RightWatch


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 June
2007 February
2006 September
2006 May
2005 December
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June

My Links
Cato Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
International Society for Individual Liberty
Independent Institute
Heartland Institute
Institute for Liberal Values
Institute for Economic Affairs
Tom Palmer Blog
Rational Review
Reason Magazine
Wendy McElroy
Future of Freedom Foundation
Freedom Summit
Dynamist (Virginia Postrel)
Free Speech Coalition

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Create a Blog!



Pardon our hysterical laughter.
04.16.08 (2:12 pm)   [edit]

The sell-out of libertarian principles continues. But the funniest example of this was the recent announcement by the Rockwellian, Justin Raimondo. Raimondo writes a generally supportive article about the far Right, antigay politician Bob Barr. Barr, who is a social conservative is no libertarian but the social conservatives who have infiltrated the libertarian movment don't care -- hell, they aren't libertarians either.

 Raimondo's funny line was when he mentioned Barr's opposition to legalizing drugs. He wrote: "I'm even mildly enthusiastic about his (Barr's) opposition to legalizing 'hard' drugs, such as methamphetamine." Raimodo, like a good Rockwellian then takes a swipe at other libertarians by saying "this will doubtless prove his undoing over at Reason magazine."

 Considering the reputation of Raimondo's old "Radical Caucus" when it comes to the use and distribution of drugs this is very funny. Very funny indeed.

 



 
Ron Paul on drug legalization
01.12.08 (2:28 am)   [edit]

Mr. Paul says that one reason he can’t be a racist is that he opposes the war on drugs. Well, does he?


Or does he merely oppose a federal war on drugs?


In the past Mr. Paul has disassociated himself from drug decriminalization by saying that he merely wanted to leave the matter up to the individual states. In other words, he is not favoring decriminalization he just wants to change who does the criminalizing. That is a far cry from opposing the war on drugs itself. 


Texas Monthly, in 2001, did an in-depth look at Paul and noted that his opponents frequently tried to beat him up for want to legalize drugs. But the magazine clarified that Paul’s “office position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws.”


So if the state of Texas wants to arrest people for drugs Paul has nothing to saw about it. He is not an advocate of drug legalization at all. At best he wants to redistribute those sorts of control to the state level. 



 
The Shifting Burden of Proof in the Ron Paul Debacle
01.12.08 (2:17 am)   [edit]

Who has to prove what in the Ron Paul scandal? Actually the burden of proof rests in different places at different times.  


If ten days ago someone said that Ron Paul was a bigot the burden of proof clearly rests with them. They have to offer evidence for this assertion. 


But when The New Republic published their article on Paul’s odious newsletters they also printed pdf versions of the actual newsletters. The content of those newsletters demonstrated rather convincingly that Mr. Paul regularly published a newsletter with bigoted statements all printed under Mr. Paul’s rather prominent name. 


With such stark evidence on the table Mr. Paul had to respond and repudiate that evidence. He could do this by claiming that the newsletters were forgeries. He didn’t. He didn’t dispute them at all. 


He did call them “old” news. Well, some were and some weren’t. In the past Mr. Paul was faced with some comments from one of his newsletters. So having that come up was old news. But the rest were newly added to the pile and were not previously known of during prior discussions of Mr. Paul’s bigotry. It is actually false to call this “old” news that has been answered before when in fact the bulk of the evidence has been put on the table for the first time. 


The problem is that Mr. Paul has shifted his explanation. When an election opponent raised the issue of Paul’s newsletter in 1996 the answer given by Paul was rather clear. At that time Paul said he had written the statements but that they were taken out of context. He was asked about his unkind statements about Barbara Jordan and said he was merely expressing “his clear philosophical differences”. In none of the news articles regarding the Ron Paul Newsletter that was under discussion in the past did the Congressman deny writing his own publication. He merely claimed he was taken out of context. 


By 2001 Mr. Paul’s story on the newsletter changed. He no longer admitted authoring the publication and countercharging that his critics were misinterpreting him. Now he claimed  that he was never the author. And what about Barbara Jordan? Previously Paul admitted writing the comment but claimed it only showed his differences with her. But by 2001 he was saying “I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” 


In other words by 2001 Ron Paul was saying that his previous statements about the newsletter were false. He basically claimed that he lied before. 


The original theory was that Ron Paul was a bigot. Newsletters indicating that were introduced as evidence. The burden of proof for that original claim was meet. Paul then offered a counter-theory. He argued that the newsletter was written by someone else. Who? He won’t say. 


But when Paul introduced a counter-theory the burden of proof shifted onto his shoulders. Since he previously did not deny authorship of the newsletters but does no now what evidence can give us to support his claim that someone else wrote it. He has offered precious little. The most he said was that it doesn’t sound like him. In essence he offers no proof to back up his counterclaim. 


As the story sits at the moment Paul admits he published the newsletter. He admits the comments are genuine and doesn’t assert they were faked. He no longer claims they were taken out of context merely that he didn’t write them. The newsletter had Paul’s name in big letters on the front page. Subscriptions to it were taken by his staff. It was printed by his campaign manager and it was edited by former aide and close friend Lew Rockwell. What  you have then is basically an admission that he published a bigoted newsletter for several years out of his own office. He put his own name on it but wants to say someone else wrote it.


Of course if they ghost wrote if for Paul then Paul is still responsible. And as the publisher he is still responsible. He was the one who put out the newsletter. At best if he proves someone else wrote it he will have only shown that he paid someone else to write bigoted articles in his name -- hardly an improvement.  But he’s not even attempting to prove that.


He’s refused to name the author. In addition he claims he can’t remember who it is. So why did he allow this to happen. He says it happened during a transition. Apparently it last several years which is hardly a transition. So why didn’t he stop this when he noticed it. He claims he didn’t notice it because he didn’t read his own newsletter. And apparently no one on his staff, his including his campaign manager, ever saw fit to tell Mr. Paul that bigotry was being promoted from his own office.  No subscriber mentioned it to him either. All his closest friends and allies who worked for him apparently conspired to keep him in the dark from what was going on right under his own nose.


That is hardly believable. To make it worse Paul’s office has stated that he will not investigate the matter. He won’t see who was on his staff at the time the newsletter was written. He won’t ask his editor, Lew Rockwell, who wrote this articles. (It should be noted that as editor Rockwell would have to either approve the articles or write them himself.)


So what about editor Rockwell? If Paul’s memory is so faulty that he can’t remember the name of the author what about Rockwell’s memory? Is it too faulty and faded? Why is Rockwell ducking the press and refusing to answer questions about his role in the newsletter? Why is Mr. Rockwell leaving his good friend out there by himself? As editor surely he could offer some evidence but he too is refusing. 


So Paul and his accomplices on the newsletter are blaming a nameless, faceless entity for work which Paul previously did not dispute as his own. So which time was Paul lying? Was he lying when accepted the articles as his own? Or now? 


I suspect it was before. I don’t think he wrote them. No matter. They went in to his publication edited by his long-time friend Lew Rockwell. Paul isn’t saying anything about why his editor allowed this to happen. He isn’t really saying anything at all.


So the first accusation, that Paul encouraged bigotry and expressed bigoted views in his newsletter is  pretty much proven. Whether the words were his own or a paid writers of his is of little importance actually. Even the Paul cult wouldn’t make this sort of exception in other circumstances. For instance, we all know that President Bush lied to the public about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Now I can assure you that while Bush repeated these statements he didn’t write them. They were written for him. That Mr. Bush had someone else put the words in his mouth doesn’t exonerate Bush for lying.


That Mr. Paul had someone else put the words in his newsletter doesn’t exonerate Mr. Paul for expressing them and distributing them. Mr. Paul has not made his case. 



 
Further thoughts and some apologies.
01.10.08 (11:03 pm)   [edit]

First, I want to apologize for something. When I began this blog in 2005 I had the hope that once the information was out in libertarian circles that people would basically disassociate themselves from the Far Right types with their conspiracy theories and bigotry. I guess I expected too much. And I became despondent.


And while there was more material to write about then I could possibly cover I basically stopped most my writing. I didn’t see any progress in getting back to the saner libertarianism that I found so attractive. Even people who didn’t buy into the bigotry and conspiracism seemed to ignore it when they came across it -- as if they didn’t see what harm could be inflicted on libertarianism because of it. 


So when Ron Paul’s campaign came along, I didn’t post on him. I had lots of reasons for not doing this. One is that I’ve always liked Ron as an individual. He was pleasant enough. But he was always a social conservative in many ways, and his close associations with the John Birch Society was very disconcerting. In addition, Paul clearly bought into the wacky conspiracy theories that the Birchers and the Far Right were promoting. In some ways I was glad he was in Congress, but I did wish he were more libertarian and less kooky. 


I also hoped that Paul’s campaign wouldn’t push issues that are anathema to libertarianism. But he did. His anti-immigration stand and his desire to restrict abortion are troublesome. But there is much more that made me feel that libertarians shouldn’t get behind Paul. And part of that was a concern that if they did, they would get tarnished if Paul’s sordid connections with racialist thinking and such were to come out. I didn’t want libertarianism to be hurt. And the more Paul was associated with libertarianism the more likely it was it would be hurt. But to expose Paul’s background would itself bring about the very thing I feared.  So I hoped that after the first few primaries the Paul campaign would become a footnote in history, and libertarianism would escape the damage such revelations would bring.


There was another reason I didn’t mention the newsletters. While I was a subscriber, and remember being horrified by some of the things in them, my memory of them was distorted. I actually forget just how vicious they were. When these old newsletters were reprinted, and I reread them for the first time since their original publication, my memory was refreshed. I must say I was actually surprised that they were far worse than what I remembered. And what I remembered was bad enough.


Now for some thoughts on this Paul debacle. We must accept that the connection of Ron Paul to libertarianism means that his connection to vile, bigoted statements does tarnish libertarianism as well. How badly this will be, only time will tell. 


