readership began to grow by leaps and bounds and our writers – including this writer – began to enjoy some measure of influence in the wider world. We were the first to finger "Scooter" Libby. We were among the first to finger the Israel Lobby as the vanguard of the War Party, to name names and out these fifth columnists, in spite of relentless attacks from the Lobby’s enforcers.
After many years of reaching out to conservatives, our campaign to educate them began to show results, as a large number of self-described conservatives began to challenge the interventionist premises they had formerly embraced. The founding of The American Conservative, a journal of the right explicitly devoted to the anti-interventionist cause, was (and is) a major step forward. So was the birth of a political movement inside the GOP that rejected the recklessness of George W. Bush’s foreign policy and sought to return to the Constitution and the foreign policy of the Founders. While we are not taking sole credit for these happy developments, our existence – and growing success – surely had a significant influence on their genesis and their progress.
When Ron Paul was a voice in the wilderness, warning against the consequences of our aggressive foreign policy, we gave him a regular platform and promoted his views. That the rest of the country – and the world – has since discovered him is a wonderful development, one that will have a major impact on the American political landscape in years to come. While we don’t take credit for that, either, it’s hardly an overstatement to say the early exposure he got on this site – which introduced him to a wider audience – helped create the mass movement he leads today.
So, while nothing’s changed, as far as American foreign policy is concerned, the movement against that policy has grown by leaps and bounds – and that is in large part due to the success of this web site.
Yet there is a danger that the gains of the past decade or so will be lost – because we are up against a financial crisis that could well be our undoing.
We are about $20,000 short of making our fundraising goal this quarter. If we don’t make it, we will be forced to make major cutbacks – which means, in real terms, getting rid of a good number of our employees. I’m ashamed to say we pay these workers a mere pittance, by the standards of the day – but we won’t be able to pay even that if we don’t raise $20,000 in the next few days. What this means, in effect, is that the news and commentary you’ve come to depend on will get delivered much more slowly – if it gets delivered at all. What it means is that the few people left on staff will be overwhelmed with work, fighting to keep up with the flood of news and the War Party’s latest schemes.
I have, myself, been struggling to keep up: the strain of writing a substantial column, complete with extensive links, every other day has taken its toll. Add to this a fundraising campaign that seems to have no end, and a problematic medical condition I’ve kept largely quiet about, and we have all the ingredients of a major personal and professional meltdown.
At times, a vast weariness nearly overcomes me, and I just want to take to my bed, close my eyes, and forget. Yet I can’t forget the cries of the wounded, the victims of American "liberation," the ghosts of those slaughtered in the name of our endless "war on terrorism." They haunt me even as I sleep.
Who will speak for them if Antiwar.com ceases to exist?
If I knew how to get down on my hands and knees and beg in print, I would do it, although I’m hoping my readers will spare me that. Yes, I realize you might not always agree with everything you read in this space: I can be outrageous at time, and even wrong (!). But I think you’ll not find a better compendium of anti-interventionist thought anywhere else but on this site: we’ve earned your support many times over. We’ve come through for you, our readers and supporters, through thick and thin: we’ve even endured government harassment and surveillance without a thought of the consequences.
Now I’m asking that you come through for us. With the US on the brink of war with Iran – the President could give the order to start the bombing any day now, an order that would ignite World War III – we need your support more than ever. This is beyond urgent – it is a necessity that we continue our work. Help us preserve and extend the gains of the last 15 years: please make your tax-deductible donation here and now.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Up Against the FBI – May 23rd, 2013
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013





gerryhiles
May 31st, 2012 at 11:55 pm
BTW I have been with Antiwar for maybe ten years, despite my differences with your brand of Libertarianism, Justin e.g. Noam Chomsky is a 'social libertarian', and I have donated in the past; but this latest appeal of yours to keep you employed is falling on deaf ears.
You write, "At times, a vast weariness nearly overcomes me, and I just want to take to my bed, close my eyes, and forget. Yet I can’t forget the cries of the wounded, the victims of American "liberation," the ghosts of those slaughtered in the name of our endless "war on terrorism." They haunt me even as I sleep.'
It is not just all about you and your abstracted sympathy. I pulled burned and wrecked bodies from house fires and car crashes, when I served in a fire brigade.
I lived in Libya for a while, where everything I knew is now destroyed and where people I knew are probably dead … but I do not recall you ever praising Qadafi for making Libya the most prosperous country in Africa.
Straight question. What is your opinion about Assad/Syria?
gsealey
June 1st, 2012 at 1:32 am
I agree with most of what Gerry says nevertheless I've made a small contribution because of the value this site still has for me, even if that value is largely one of familiarity. I have noticed little on this site that challenges the narrative that Gaddafi was completely rotten and while I am agnostic about 9/11 acknowledgement that there are reasons to be sceptical about the official story is important. Justin rightly points to the longevity of Antiwar but there are now a large number of sites that are alternatives to the msm. Antiwar is an iconic brand and could perhaps better use that status; I propose that Justin initiates a discussion on how that can be done.
gerryhiles
June 1st, 2012 at 2:25 am
I already asked Justin about initiating discussion, but I got no response. Maybe you will have more luck.