But the real problem isn’t Ron Paul. He was just a visible manifestation of the problem. I think the problem comes out of the Mises Institute and their promotion of very unlibertarian, Right-wing positions. Immigration is the most clear manifestation of that.


Since their guru, Mr. Hoppe, appeared on the scenes to sully libertarianism, the Rockwell position against immigrants has been seeping into libertarian thinking. Not only is that argument attracting bigots and racists to libertarianism, it pushes some libertarians in the racist direction. Not long ago a Libertarian Party elected city council member in Missouri proposed city legislation to confiscate the businesses of anyone who hires an illegal immigrant. This sort of racist thinking has gone so far that it is  now deemed “libertarian” to confiscate private businesses for not discriminating.  Worse yet, when a libertarian activists in the state tried to get the state LP to disassociate themselves from this act, the party officials refused. At that point I thought the Libertarian Party was too infested to be saved. And every time I would talk with these people they were throwing back at me the exact same arguments that the Rockwell site was promoting.


Over and over I found myself facing Rockwell’s arguments ,and every time it was pushing people toward some sort of bizarre combination of libertarianism, isolationism (as opposed to non-interventionism) and racialism. The threads of hate, that I have exposed here, were coming together and the whole libertarian movement was being effected, even if the people mouthing these arguments often didn’t know where they originated. Eventually it reached the point that Hoppe felt confident enough to openly bring advocates of racial supremacy to speak at his “libertarian” conference -- which is meant to be an alternative to the Mont Pelerin Society, where the Rockwellians have no influence.


Now Paul’s skeletons are partially out of the closet. His newsletters are now infamous. His close connections to the Mises Institute is now public knowledge. For the most part the Mises Institute connections to racists and anti-Semites is still not known, or at least not publicized. Some have noticed and commented on Rockwell’s ties to neo-Confederate (and heavily racialist) groups. But the mentions have been few and far between. At some point some journalist will stumble across that vipers nest and the truth will come out.


So the damage will be done. Is this good or bad? It is both. There is no question that libertarianism is going to take a hit because of it. But if I may appeal to something Ludwig von Mises said (the real Mises, not Rockwell’s invention). Mises said that government policies can create the business cycle, the boom and bust scenario. When government artificially stimulates a boom a bust will follow. Actions can be taken to stop the process but the actions will lead to economic pain. However, the longer one delays taking action, the greater the pain will be. So pain now is always better than the pain later. It does less damage.


The same is true here. This is going to hurt the libertarian movement. But if it didn’t happen now, the influence of the racialists and bigots would have only increased. That was the other threat of the Paul campaign. It was connecting a lot of people to Rockwell’s so-called “paleo-libertarianism”. It would have strengthened their hand and their influence. The greater their influence the greater the harm when the eventual crash (the exposure) came along. 


I’m terribly depressed this happened. I had really hoped that Paul would escape on this issue, especially since his campaign was about to end anyway. But if that happened, then maybe libertarians wouldn’t have received the wake-up call they got from the New Republic article.  Maybe now they will ask themselves how it is that we got into this mess, who is responsible, and what we should do about it.


Maybe now they will see that some people are very destructive to libertarianism and that they sully the honor of a great man. I do think we need an institute that promotes the thinking and economics of Ludwig von Mises. But what did Mises say about the Confederacy? Mises fled a racialist regime that was about to arrest him. He was long dead when his name was used to promote policies and thinkers who, I think, Mises would have found repulsive. I can’t see the man who fled Nazi prosecution hanging out with people who speak to neo-Nazi conferences. 


So this is the opportunity libertarians have to clean house. They must severe their ties to the racialists and bigots. They can end their support of the Rockwellians. Just because these people do some good things does not undo the great harm they are also doing. Disassociation is the only real option that libertarians have. They ought to stop funding this group and stop associating with it -- even if they do like some of the policies or some of the projects. The utter immorality of the racism and bigotry more than undermines what good the MI people do. The good is corrupted because it is associated with the evil. The evil does not bring anything of value to the good but the good policies and projects give credibility to the evil. 


Speak out against the bigotry and racism. Disassociate yourself from these people and their projects -- even the goods ones. I hope someone else starts a good institute promoting Austrian economics, without the baggage that some people have imposed on it.  So while this is a time of crisis it is also a time of opportunity to set things right. 



 
Ron Paul debacle exposes the racist underbelly in the Rockwellian camp.
01.09.08 (9:58 pm)   [edit]
This blog, part time that it is, has been trying to warn people about the infestation of bigots and racists who have invaded the libertarian movement. Starting in 2005 we issued our first warning and we did our best to link to the sources and show evidence. Unfortunately much of the evidence is personal experience, simply knowing the people involved.

Our warnings were basically ignored. And now the whole issue has exploded with the shocking (to some) revelations of Ron Paul’s newsletter and the vile statements that were published there.

The Paul newsletters were usually a joint project between Paul, Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert. Perhaps they all were but I will only say what I’m confident about. Paul really did provide the name and the public face. He was the bait to attract the subscribers. The money came from Blumert to set things up and Rockwell did much of the writing. Of course Paul was fully aware of the newsletters and can’t really argue that he didn’t know what was published.

After all these articles appeared over a period of years. We are talking multiple issues and multiple years. To say Paul didn’t know implies he was totally comatose. It went on too long and in too many issues for him to feign ignorance.

The New Republic article accurate notes that to understand Paul you have to understand the Mises Institute -- the fount from which so much racism in the movement comes. And it noted that the crowd at the Mises Institute “are nothing like the urbane libertarians” at Cato or Reason. In fact they are unlike the libertarians I knew most of my life. As we have shown here repeatedly, people connected with Rockwell and his misnamed Institute regularly hang out with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and hate-mongers for all kinds. This article was correct to point out how the Mises Institute and Rockwell play a prominent role in the disastrous newsletters that were recently republished.

My understanding over the years has been that the newsletter was in fact written by Lew Rockwell. Mr. Rockwell is notorious in libertarian circles for having been the author. The problem is that this was one of those issues that was so widely known that no one archived the evidence. It just was. And Rockwell is refusing to talk. Paul is refusing to the name the individual who wrote the hate material.

So why won’t Paul name him? He has referred to him as a “former aide”. People assume that means he and the individual are no longer associated. That is a false assumption. Many people who are “former aides” merely move higher in the hierarchy. Rockwell was a former aide. He was also Paul’s business partner in the newsletter and has remained a major confidant and adviser to Paul. I suspect that Paul won’t name names because his previous answers were intended to imply he was so shocked by the content that he dismissed the writer.

Paul could get away with that excuse when it was limited to one issue of the newsletter. Now it covers many issues over many years and that doesn’t wash. The rumor is that Rockwell was the author and he remained Paul’s close ally and ghost writer for many years. They are still closely linked. So Paul’s previous answer would be exposed as intentionally misleading if he were to reveal that he and the actual author were still working together. If Paul was ever actually embarrassed by the content, and there is zero evidence he was, then he clearly wasn’t embarrassed enough to severe his connections with the alleged author.

Rockwell’s group publishes Paul’s books. I think we’d find that Rockwell, or other Mises Institute individuals, actually author much of Paul’s work. Paul’s books are on a far higher level than some of his rambling answers or explanations when he is interviewed. That seems a strong indication that Mr. Paul didn’t write his own books.

So I do, in large part, buy Paul’s story that he didn’t write much of this material. Though I can’t rule out that he wrote some of it. But the line that he didn’t read it or know about it is just too absurd to be believed. Nor do I buy that he was repulsed by the content of these newsletter since it looks to me that he has continued his close allegiance with the likely author of the pieces.

Does Paul agree with the hateful comments. I don’t know. He’s smart enough to know not to say such things on the campaign stump. And my interactions with Paul were always in the role of questioning him on things where he was defensive and trying to cover his ass on unlibertarian votes or positions he took.

The reason for this blog was to warn people about this festering sore before it really did a lot of damage. But Paul, who is closely allied to this vipers nest of Rockwellians, rose to some prominence mainly due to his strong opposition to the war -- one issue where he is right I might add. Unfortunately Paul’s close alliance with bigots meant that at some point the sordid newsletters would be exposed.

Every increase in the Paul campaign also increased the chance that these newsletters would be made public. I suspect Paul and Rockwell were counting on the relative obscurity of the publication and time to make that impossible. I believe some of the later years, without the racism, are available on line but neither Paul nor the Mises Institute would put the early issues on line. In fact Paul claimed he didn’t have any copies and couldn’t release them. But copies were found and that is what brought forth the rather unpleasant publicity.

The real tragedy here is that libertarianism itself is smeared because of this. Ron Paul was promoted as some sort of icon. Rockwell’s site published the claim that “’the Ron Paul question’ constitutes a litmus test for libertarians. Simply put, the ‘Ron Paul questions’ consists of determining whether or not a person supports Dr. Paul. If so, as I see matters, he passes the test and can be constituted a libertarian; if not, his credentials are to that extent suspect.”

What cheek!

Here is what is absurd. The racists at Stormfront have been cheering Paul all along. Many of these people are open about their race hatred and their support for Hitler or some form of racialist agenda. But they support Paul. According to Rockwell’s site, if someone supports Paul, “he passes the test and can be constituted a libertarian”. So apparently the Nazis are libertarians but many prominent libertarians are “suspect” because they don’t support Paul. Well, since Mr. Paul’s racist newsletters were exposed the number of libertarians in the world apparently dropped because lots of people are now sorry they were backing Paul.

I will state my main thesis again. It is lethal and destructive for any libertarian to be associated with bigotry and racism. Not only is it destructive to the cause of liberty but I would assert that it is morally wrong and contemptible. I don’t care how “pure” this individual pretends to be -- in fact many of the most racist types around the Rockwell circles brag about “anarcho-capitalists” though their anarchism consists of massive state aggression against immigrants. Libertarians need to take back their movement from the racists and the bigots and let they people know they are not welcome. Maybe the bad publicity associated with the Paul debacle will do that, but I won’t hold my breath.



 
01.09.08 (9:57 pm)   [edit]


 
New Title, New Locaation
06.17.07 (5:18 am)   [edit]


 
Hoppe conference invites editors of racist publications
02.27.07 (4:08 pm)   [edit]
The cadre of individuals who revolve around Lew Rockwell and his Mises Institute continue to work with open racists and the extreme Right. And when I say extreme I don’t mean advocates of free markets. I mean people who hate Jews and preach the inferiority of other races. It is not even an issue of cultural differences but racial ones. The name of Mises continues to be besmirched by these bigots who don’t even have enough taste to wear sheets.

Of course Mises was dead when this group was formed and in the early years they had not worked with the extremists that they now attract. Lew Rockwell has continued to push this group farther and farther to the lunatic fringes. And one of the main forces for the racialist agenda is Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Hoppe has been embroiled in numerous controversies revolving around his racialist agenda. Each time he whines he is the victim of a smear campaign and that he is being distorted. Or he’s misquoted. Or he’s misunderstood.

Now Herr Hoppe has started his own intellectual group to meet every year as part of his campaign to turn libertarianism into some sort of mirror image of himself. He started a group to compete with the Mont Pelerin Society because that group, founded by Hayek and Mises, doesn’t reflect the revisionist view of what pretends to be libertarianism in the Rockwellian camp. Hoppe founded the group and runs it. He is responsible.

So what kind of agenda does he have. He kicks off his 2007 conference with a slew of speakers promoting the intellectual inferiority of the darker races.

Hoppe has invited Volkmar Weiss to speak on “History as Cycles of Population Quality.” Population quality? Weiss is part of the movement that is determined to prove the racial inferiority of certain races. On his web site he lists his areas of speciality as genetics, history of Saxony, anti-Semitism, national socialism, and twin research. He also says he’s been a member of the editorial board of Mankind Quarterly since 1980. So for a quarter of a century he’s been involved with this one publication with this interesting name.

The man who founded and controls this journal is Roger Pearson. Born in 1927 Pearson became politically active with white racialist and neo-nazi groups almost fifty years ago. In 1958 he founded the Northern League “to foster the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations”. He brought in ex-Nazis and people like Ernest Sevier Cox, formerly of the Ku Klux Klan and author of White America. According to one source a past associate editor of the publication was Corrado Gini, a former advisor to Mussolini and the author of an article “The Scientific Basis of Fascism”. Otmar von Verschuer was an editorial board member of Mankind Quarterly. He was also a mentor to Josef Mengele and more importantly he worked with Mengele at Auschwitz itself.

Roger Pearson, the founder and controlling figure at the journal, was brought to the US, from England, by the grandfather of today’s anti-Jewish movement, Willis Carto. Carto, a racist, anti-Semite, and admirer of Adolph Hitler founded the Liberty Lobby, the Spotlight newspaper, the Institute for Historical Review (to debunk the holocaust), and published numerous Nazi and racist books through his publishing house Noontide Press.

Under a pseudonym Pearson edited a publication, The New Patriot, which promised to expose “every aspect of the Jewish Question” and which published essays on the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Pearson has written on eugenics and authored “The Racial Origins of the Founders of America,” “Heredity and Humanity,” “Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe” and more. These books, and others of a similar nature, are published by Scott-Townsend Publishers, which appears to be controlled by Pearson and which is also the publisher of Mankind Quarterly.

Pearson said: “If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide, and destroys the work of thousands of years of biological isolation and natural selection." His close ties to various speakers at the Hoppe conference ought to be worrisome. Read carefully Peason’s statement. If any of what he calls the superior nations mingle “in any way” with the inferior tribes, instead of exterminating them, he has committed racial suicide. Since Pearson is convinced the Teutonic races are superior is saying that whites have the obligation to exterminate inferior races.

The Mankind Quarterly received much of the funding over the years from the Pioneer Fund, a group founded by Wickliffe Draper which has funded many of the more academic oriented white supremacists. Even the Pioneer Fund’s own web site admits that “Draper and some Pioneer grantees” opposed racial integration. And they say he was interested in the movement for blacks to “repatriate” to Africa. Other sources I’ve read says Draper directly financed books on why blacks should be sent to Africa to live. Draper, through his Pioneer Fund, distributed a film on Nazi eugenics throughout America. The film, in fact, had been produced by the Nazi government itself.

(For a history of Draper and his Pioneer Fund download this pdf file.)

The Hoppe conference is also featuring as a speaker Richard Lynn. Lynn, like Weiss, is affiliated with the Mankind Quarterly of Roger Pearson. Lynn is the author of Race Differences in Intelligence. He is also strongly affiliated with Draper’s Pioneer Fund. He authored a supportive biography of Draper and about the Fund. He has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the Pioneer Fund and now sits on their board of directors.

One of Lynn’s more well-known statements is: “ What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.” Compared to Pearson he is a moderate. He isn’t calling to exterminate races, he says. Instead he wants to find a way of phasing them out or letting them die off.

Lynn has joined the conclave--or perhaps we should say konklave--organized by white supremacist Jared Taylor, called American Renaissance. Lynn was there to give a presentation showing that black Africans have an IQ somewhere just below that of a plant. One newspaper report on the conference noted that “many of the key players at the American Renaissance have relied on Pioneer” for funding. In fact Taylor and his conference got Pioneer funding as well.

Taylor is openly a white supremacist though he prefers to call himself a white separatist saying, in much the same vein as Hoppe, “people prefer the company of people like themselves”. Taylor told one television show: “I work to return to a self-consciously white America.” That appearance earned him the praise of the Nazi group Stormfront.org which said he “made a dozen central points of White Nationalism”. But then Stormfront leaders were participants, along with Lynn, at the American Renaissance meetings.

The American Renaissance meetings have had several individuals, well favored by Rockwell and the Mises Institute, participate over the years, including Samuel Francis, Joseph Sobran and Paul Gottfried. Gottfried not only spoke at the racist American Renaissance conference but is scheduled to speak to Hoppe’s group as well. Even Jared Taylor has written for Rockwell, though his article Hate Crime Laws Miss the Point has vanished into thin air but traces of it can still be found by a cache search on his name.

Lynn also serves on the board of another racist publication Occidental Quarterly. The current issue features articles like The Jews of Prime Time and Freedom’s Racial Imperative. The Associate Editor is Theodore O’Keefe, author of numerous essays on Holocaust revisionism and former editor of the journal published by Willis Carto’s Institute for Historical Review.

The article, The Jews of Prime Time, laments the loss of television shows featuring wholesome white families to be replaced by blacks, Hispanics, etc. It says that the reason for this change is because of the domination of “immigrant Eastern European Jews and their descendants” and that this is part of a “wider culture struggle between Jews and Gentiles.” This article says that many Americans would acknowledge a culture war between liberals and conservatives but “were one to posit that Jews were waging an equally vitriolic (and not totally unrelated) war on majority Americans, there would likely be strenuous denials.”

The magazine quotes another contributor to the publication as saying there is “a Jewish war on Gentiles” and that Jews have a “very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order”. This sounds like the comments of Rockwell ally, Joe Sobran who said that Jews define themselves today by their hatred for Christians and adopt views “because they are repugnant to Christians.” Another Rockwell ally Thomas Fleming says Jews “often despise” Christianity and the “way of life” of most Americans.

Occidental Quarterly says “we are witnessing the effects of a kind of cultural hegemony being exercised by the distinct group of Hollywood writers producers, et al. who, as we have seen, are predominately Jewish.” This is one reason, it notes, that we don’t see films on “the Jewish role in Communism and its attendant infamies”.

Remember these words are published in journal directly related to one of the key speakers at Hoppe’s conference. Too often the term racist and neo-Nazi is used by the Left to describe anyone they don’t like. That has stripped the terms of the meaning they rightfully have. The result is that when used in cases where they do apply they are too often shrugged off.

Two speakers speakers at Hoppe’s conference, invited to speak by him, are directly associated with organizations that have overlapping links with people who really are racists and who really do hate the Jews. The write and work for racist publications. They associate with people who are not just labeled neo-Nazis by the Left but who really are neo-Nazis. Hoppe contends he doesn’t associate with such people. Yet here are two of them. And he invited them to speak at this conference at an organization he hopes will direct the libertarian movement in the future.

It is no coincidence that racists are top speakers at the Hoppe confab. He organized it so we can rightfully say he planned it this way. And perhaps one might have slipped in because he was “unaware” of such a connection. But when the number of such speakers multiply the ability to excuse the action diminishes. Hoppe has been caught out so many times for his bigotry and racism that it is hard to deny the facts.

These individuals did not merely write something that was reprinted by these racist publications. They actually sit on the editorial board and one of the speakers is on the board of a foundation that showers money on racist academics and racist groups like American Renaissance. That Hoppe makes this his kick-off session and has several speakers on the race issues is a clear indication that this is a major component of his thinking. It is the reason he has said statements that sounded to all but Hoppe as racist. It is the reason he is happy to give interviews to publications widely seen as neo-Nazi. It is the reason he and his friends at Mises work closely with racial secessionist groups and why Hoppe can speak to those groups.

At some point the cumulating of evidence ought to convince the most faithful follower of the Mises Institute that there truly is something rotten infesting that group. The real question is why other people, who don’t harbor such views, continue to give Hoppe a veneer of respectability. Should scholars associated with the Independent Institute (two of them) or the University of Buckingham share a podium with people who are racists and work with open Nazis?

I do not suggest the conference be banned or closed down or interfered with by any government agency. But I do have to wonder why people would speak at a conference which invites racists to explain their positions and which thinks that people associating with neo-Nazi publications are serious scholars. But then such views come damn close to the view of Mr. Hoppe.