There is that saying that if you go on doing the same thing over and over again with the same lack of success, then …………………
Rick
June 1st, 2012 at 11:31 am
I will contribute more. I come here daily. I'm not sure what gerry's beef is. Antiwar didn't praise Gaddafi? I didn't know that was their job. Besides, if you are hoping to hear praise for a dictatorial ruler from a libertarian, you will be waiting a long time. Libertarians do not believe in rulers. It doesn't matter what wonderful social programs a ruler enacted, as he/she does so through political violence and violation of individual rights.
Rusty
June 1st, 2012 at 1:48 pm
It was always going to be a tough task to try to unite non-interventionists from the Right with peaceniks from the Left. I support some of what this site stands for, but I believe that the Pat Buchanan types, of which I am one, are out of step with most of the contributors and commenters at Antiwar. Therefore, I choose to no longer contribute financially.
I wish you well in the future, but believe that the non-interventionists of the Right would be better served by something else. Too bad Steve Sailer doesn't focus on foreign policy.
Rusty
June 1st, 2012 at 1:48 pm
It was always going to be a tough task to try to unite non-interventionists from the Right with peaceniks from the Left. I support some of what this site stands for, but I believe that the Pat Buchanan types, of which I am one, are out of step with most of the contributors and commenters at Antiwar. Therefore, I choose to no longer contribute financially.
I wish you well in the future, but believe that the non-interventionists of the Right would be better served by something else. Too bad Steve Sailer doesn't focus on foreign policy.
Rick
June 1st, 2012 at 2:15 pm
I don't understand. The goal of antiwar.com is to inform people and create a coalition of people from various different political backgrounds and ideologies who share belief in non-intervention. Because some of the articles on here contain some things you might disagree with, you're going to give up on it? What do you want?
Rick
June 1st, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Justin is but one of many people that write for the site. Why attack the entire site simply because you disagree with some of what one writer says? I don't get it.
mickperry
June 1st, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Agreed, and curious that none of the posts so far have even acknowledged antiwar's value simply as a daily round up of what's going on, aka, news….
Somebody please point me in the direction of another site that provides anything even vaguely resembling the daily output that we find here.
A valuable resource therefore, and I hope that this doesn't turn out to be yet another case of us all not knowing what we had until it was gone.
The fact that this is happening for the want of a mere twenty thousand speaks volumes, and maybe somebody should phone Bob Dylan and ask him whether he'd be prepared to pawn his new medal for a good cause.
Pathetic just doesn't do it justice.
gerryhiles
June 1st, 2012 at 8:56 pm
My first comment has been deleted, so whoever runs Antiwar is giving a false impression.
In my first comment I challenged Justin/Antiwar to have another look at 9/11 and his draconian version of Ayn Rand.
It all got deleted … at least from what I see now in the comments section … so you, Rick, have been denied information.
You may or may not have agreed with me, but of course you cannot "get it" – either way – when you are not allowed to read what I wrote.
gsealey was able to read my first comment, before it got deleted; so take a lead from him.
gerryhiles
June 1st, 2012 at 10:36 pm
RT is one of many directions to go in. Alex Jones for a bit on "the wild side". Jeff Rense for a smorgasbord. The Daily Telegraph for a feed of British "right wing" stuff. FKNews for a satirical view, Global Research. PressTV. Common Dreams.
The list is virtually endless and Atlas Shrugs off those who do not survive, there is no place in Ayn Rands/Justins world for those who fail in the raw world of libertarianism.
mickperry
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:09 am
Thanks Gerry, and my point would be that while 'the list' is endless, (and we could add Alternet, Democracy Now, the Huff Post, Information Clearing House, the Real News, the Morning Star for a dash of reconstructed British Stalinism, Consortium News, the Exiled..), people's time isn't.
For those like myself with limited hours to spend exploring the world wide web, antiwar is first and foremost an invaluable source for information.
The fact that the site also provides a platform for free speech and independent thought among informed people is a huge bonus.
That some here are now taking their ball home is very sad, and it seems that Voltaire's dictum of "I disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it" as a prerequisite of a free society is being sorely disregarded.
Don't let this be another baby gone with the bath-water.
gerryhiles
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:48 am
Thanks Mick, but the fact is that Antiwar has never been a platform for free speech.
For years it was totally forbidden to mention 9/11 and NOW you have to tread very carefully if you question the weird conspiracy theory that 19 Arab box-cutter-armed, non-pilots totally defeated N American defence systems, directed solely by a man dying of kidney disease in Pakistan.
Yes Osama bin Laden died at least ten years ago.
What is the correct word to describe Justin and all who believed their "gubbermint"?
Idiot?
gsealey
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:20 am
Antiwar is a good daily round up of news and I look at it regularly together with other sources such as Democracy Now, RT, Press TV and Alex Jones, for their different perspectives. I don't think we can dispute that Antiwar has value; it's a question of increasing that value. What I get from Justin saying that Antiwar is losing support is that it is losing appeal, for whatever reason, if so then there is a case for reviewing the product.