 
More extremists in the Libertarian movement.
02.24.07 (9:37 am)   [edit]
A while ago I received some information via e-mail which I am just now getting around to looking through. It pointed to the links between Rockwellian crowd and the extremist Traditionalist Catholic movement.

Over the years I’ve known several such “traditionalist Catholics” and every single one of them was a purveyor of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. I am sure there are some exceptions, I’m only saying I never meet any such exceptions myself. Most were like the most famous “traditionalist Catholic” around today -- Mel Gibson and his viciously anti-Jewish father Hutton Gibson.

Mel has gone off on several rants about how Jews are evil and not all were done when drunk. And his father hangs out at neo-Nazi conferences and is a favourite with the Holocaust Revisionist crowd -- sort of like Rockwellian Joe Sobran. There are several branches of the traditionalist Catholics and some are more extreme than others. A decent account of the various traditionalists groups and their common anti-Semitism can be found here:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1291

Common to all is the conspiracy thread about how the Vatican has been taken over by Jews, Freemasons, communists and homosexuals -- though at times they seem to think anyone who is one of these hated groups is simultaneously a member of all these groups. While such “traditionalist” Catholics are a relatively small percentage of the population they do seem to make up a substantial number of top “scholars” at the Mises Institute.

One of the newer books attacking the Vatican from the “traditionalist” perspective is “The Great Facade” which has two authors. One author is the lawyer in Terri Schiavo case -- he was the lawyer fighting the husband and the doctors. The other author is Thomas Woods of Mises Institute fame. You will remember Woods from his affiliation with the extremists, white supremacists in the League of the South. Woods was a founder of the League. But according to this article

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=395

Woods now says that he “has nothing to do” with the League anymore. Supposedly the Woods book claims that “Judaized semi-gnostic” sects have infiltrated the Catholic Church. (That sounds like the Jewish conspiracy claims I heard from the traditionalist Catholics I knew.) The Woods book also attacks the “widespread infiltration” of the Catholicism by gays who are part of an “ecclesiastical disease that is raging out of control and supposedly “warns of the Masonic threat, citing The Permanent Instructions of the Alta Vendita, an anti-Semitic tract.”

But after publishing this work Woods says he is no longer associated with his co-author and says he is no longer associated the “traditionalist movement” though he does edit The Latin Mass, which is a traditionalist publication thought not as extreme as some. The publication’s web site links to Joseph Sobran, another Rockwell ally, who has given speeches to Holocaust revisionist groups attacking “the Tribe” (Jews) and who was fired from National Review magazine for his anti-Semitism.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0502/0502sobran.htm

One “long-time reader and admirer’ of Sobran at a Right-wing site says Sobran has is “stooping to dark references to sinister Zionist conspiracies. He says US foreign policy “are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States.”

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/about/about_main.html

Woods seems to have a tendency to involve himself with extremist groups and then, when the light is turned on the association, to disaffiliate himself from them. The Rockwellians seem to do this as we have shown here several times. Now one can understand that accidents happen and people end up being associated with someone without realizing what that person advocates. But if you find someone constantly ending up in bed with neo-Nazis, racists and anti-Semites you do have to question why this is the case.

In the matter of the League of the South it isn’t that Woods couldn’t have known what they stood for. He was a founding member.

It didn’t take but two minutes on the League’s web site to find them discussing racist issues. Was it possible that Woods never bothered to read the material put out under the name of a group he helped found? The Southern Poverty Law Center, which is on the Left but does a lot of original research into racist groups, says the League “is essentially theocratic” and “also clearly racist”. We have said the same thing in the past.

Woods is very good at writing long essays to “address” an issue and then basically avoid addressing the issue at all. He did that in his rebuttal to Cathy Young’s columns about him and he does it regarding his membership in the League. He gives a long discourse on the values of decentralization.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html

He says “I had an intermittent membership in the League over the years”. And that he didn’t run it (no one said he did that I know of). “I am responsible neither for the comments of any other members nor for the politically incorrect statements I am told can be found on the League’s site.”

I’m not sure that racist, white supremacist comments can be dismissed as merely “politically incorrect statements”. In fact since the Rockwellians wear “political incorrectness” as a badge of honor to equate racism with not being PC is practically praising racism. And is he saying he never bothered to check out what the League was promoting? He allows them to list him as a founding member and he doesn’t bother to read what they believe? And presumably, even after he hears about this stuff he still hasn’t bothered to check out whether or not it is true. If he had checked it out he would either be admitting it was true or saying it was a lie. To say these are statement “I am told” are on the site indicates that even after he learned of the racist comments he wasn’t concerned enough to see if he was supporting a racist organization or is it just an “politically incorrect” organization?

Anyway, he says racism is just a “a word that is thrown around at anyone who looks cockeyed at Jesse Jackson.” So he downplays the actual type of remarks that were made such as how Blacks would never be allowed to hold office in the White Christian republican envisioned by the League. He says the League is only emphasizing “the importance of preserving Anglo-Celtic heritage”. It is one thing to promote one’s heritage and another to claim that means people of other heritages would not be allowed equal rights in your society.

He downplays the problem of racism in his Jackson comment. He describes racists comments as being just “politically incorrect”. He says the white supremacists are only “preserving Anglo-Celtic” culture. He apparently refused to read the actual statements on the web site, if he had he wouldn’t honestly be able to refer to them as merely statement he “heard” about. This all sounds rather apologetic for racism to me. And he conveniently ignores what was actually said on the web site by indicating he has never read them even after they became an issue.

His final response is: “I find it revealing that white supremacist organizations have repeatedly and vocally condemned the League.” He never names the organizations in question that supposedly do this nor does he explain why they condemn the League. I have read one Nazi group attacking another Nazi group. That the one attacked the other doesn’t mean both aren’t Nazis. Woods rebuttal tells us nothing and rebuts nothing.

This last statement would only have some possible meaning if he bothered to tell us to whom he was referring and what they said about the League. But Woods drops the issue saying “That should be more than enough to satisfy anyone’s curiosity.” Another reply that actually manages not to reply to the issues at all.

Listed among the neo-confederate movement is now the Ludwig von Mises Institute -- pity poor Mises. They say: “Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South’s web page as founding members -- and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute’s seminars and given presentations at its conferences.” They also noted that Rockwell ally Thomas Fleming has been a speaker at numerous Mises seminars and that he to is “a founding League member” and that Rockwell’s web site “often features articles by League members.” Fleming is an adjunct faculty member of the Institute as well.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/Mel,_Poor_Mel.html?seemore=y

So many people associated with Rockwell and crew are involved with racists or anti-Semitic groups that one wonders how anyone can claim this to be anything but intentional. Thomas Fleming certainly gives one reason to believe he falls into that camp as well. Now we all know about Mel Gibson’s tirade against Jews blaming them for all the wars of the world -- a theory he gets straight from his father. Blame it on the drink but the views were daddy’s. To Fleming this was no big deal. He called it “poor Mel’s little gaffe” and said that the attention paid to his outburst is “the best argument in favor of anti-Semitism”.

Fleming says that various Jews might think Gibson an anti-Semite but adds “we Christians do not have to accept their option, which is deliberately crafted to suggest that most Christians throughout history are classic anti-Semites”. That almost sounds as if he is saying that anti-Semitism is a Jewish invention. Mises Institute ally (and ally to Fleming) Joseph Sobran has basically said the same thing. He quipped that anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews not it only means someone the Jews hate. Sobran takes almost the same position as Fleming. What distinguishes Jews, or as Sobran calls them “the Tribe,” is that “they are anti-Christian.” He says that Jews today define themselves “by antagonism to Christianity” and more importantly that Jews adopt their because “chiefly because they are repugnant to Christians.”

Disliking Jews, says Fleming, is merely “a matter of taste, preference, and upbringing”. He says: “It is hard enough for Baptists to tolerate Lutherans and a bit too much to insist that they become matey with Jews who often despise their religion and their way of life.” Notice his wording. The Christians are not being matey while the Jews are people who despise Christianity. He repeats this claim about Jews hating Christians several times. He says Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is a “Christophobic charlatan”. He writes: “The fact that so many troublemakers of the past 150 years have been of Jewish extraction... is certainly no argument in their favor. Jewish “intellectuals” continue to be in the forefront of the movements that aim to destroy our religion and culture.” And while there are Jews who “are fine and admirable people” Fleming can’t help put says “they reject my God”. As do many gentiles I might add.

The Rockwell-Hoppe crowd is a stench to libertarianism. They actively associate with the most bigoted, authoritarian groups around. Libertarians should stay as far away from this people as possible.



 
More extremists in the libertarian movement.
02.24.07 (9:34 am)   [edit]


 
Crude anti-Semitism raises it's ugly head on libertarian web site
09.06.06 (1:34 pm)   [edit]
This blog, a very part time venture to say the least, has been dedicated to exposing the racist vermin and authoritarian types that have infiltrated the libertarian movement. These extreme Right-wing bigots have no place within the libertarian movement. They are a blight that drags down the reputation of a movement that supported freedom for all, full equality of rights and social tolerance. And we’ve turned the spotlight on some real bigots and vermin, mostly those who are besmirching the name of the great liberal Ludwig von Mises, by using his name for an institute that has more than attracted it’s share of bigots and hate mongers.

But now there is one incident that is so blatantly bigoted and such an example of the most crude form of anti-Jewish hatred that even we are surprised. At least the Mises Institute bigots try to cloak their prejudices in high-sounding terms. What we are discussing today has none of the pretence of intellectualism. It is pure, gutter anti-Semitism of the most rabid kind. And for it to appear on a libertarian web site (although one that appeals to the extreme Right in it’s content) is shocking. In fact Rightwatch has had three different people point us to this site.

First, let me tell you about the site and it’s founder/manager. The site is Freedom’s Phoenix run by Ernie Hancock of Phoenix, Arizona. Hancock is a very loud, rather abrasive activist. And he ran for National Chair of the Libertarian Party but was soundly trounced by Bill Redpath who took 3 votes for every one that Hancock received. He runs something called the Arizona Breakfast Club, a collection of far right types which was founded by Harry Everingham, a well-known activist in extreme Right circles until his death.

Hancock also was a producer of the Charles Goyette radio show when it was at Air America, the Left-wing broadcaster, and continues to work with Goyette at KFNX radio in Phoenix as well. Hancock doesn’t pretend to be an intellectual just an activist but he constantly makes sure he is in the public view and is heavily associated with libertarian ideas. So when his web site, Freedom’s Phoenix, start promoting the most extreme sort of anti-Jewish venom it is bad news for all libertarians.

The article in question is almost 50 years old. And it is a speech entitled “A Jewish Defector Warns America”. The article is a transcript of a speech by Benjamin Freedman who claimed to have been part high up in the Jewish conspiracy. Freedman’s claims are bogus. But he was well received by the neo-Nazi movement which still promotes his writings to this day. It is important to read what is on this “libertarian” web site before Freedman’s article. You can find it all here: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=009555&From=News]

The introduction to the speech, as it appears on Hancock’s web site, says that Freedman “broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945” and spent the rest of his life “exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.”

That sentence alone ought to chill the bones of any real libertarian. First, there is no such thing as “organized Jewry” then “organized Scots” or “organized Angolans”. This is merely the terms used by neoNazi proponents of a Jewish plot ot take over the world. And Hancock’s web site buys into all of this. The defeat of the Nazis in World War II is called a “Judeo-Communist victory” and it clearly claims that “Jewish tyranny... has enveloped the United States.” This is pretty raw. Hans Herman-Hoppe and the League of the South bigots at least try to sound intellectual. This is just pure anti-Semitism totally devoid of intellectualism.

The web site says Freedman “had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation.”

Now out of fairness one should state that Hancock links his site to other articles. But he and his team of friends pick who gets links and who doesn’t. They don’t happen by accident. And they link to things which they think people should read. So why read a tirade claiming a Jewish plot to destroy America? The way the site is set up once you are in Hancock’s site and click on an article it brings up the article with Hancock’s web site header on top of the page. So the heading “Freedom’s Phoenix” appears directly above the article. And what is below the article? Links to other articles.

So from Hancock's web site you get links to a series of vile anti-Jewish articles. You can link to one entitled “The Ship Wreckers” by George Lincoln Rockwell. Rockwell was the founder of the American Nazi Party. And in the article which one can access from within Freedom’s Phoenix he says he discovered “Communism was Jewish” and “discovered a whole, secret world -- the world of the Jews.”

The Nazi Rockwell repeats some of the same claims made by Benjamin Freedman which claimed the Jews are not really Jews at all. Freedman, a convert to Catholicism, says: “The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews.  I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.” And to Freedman the Jews really are Khazars who converted to Judaism. Rockwell says the same thing: “most Jews are not even ‘Semites’ or descendants of the Hebrew people of Palestine... but most descendants of...Khazars.” And the Khazars, he writes “are pushing us around, forcing integration on us, degrading our culture with their filthy ‘art’ (chaos and pornography), and, worst of all, spreading the disease of Communism -- all while hiding in the robes of the Jewish ‘religion!’”

What is interesting, in fact, is that the Freedman speech with Freedom’s Phoenix is promoting has a huge amount of overlap with Rockwell’s article. The Nazi Rockwell and the so-called Jewish defector Freedman are saying the same thing. Both Rockwell and Freedman are wrong. DNA studies show modern day Jews do indeed, have a genetic link to the Middle East and either have no or insignificant connections with the Khazars. A New York Times story on the topic can be read here: http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

Freedman’s “lecture” is basically a defense of the Nazi government and it’s tactics to solve “the Jewish Question.” Freedman repeats Nazi propaganda as factual including the idea that the Nazis were only retaliating against the Jews for numerous offences Jews committed against Germany, including betraying Germany in World War I. Freedman says the Jews” control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language...”

Freedman argues that it was Jews/Zionists/Communists who first declared war on Germany using a speech by American Jewish activist Samuel Untermeyer as proof. But there is no Jewish/Zionist monolith let alone one that includes the Communists. Jews and Zionists were divided over how to treat Germany. Untermeyer wanted a boycott, which is hardly a declaration of war. But German Jews opposed the measure. Polish Jews, however, supported the measure. Untermeyer’s speech in 1935 was understandable considering it came two years after the Nazis opened the first concentration camp at Dachau but he didn’t speak for any “organized Jewry”.

The Zionist Federation of Germany said that “boycott propaganda --- such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways --- is in essence un-Zionist...” And for the Zionist settlements in Palestine their largest trading partner was Germany. Some boycott! In reality there was conflict between various segments of the Jewish community because there is no such thing as “organized Jewry” but instead many competing groups.

Freedman also speaks fondly of the anti-Semite Conde McGinley and his publication “Common Sense” which exposed the “Jewish conspiracy”. Freedman was a sponsor of the publication and worked closely with it. And again Rockwell appears on the scene. He also attributes his enlightenment regarding the alleged “Jewish communist” plot to McGinley’s publication. McGinley published the “theories” of various Jew haters and supporters of Hitler. McGinley was so far to the fringe that even the House Committee on Un-American Activities declared them a hate group which promoted “some of the most vitriolic hate propaganda ever to come to the attention of the committee. Common Sense defines communism as ‘Judaism’ and devotes its pages almost exclusively to attacks on the Jewish, and to a lesser extent the Negro minorities in our Nation. Sympathy for the former Nazi regime in Germany also is injected into this propaganda.”

Now exactly why is it that a “libertarian” web site is promoting something like this?

 Notice: The piece was removed after this article was published. 



 
Hoppe-nuts
05.27.06 (4:35 pm)   [edit]
The Vlaams Belang is a Flemish nationalist party in Belgium. They are most well known for their anti-immigrant viewpoint. Of course they are also hosts to other odious policies as well.

Among other positions they take are calling for the full, unconditional amnesty for any convicted, after World War II, of collaboration with the Nazis. Odd that they consider amnesty for Nazi sympathizers so important.

They want increased child benefits to help one parent stay at home with their children. But they want to encourage the breeding of the right kind of people. Might go with the previous policy as well. In a possible similar vein is their call to abolish any and all laws against racism.

They are also against granting gays equal rights in society and want to ban abortion in most cases with exceptions for rape or for medical reasons only. In 2005 they also proposed a law to ban the use of trucks on public roads on Sundays and public holidays. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the famous Dutch politician who was warned about Islamic extremism says that this party is “racist, anti-Semitic” and extremist.

The party was also a center of controversy when a young man was involved in killing a black woman along with a white child and a Turkish woman was wounded. The 18 year old who committed the murder was himself not a member of the Party. But his father was a member and his aunt was an MP for the party. His family had long time connections to the extreme Flemish nationalist movement.

A racialist (sic) group is very fond of the Flemish nationalists. And members there have asked how they can send money to the party. They also noted that a key speaker at a conference organized by this group was to be Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the infamous “Austrian” economist who is now a top guru for the Rockwellians and the sadly misnamed Mises Institute.

Of course Hoppe has associated with such racialist types before and the Rockwellian movement is infested with them. He was quite willing to do interviews for Junge Freiheit, a publican that is widely considered to be neo-Nazi in Germany. This publication has also had contributions from another Rockwellian, Paul Gottfried, who supports the group because they reject “the view that every German patriot should be evermore browbeaten by self-appointed victims of the Holocaust.” Odd, it always seemed to me that the victims of the Holocaust didn’t appoint themselves but were appointed by the racialist, nationalists who ran Germany at the time. But I guess we all got it wrong. People choose themselves to rush into the concentration camps and lined up to voluntarily die.

Alan Wolfre notes that Gottfried “is the kind of writer who puts the term “fascism” in quotation marks, as if its existence is the European past is somehow open to question.” At least two articles defending Junge Freiheit were published on by Gottfried on Rockwell’s web site. Another contributor, and once listed as an editor, to Junge Freiheit was Germar Rudolf. He is also the author of The Rudolf Report which purports to prove that the Nazis did not attempt to slaughter Jews, or perhaps, to please Gottfried we should refer to them as “self-appointed victims of the Holocaust.”

The Nazis at Zundelsite call Junge Freiheit “one of the very few patriotic publications still in existence.” Alas most the other “patriotic publications” of this variety no doubt went out of circulation when the Nazis were defeated. And Germar Rudolf, who describes himself as “the founder of the world’s largest revisionist websites” listed all the gifts of reading material he was given by his supporters, in order to avoid duplicates. (He is currently in prison.) Among the gifts prominently listed is Junge Freiheit. Rudolf’s site is meant to prove that the Holocaust is a Jewish lie. It promotes and sells books by various racists, anti-Semites and Nazis.

Perhaps one of the most infamous comments from Hoppe, when he isn’t verbally attacking gays or making racist remarks, is this one:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

Please note that Hoppe is saying that in a “libertarian social order” democrats and communists “will have to be physically separated and expelled from society”. And to “maintain a libertarian order” we would have to have various people, including homosexuals “physically removed from society.” I wonder if these people would be “self-appointed victims” as well. He is quite explicitly calling these libertarian societies.

For some years Mr. Hoppe has been spending his summers running around Europe trying to bring various extremist nationalist groups and the small libertarian groups into some sort of fusionist movement similar to Vlaams Belang. That Hoppe openly entertains racist notions and vehemently dislikes homosexuals is not really open to question. But what is odd is that any libertarian (so-called) would stoop to associate with this man. But then he is part of the extremist Rockwellians who have spent a lot of time trying to corrupt the libertarian movement into some form of racialist, Christianist movement in alliance with open racists and groups like the League of the South and various neo-Nazi groups.