Sam Lowry
June 2nd, 2012 at 8:19 am
"A beef of mine is that libertarians are too extreme/doctrinaire; thus you mob doctrinaire/fundamentalist/individualists will NEVER allow even the thought that can and have been rulers for the common good."
Common good as defined by whom? Since governments are inherently coercive, by what mechanism are rulers selected for their benevolence? By what measure can their service to the "common good" even be judged?
Libya was 'prosperous' because it is sitting on top of the single largest oil reserve in Africa. Qadafi may have spent some of the nation's wealth buying the political support of the ruled, just as politicians everywhere do, but it's delusional to think this is a reflection of their benevolent motivation as opposed to being in the maintenance of their rule.
Of course none of this is to defend the war criminal Obama's decision to implement regime change.
gerryhiles
June 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
"Of course none of this is to defend the war criminal Obama's decision to implement regime change."
Exactly … and who are you to dare comment about Libya?
You never lived there. You never saw what I saw. You are clueless about the history.
Try this on for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeiAs4Br-_k&fe…
I bet that you will not watch it fully.
gerryhiles
June 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
"Of course none of this is to defend the war criminal Obama's decision to implement regime change."
Exactly … and who are you to dare comment about Libya?
You never lived there. You never saw what I saw. You are clueless about the history.
Try this on for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeiAs4Br-_k&fe…
I bet that you will not watch it fully.
Ben_C
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:23 am
I think antiwar.com may benefit from the following wisdom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
Ben_C
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:23 am
I think antiwar.com may benefit from the following wisdom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
mickperry
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Great blog, daft comment and I agree with most of what you are saying. As for drama queens, hillary the boss, maybe yours even, gets herself a spot on here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekj6VS35E7A
9/11 meanwhile is unlikely to ever be resolved simply because there is no institution remaining where we might ask our questions, and so to use the words of a former US ambassador, justice in the US is now 'entirely subverted'.
This is the reason why so many of us are 9/11 idiots, Noam Chomsky and Justin Raimondo included.
All we can do meanwhile is to continue to gather the facts, and analyse them for the benefit of our own curiosity and understanding.
We can only hope that one day sufficient numbers of people are engaged in the political process in order for it to make a difference, and that we be allowed to have a legitimate discussion about what happened on that dreadful day.
Until such time, the idiots who comprise the vast majority of us are the major stumbling blocks to understanding what did actually occur.
As Chomsky himself has said: 'Who cares?' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
mickperry
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Great blog, daft comment and I agree with most of what you are saying. As for drama queens, hillary the boss, maybe yours even, gets herself a spot on here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekj6VS35E7A
9/11 meanwhile is unlikely to ever be resolved simply because there is no institution remaining where we might ask our questions, and so to use the words of a former US ambassador, justice in the US is now 'entirely subverted'.
This is the reason why so many of us are 9/11 idiots, Noam Chomsky and Justin Raimondo included.
All we can do meanwhile is to continue to gather the facts, and analyse them for the benefit of our own curiosity and understanding.
We can only hope that one day sufficient numbers of people are engaged in the political process in order for it to make a difference, and that we be allowed to have a legitimate discussion about what happened on that dreadful day.
Until such time, the idiots who comprise the vast majority of us are the major stumbling blocks to understanding what did actually occur.
As Chomsky himself has said: 'Who cares?' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Mike
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but why does every non-libertarian think all libertarians are followers of Rand? I'm as big of a libertarian as they come and I've never even read a word of her writing. Please get off of the Ayn Rand obsession.
Shelley Gersten
June 3rd, 2012 at 4:59 am
Antiwar.com reminds me of the Sonoma Peace & Justice Center, which local anti-war activists refer to as the "Peace & Quiet" Center.
Anti-War.com continues to avoid the Big subjects – Israel's role in America's criminality, and 9-11, for 2 inter-twined examples.
You want money ? DO YOUR FVCKING JOB !
Mike
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:38 am
Justin….look at the economy. Almost all of us are BROKE. This is why antiwar.com not getting the money it used to. Sad but true I'm afraid.
Tommi
June 3rd, 2012 at 10:59 am
Money's too tight to mention…
Rick
June 4th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Totally agree! Rand herself was not and never claimed to be a libertarian. In fact, many libertarians don't like her at all.
Rick
June 4th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Fair enough.
Rick
June 4th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I think you're making a lot of assumptions. I don't hate liberals. I hate the statism many of them support. I hate political violence. I hate people ruling over others and treating them like their property. Believing in the notion that "all men are created equal," libertarians believe no person or group of people have a right to rule over others. What you call extreme, to me, is simply sticking to basic principles and applying them across the board. I do not side with thugs who want global chaos. I side with those that seek a peaceful, voluntary society without political violence.
Rick
June 4th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I forgot to make my main point clear. Liberals assume that libertarians oppose their goals of a more socially just and caring society. This is not true. Libertarians oppose the political means (state violence) of achieving those goals, not necessarily the goals themselves.
Furthermore, you assume that because some libertarians have a fondness of Ayn Rand's books, they necessarily endorse everything she believed or taught.