 
Nazis, the League of the South and Rockwellians
12.26.05 (11:12 pm)   [edit]
In previous posting we have discussed the bizarre associations of the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com. One such association was the overlap between them and the League of the South. League of South officials have spoken to Mises Institute seminars and Mises Institute scholars have spoken to the conferences run by the League of the South.

Thomas Woods, a prominent Rockwellian, is a founding member of the League of the South. Another prominent Rockwellian identified as a League member is Charley Reese. He is part of the ultra-Catholic group that revolves around Rockwell. Woods complained that one author expressed concerns about Wood’s membership in the League. In fact he was a founding member and co-founder of the group. Woods dismissed the concerns. He wrote a long piece that skirted around the League and it’s racist record and implied it couldn’t be racist because “white supremacist organizations have repeatedly and vocally condemned the League.” Of course such groups routinely condemn each other as even a cursory look at the history of racists groups will reveal.

In previous posts I covered some of the extremist positions of this group. Woods pretends that the most extreme view they take is one on secession which he points out prominent American politicians supported in the past. If that were all it was then there would be no issue.

I was doing some research today about the extreme Right. These are people who are authoritarians, often violent, almost always racist, etc. In the process I came across an article about the Southern Patriot Shop which is owned by the League of the South which paid $158,000 for the building. The manager is David Sutter. All this is easily confirmed via League of South web sites.

The bookstore has a massive Confederate flag flying outside. Really massive. Inside is Joshua Caleb Sutter, an employee and the son of David.

Now David Sutter is not unknown in among radical racists. He was known as a major activist in the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist Nazi group. He called himself Wulfran Hall, High Counsel of Aryan Nations. Sutter lived at the compound of the Aryan Nation for awhile. And when the group split the new leader, and Sutter’s mentor, August Kreis, moved the “headquarters” to a trailer not far from the Southern Patriot Shop.

Joshua Sutter was previously arrested when he tried to purchase a firearm with the serial number ground off. Sutter also was a member of the Church of the Sons of Yaweh, a racialist Identity church, that preaches that only whites have souls and that Jews are the physical offspring of Satan. After the 9/11 attacks Sutter was appointed by the Aryan Nations as their Minister for Islamic Liaison. His job was to start building alliances with radical Islamic groups.

Sutter also penned a “message of solidarity and support” to Saddam Hussein where he expressed his desire that “the evil regime of the United States... shall be utterly wiped off the face of the earth. He apparently got of jail in November and found employment working for the League of the South in their bookstore.

The main founder of the group, Michael Hill, has said that people other than white Christians will be allowed to live in the new Confederacy which they envision but only if they acknowledge “the cultural dominance of Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions”. And he has allegedly said that slavery is “God-ordained.”

This is a view shared by many extremists, especially individuals associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a movement with close ties to Rockwell and crew. In one article about the bookshop the author interviews one of the League members visiting the shop who says: “People today misunderstand what slavery was all about. Slavery is a natural part of man. It explains that in the Bible. And that’s what really separated the North from the South, is that the South recognized the Bible as the true word of God when it came to slavery.”

Rev. Steven Wilkins is a Reconstructionist minister and a board member of the League. Prominent League officials attend his church. He repeats a message very similar to that of Thomas Woods in his infamous essay on the South. The Woods essay, which we covered earlier, was written for a Reconstructionist publication.

Wilkins says the major conflict between North and South was one of culture, particularly Christian culture. He claims the North wanted “not merely to destroy slavery and its evils but to destroy Southern culture.” He says: “There was a radical hatred of Scripture and the old Theology, which they felt were so bad for the country. They saw the South as the embodiment of all they hated. Thus, the northern radicals were trying to throw off this Biblical culture and turn the country in a different direction.”

This is virtually the same thing said by Woods who approvingly quoted remarks by a theologian who argued: “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slave-holders — they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground, Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake."

This is not a view alien to Woods. He shares it and wrote: “So the War Between the States, far from a conflict over mere material interests, was for the South a struggle against an atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politics and religion, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself.”

Another prominent Reconstructionist involved with the League is John Cripps of Lumberton, Mississippi. He pastors the ‘Confederate Presbyterian Church”. One article on Cripps says relies “in part on racist sources like the 19th-century theologian Robert Louis Dabney. By coincidence, no doubt, Dabney is also favourably quoted in the Woods defense of “Southern culture” against Northern atheism.

Cripps had been the state leader for the League but decided to take his group independent. He has also been active in the Far Right Constitution Party. Numerous Rockwellians have used the Rockwell site to promote that party. But that’s for a future discussion.


 
Racist, bigots and others, oh my.
08.08.05 (10:27 pm)   [edit]
Another vermin from the Rockwellian crowd has been exposed. It seems they have an almost endless supply of them. This time the culprit is Bob Wallace. Tom Palmer, who is one of the most hated opponents of the racists, confederates and sundry lunatics, who have infested the the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com exposed Wallace. It seems Wallace was a bit too open with his racism. He published some comments at Strike-the-Root.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=;action=usersrecentposts;username=Bob_Wallace

Wallace said “Blacks are genetically inferior, always have been, always will be. Except for music and sports, they will always be on the bottom...” Of course Wallace can’t hold a candle to Thomas Sowell but I’ve always thought that racism was more likely the refuge of those who feel inferior—and often with good justification.

Wallace also was openly antiJewish like some of his fellow contributors to the Rockwell web site. He says that, “Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.” Please note that this clearly says that Jews are responsible for antiSemitism because Jews as a group try to “destroy every culture that admits them”. One must wonder what the Jew Ludwig von Mises, whose names is besmirched by Rockwell’s Mises Institute, would have thought of such remarks.

Wallace tried to turn the tables on Palmer by attacking him, calling him names and engaging in antigay rhetoric to go along with his racism and anti-semitism. Wallace says that Palmer is a “PC believer in Thoughtcrime. Like other libertine psuedo-libertarians, he is actually a leftist.” http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/hatemail.html I have notice that racists of various ilks have always tried to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon as a way of justifying their bigotry. They seem to think that because the Left went to one extreme it justifies them going to the other extreme.

So now they aren’t bigots. They are just anti-PC. Bullshit. They are bigots. They are racists, they are lowlife scum. They can call it being anti-PC, they can call it anything they like. A bigot is still a bigot even if he doesn’t like political correctness. Being anti PC is not the same thing as being pro racism or any of the other base prejudices indulged by the lunatic fringe even when that lunatic fringe is within our own movement.

Why is Palmer a “leftist”? The proof is that Palmer “despises LewRockwell.com and other libertarian sites”. Now the bigot judges the individual by his membership in a group. To the Nazi the individual Jew is bad because the Nazi believe Jews, as a group, are up to something evil—perhaps he says they are trying to “destroy ever culture that admits them”. To the racist the individual Black man is bad because blacks as a group are racially inferior. This type of methodological collectivism is rampant in Wallace’s racist and bigoted remarks. And he uses the same sort of collectivist hate-mongering against Palmer.

According to this cretin “Palmer’s problem is that he is homosexual”. Ah, see, the individual Palmer is bad because he belongs to a class of people which the bigoted Wallace hates. Wallace thinks Jews are culture destroyers and blacks are inferior to whites and he thinks homosexuality is a “disease-ridden lifestyle.” This supposedly wry observation by Wallace causes him to quip again: “As you can see, I am not PC at all.” No. Neither was Hitler or David Duke. According to the anti-black, anti-Jewish, antigay contributor to Rockwell’s web site gays “are responsible for one-third of all child sex crimes, and two thirds of all AIDS cases. They are responsible for 100% of all pederasty.” I wonder what the house gays at Rockwell have to say about that.

Wallace says Palmer “is clearly narcissistic” but this is also because he’s gay. He claims Palmer is “vicious” and “hateful”. All I can think of here is the old childhood saying of “It takes one to know one.” The man attacks blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Asians, Hispanics, etc. and then has the audacity to call people upset by his bigotry “hateful” and “vicious”.

What is funny is reading the sad postings of Wallace. He spends most of his time calling people who disagree with him by stupid names or by inventing links to their email addresses. So when someone disagrees with them he refers to them as “My IQ is 85” and if you click on that phrase you get the email address of the person he is attacking. He basically argues that those who do not like his rants are stupid or “mental cases”. He refers to them with contempt by calling them “12-year old’s” or as a “13 Years Old” and the like. To one critic he responded: “my IQ is 135 and I guarantee yours isn’t.” And this man has the balls to say Palmer is narcissistic! He doesn’t seem to notice that later he says: “My experience with stupid people is that they think they're smart.” So stupid people actually think they are smart. They may even brag about it!

Wallace, who prides himself on being an intellectual, rarely shows his intellect and resorts to insults over and over. One opponent of his is called “a pussy”. Wallace says: “My sister wouldn’t date him. I can’t imagine any woman that would. Maybe Tom Palmer would. Maybe not, though. Even a poofter probably has higher standards that the ugliness that is Roy.” When a woman disagrees with him she is described as “Need to Get Laid but Bad” by the supposedly brainy Wallace. Another person is referred to a “reallytinylittledick”. But when one opponent says Wallace is being “stupid” the Rockwellian ridicules this and says: “Oooh, now we’re in jr. high.” What chutzpah! The man ridicules people, calls them mental cases, stupid, ugly, attacks them for being gay or in desperate need of being laid and then whines and implies someone else is acting like a junior high school student for saying he’s stupid.

Shortly after this he exhibits his own higher standards by referring to someone as “Jerkin’ My Gerkin”. I’m glad he’s mature and has an IQ of 135 but one would be hard pressed to find enough evidence to prove it. For someone who keeps telling people how intelligent he is he doesn’t seem to realize that the word is gherkin not gerkin.

The Rockwellian memory hole went into effect after the expose. Rockwell’s site had listed Wallace as a contributor but when Palmer exposed the man’s open bigotry he was delisted as if his numerous contributions didn’t exist. Yet he contributed a bit short of 200 essays to Rockwell’s site. His name was removed from the list of contributors here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists.html Yet it is archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041022041319/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html Rockwell gives no explanation as to why another major contributor to his site has disappeared.

In other news one of the fringes of the fringes of the warmongering Objectivist movement is in an uproar. A group run by a New Zealander called SOLO, which is barely known in the libertarian/Objectivist word and of little significance, is having problems. The SOLO founder has a tendency to launch into rabid attacks and smears against those he perceives as enemies and his enemies seem to include anyone who doesn’t regularly tell him how wonderful he is.

Well one of his former acolytes has posted a message at the SOLO forum saying: “There is a large drooling beast in the middle of the room at SOLO, and everyone is trying to talk around him without mentioning him by name. The name of this beast is alcoholism. Lindsay Perigo, you are an alcoholic.”

A few of the true believers have denied this accusation but many others in New Zealand dismiss those denials. One of those who denied the problem, according to one source we checked, has himself had some embarrassing problems due to over indulgence in alcohol himself. He supposedly got so blotto on one specific occasion that he exposed himself to a room full of college students and started masturbating. He presents his testimony in defense of the accused. A couple of individuals best described as “drinking buddies” of the accused deny he drinks too much. They argue that it can’t be true because they drink more than he does. I’m not sure how that exonerates anyone.

The SOLOists are small band of Objectivists who are as narcissistic as most Objectivists--if not more so. The whole purpose of the group was to set Objectivism right. All other Objectivists are wrong and the groups founder seems to think he channels Ayn Rand. Actually he probably thinks he’s improved on Rand with his own interpretations. He’s rabidly pro-war of course. And anyone who thinks that war is an excuse for the expansion of state power he dismisses as “Saddamites”. That’s hardly an intellectual argument at all.

Rightwatch thanks those who tipped us off to these articles. If you have information on the lunatic fringe of authoritarian libertarians please pass it on. We will look into it and report it to all if warranted and supported by the evidence.


 
Racist, bigots and others, oh my.
08.08.05 (10:22 pm)   [edit]
Another vermin from the Rockwellian crowd has been exposed. It seems they have an almost endless supply of them. This time the culprit is Bob Wallace. Tom Palmer, who is one of the most hated opponents of the racists, confederates and sundry lunatics, who have infested the the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com exposed Wallace. It seems Wallace was a bit too open with his racism. He published some comments at Strike-the-Root.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=;action=usersrecentposts;username=Bob_Wallace

Wallace said “Blacks are genetically inferior, always have been, always will be. Except for music and sports, they will always be on the bottom...” Of course Wallace can’t hold a candle to Thomas Sowell but I’ve always thought that racism was more likely the refuge of those who feel inferior—and often with good justification.

Wallace also was openly antiJewish like some of his fellow contributors to the Rockwell web site. He says that, “Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them.” Please note that this clearly says that Jews are responsible for antiSemitism because Jews as a group try to “destroy every culture that admits them”. One must wonder what the Jew Ludwig von Mises, whose names is besmirched by Rockwell’s Mises Institute, would have thought of such remarks.

Wallace tried to turn the tables on Palmer by attacking him, calling him names and engaging in antigay rhetoric to go along with his racism and anti-semitism. Wallace says that Palmer is a “PC believer in Thoughtcrime. Like other libertine psuedo-libertarians, he is actually a leftist.” http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/hatemail.html I have notice that racists of various ilks have always tried to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon as a way of justifying their bigotry. They seem to think that because the Left went to one extreme it justifies them going to the other extreme.

So now they aren’t bigots. They are just anti-PC. Bullshit. They are bigots. They are racists, they are lowlife scum. They can call it being anti-PC, they can call it anything they like. A bigot is still a bigot even if he doesn’t like political correctness. Being anti PC is not the same thing as being pro racism or any of the other base prejudices indulged by the lunatic fringe even when that lunatic fringe is within our own movement.

Why is Palmer a “leftist”? The proof is that Palmer “despises LewRockwell.com and other libertarian sites”. Now the bigot judges the individual by his membership in a group. To the Nazi the individual Jew is bad because the Nazi believe Jews, as a group, are up to something evil—perhaps he says they are trying to “destroy ever culture that admits them”. To the racist the individual Black man is bad because blacks as a group are racially inferior. This type of methodological collectivism is rampant in Wallace’s racist and bigoted remarks. And he uses the same sort of collectivist hate-mongering against Palmer.

According to this cretin “Palmer’s problem is that he is homosexual”. Ah, see, the individual Palmer is bad because he belongs to a class of people which the bigoted Wallace hates. Wallace thinks Jews are culture destroyers and blacks are inferior to whites and he thinks homosexuality is a “disease-ridden lifestyle.” This supposedly wry observation by Wallace causes him to quip again: “As you can see, I am not PC at all.” No. Neither was Hitler or David Duke. According to the anti-black, anti-Jewish, antigay contributor to Rockwell’s web site gays “are responsible for one-third of all child sex crimes, and two thirds of all AIDS cases. They are responsible for 100% of all pederasty.” I wonder what the house gays at Rockwell have to say about that.

Wallace says Palmer “is clearly narcissistic” but this is also because he’s gay. He claims Palmer is “vicious” and “hateful”. All I can think of here is the old childhood saying of “It takes one to know one.” The man attacks blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Asians, Hispanics, etc. and then has the audacity to call people upset by his bigotry “hateful” and “vicious”.

What is funny is reading the sad postings of Wallace. He spends most of his time calling people who disagree with him by stupid names or by inventing links to their email addresses. So when someone disagrees with them he refers to them as “My IQ is 85” and if you click on that phrase you get the email address of the person he is attacking. He basically argues that those who do not like his rants are stupid or “mental cases”. He refers to them with contempt by calling them “12-year old’s” or as a “13 Years Old” and the like. To one critic he responded: “my IQ is 135 and I guarantee yours isn’t.” And this man has the balls to say Palmer is narcissistic! He doesn’t seem to notice that later he says: “My experience with stupid people is that they think they're smart.” So stupid people actually think they are smart. They may even brag about it!

Wallace, who prides himself on being an intellectual, rarely shows his intellect and resorts to insults over and over. One opponent of his is called “a pussy”. Wallace says: “My sister wouldn’t date him. I can’t imagine any woman that would. Maybe Tom Palmer would. Maybe not, though. Even a poofter probably has higher standards that the ugliness that is Roy.” When a woman disagrees with him she is described as “Need to Get Laid but Bad” by the supposedly brainy Wallace. Another person is referred to a “reallytinylittledick”. But when one opponent says Wallace is being “stupid” the Rockwellian ridicules this and says: “Oooh, now we’re in jr. high.” What chutzpah! The man ridicules people, calls them mental cases, stupid, ugly, attacks them for being gay or in desperate need of being laid and then whines and implies someone else is acting like a junior high school student for saying he’s stupid.

Shortly after this he exhibits his own higher standards by referring to someone as “Jerkin’ My Gerkin”. I’m glad he’s mature and has an IQ of 135 but one would be hard pressed to find enough evidence to prove it. For someone who keeps telling people how intelligent he is he doesn’t seem to realize that the word is gherkin not gerkin.

The Rockwellian memory hole went into effect after the expose. Rockwell’s site had listed Wallace as a contributor but when Palmer exposed the man’s open bigotry he was delisted as if his numerous contributions didn’t exist. Yet he contributed a bit short of 200 essays to Rockwell’s site. His name was removed from the list of contributors here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists.html Yet it is archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041022041319/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html Rockwell gives no explanation as to why another major contributor to his site has disappeared.

In other news one of the fringes of the fringes of the warmongering Objectivist movement is in an uproar. A group run by a New Zealander called SOLO, which is barely known in the libertarian/Objectivist word and of little significance, is having problems. The SOLO founder has a tendency to launch into rabid attacks and smears against those he perceives as enemies and his enemies seem to include anyone who doesn’t regularly tell him how wonderful he is.

Well one of his former acolytes has posted a message at the SOLO forum saying: “There is a large drooling beast in the middle of the room at SOLO, and everyone is trying to talk around him without mentioning him by name. The name of this beast is alcoholism. Lindsay Perigo, you are an alcoholic.”

A few of the true believers have denied this accusation but many others in New Zealand dismiss those denials. One of those who denied the problem, according to one source we checked, has himself had some embarrassing problems due to over indulgence in alcohol himself. He supposedly got so blotto on one specific occasion that he exposed himself to a room full of college students and started masturbating. He presents his testimony in defense of the accused. A couple of individuals best described as “drinking buddies” of the accused deny he drinks too much. They argue that it can’t be true because they drink more than he does. I’m not sure how that exonerates anyone.

The SOLOists are small band of Objectivists who are as narcissistic as most Objectivists--if not more so. The whole purpose of the group was to set Objectivism right. All other Objectivists are wrong and the groups founder seems to think he channels Ayn Rand. Actually he probably thinks he’s improved on Rand with his own interpretations. He’s rabidly pro-war of course. And anyone who thinks that war is an excuse for the expansion of state power he dismisses as “Saddamites”. That’s hardly an intellectual argument at all.

Rightwatch thanks those who tipped us off to these articles. If you have information on the lunatic fringe of authoritarian libertarians please pass it on. We will look into it and report it to all if warranted and supported by the evidence.


 
Heil Hoppe: Some comments I borrowed
07.09.05 (1:27 am)   [edit]
The debate on some of the issues we discuss is still raging at tomgpalmer.com. Mostly they are looking at the connections between the guru of the Rockwellians, Hans-Herman Hoppe, and his escapade with Jungen Freiheit, a radical right publication in Germany. I thought that some of the comments were quite interesting and have borrowed them for inclusion here. But you can the entire 100+ messages, including some real crap from Herr Hoppe's supporters.

First posting of interest:

I wrote to Professor Hoppe to get his response after a friend tipped me to this site.

Here it is:

Dear Professor Hoppe,

I read on a website an article about an interview you had with a German newspaper. The article is at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php#comments. I see that you had one defender on the site who was very active in defending you from the criticism. I would like to know what your view is so that I could determine whether there is any merit to the criticism. Have you written a response anywhere (in English, please) that I could look at?

Andrew S.

Prof. Hoppe sent me a short email,

I do not comment on Mr. Palmer. My interview speaks for itself. There is nothing unusual or particularly controversial about it. Why don't you ask someone who speaks German.
HHH

I sent it to one of my professors who speaks German and he sent back a quick response that said that Hoppe was wrong and the interview was definitely very unsual and very controversial. Also that he then did some research and looked at Mr. Palmer's site and confirmed all of the remarks about Hoppe and "Junge Freiheit" being not in any way libertarian at all (my professor is more of a conservative, but friendly to libertarian ideas)-they are far right wing fascists and a nutty cult. And also that they're the type of people you might listen to - like you would to anyone - but definitely I should stay far away. I'm taking his advice.

Posted by: Andrew S. at July 6, 2005 12:23 PM

Some remarks on Hoppe and „Junge Freiheit“

First of all I have to admit that I usually do not waste my time reading publications such as “Junge Freiheit (JF)” – in my humble opinion the content is not worth the paper it is printed on. Unfortunately, the problem does not end right there – even today way too many sympathize with such publications and the ideology that stands behind it, apparently not having learned a thing from the darkest hours of German history (which, of course, proofs quite tricky if you deny much of it). That is sad, but even the most ignorant of us have the right to express their ignorance, even publicly.

What, however, truly disgusts me is if a self-proclaimed “libertarian” and a person associated with the “Ludwig-von-Mises Institute”, such as Prof Hoppe, gets in bed with such publications. And make no doubt about it: JF is not a mainstream paper in Germany (as a native German who has lived most of his life here I think I know what I am talking about) but rather a melting pot for the twisted ideas of Germany´s extreme right – from Neonazis to old Nazis (yeah, there are still a few around), from anti-Semites to other racists, they all find a forum in JF and similar publications. And even though JF is very careful with the words it uses, the message behind it is very clear and easily traces back to Nazi ideology or, to be more precisely, since the Nazis added nothing new, the “Völkische” ideology laid out by confused minds such as Lagarde, von Treitschke, Fritsche, Sombart, Chamberlain and so on (for a detailed study see Donald Niewyk, “Solving the “Jewish Problem”: Continuity and Change in German Antisemitism, 1871-1945”). It is also a no-brainer that if you give an interview in JF, you know exactly who your audience is.

That leaves one question: Why would a so called “libertarian” deliberately have his views published in such a paper? The one and only sound reason that comes to my mind is that he or she sympathizes with that paper. And taking a look at what Prof Hoppe has to say, this becomes fairly obvious. Not only does he ride a weak and unconvincing attack on democracy (or his weird understanding thereof), but also, though denying being a monarchist, praises the economic advantages of monarchy over democracy. Considering that he is interviewed by JF and that it is quite common for demagogues to disguise their real message in well-sounding phrases, just replace the monarch (whom Prof Hoppe does not like, but the system he stands for) with a “Führer”. You get the idea…

I do not want to dwell on Prof Hoppe´s understanding of economics or the lack thereof as Dr Palmer has already pointed that out but a short glimpse at the historic evidence is good enough to proof Prof Hoppe wrong. Taking a look at continental Europe from the 16th to the 18th century (the blossom of monarchy) I would find it difficult to label this time as one of economic prosperity, rule of law or great scientific progress. Even though I hate to agree with someone like Prof Hoppe, he does have a point on the oversized European welfare states and the redistribution that comes with it. What he does not tell his readers at JF is the fact that the German welfare state experienced one of it´s greatest increases in size during Hitler´s twelve year dictatorship (certainly not a time of “robberish” democracy). As Prof Götz Aly showed in a recent publication (“Hitlers Volksstaat”), the Nazi regime was a “dictatorship of favours” to buy the people´s support, especially during the war years. What occurred was a massive redistribution, and often enough that meant taking from Jews and other “undesirables” across Europe and handing it to the German population. Many of Germany´s welfare laws that are still in existence today date back to that period!!!

To sum things up, it is disgusting if a so called “libertarian” uses a creepy extreme right-wing paper to present his views, but as a famous saying goes “Sage mir, wer Deine Freunde sind, und ich sage Dir, wer Du bist” (Translation: Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are).

Posted by: C. Verheyen (Hamburg) at July 6, 2005 07:05 PM

It is hard to believe that some of Hoppe's defenders are still trying to justify this man.

 
Sobran and his friends
07.03.05 (7:55 am)   [edit]
The debate regarding the so-called Paleolibertarians continues at Tom Palmer’s web site. http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php#comments

Palmer discussed Hans-Herman Hoppe’s published interview in what is considered by many to be a nationalist, extremist neo-Nazi magazine in Germany. The Junge Freiheit is certainly seen this way by the vast majority of informed people.

But the discussion turned to one Joe Sobran, formerly an editor at the National Review magazine, now cast into exile by William F. Buckley for his presumed anti-Semitism. The debate hinges on whether or not Sobran is really anti Jewish or simply an opponent of Zionism. And this is because Sobran is a favorite with the Paleolibertarian crowd.

At some point we have to notice a trend with these Paleolibertarians. X is not racist because he hangs out with the Klan. He’s merely an exponent of White Christian culture. Anyway he nowhere said he wants to strip blacks of their rights. And Y, he’s not a racist because he wants to keep people like them out of the US. He’s merely promoting a new libertarian understanding of property rights. Old Z, well, he’s not someone to worry about because he affiliates with people who want to revive a Southern culture that will prevent blacks from dominating them. He’s just an opponent of Lincoln’s tyranny. Over and over excuses like this are made for nest of vipers who have been clutched to the bosom of the Mises Institute.

Let’s spend a short time on Joe Sobran. Sobran is a partisan of the Institute for Historical Review. He has spoken at their conferences, been published by them, etc. He has also spoke to Mises Institute conferences and been published by them or their affiliates. Sobran, as Palmer notes, says he doesn’t deny the Holocaust. But he does so in a manner that is itself questionable on the matter. He says he doesn’t believe it either. He questions it. That is not an untypical remark from Holocaust Revisionists. Nor am I attempting to debate the issue here. I am merely pointing out that when he says he’s not one it seems questionable to me at the very least.

Certainly the IHR sees it that way. They say that Sobran is a martyr for the Revisionist cause. Mark Weber, IHR Director, is about to give a lecture in New York on the “Jewish-Zionist role in fomenting war” and on the “Jewish-Zionist grip on our nation’s political and cultural life.” There is no doubt where he stands on the matter of Jews. Nor is there any doubt where the IHR now stands on the matter.

Let’s look at some of what the IHR is promoting. I think looking at the books they sell is illustrative of the problem. They have a book “Against Democracy and Equality: the European New Right” (which sounds very Hoppe-like to me). It promotes “the natural principles of hierarchy and aristocracy”. The book is promoted with a supporting quote by Samuel Francis another one of the Paleo kooks.

You can also buy “The Founding Myths of Modern Israel,” “Dissecting the Holocaust,” “Imperium” by Nazi Francis Parker Yockey, “The Last Day of the Romanovs” about how the Jews killed the Czar and his family. Other “classics” they promote are “Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialog (sic) Between Adolf Hitler and Me,” “Jewish Supremacism” by the former Klan leader David Duke, “The International Jew” by Henry Ford and even “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

Of course anti Jewish tracts are not their only speciality anymore. They are also into white supremacy. So they promote “My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding” by David Duke, “IQ and Racial Differences,” “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” “The Unspoken Truth: Race, Culture and Other Taboos”, “Racial Realities in Europe,” “The Ethnostate,” and the “racialist classic” “The Rising Tide of Color” by Lothrop Stoddard.

After exposing Jews and Blacks and other inferior races they have books that explain the salvation of Western man. So you can buy from them (or their affiliate Noontide Press) books like “I Fight” by the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, “Hitler’s Place in History,” and “Mein Kampf” in hardcover and paperback. In other words these are people who hang out on the fringe of the fringe in politics. They work openly with people who are racists and anti Jewish. And I don’t mean simply anti Zionist but anti Jewish.

Now Weber came to Sobran’s defense in the IHR Journal. He wrote of Sobran’s attacks on Israel and the “Holocaust”. Sobran attacked the “Elmer Gantrys who inevitably attach themselves to every legitimate cause. ...The same thing is now being done with Hitler’s mass murders. If you don’t condemn them in the prescribe ritual ways, the guilt-mongers will find a way to lump you with Hitler himself.” Weber says the Sobran column that raised the most “hackles” was when Sobran “quoted from the Talmud to point out...Jewish hostility against Christians.”

He says Sobran also got attacked for praising the racialist publication Insaturation edited by Wilmot Robertson, an author promoted by IHR. Sobran called it “an often brilliant magazine, covering a beat nobody else will touch, and doing so with intelligence, wide-ranging observations and bitter wit.” Weber also notes that the magazine Sobran enjoyed so much “has frequently cast doubt on the Holocaust story and has run numerous sympathetic reports on the achievements and travails of the Institute for Historical Review.”

Weber noted that “Several Sobran critics have been particularly upset over his friendly words for Instauration because of the feisty journal's staunch refusal to bow before the Holocaust totem. In the words of Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter, for example, "Instauration denies the reality of the Holocaust -- a classic [!?] anti-Semitic gambit." Alexander Cockburn, a regular contributor to the liberal weekly, The Nation, was riled at Instauration use of the term "Holohoax." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p373_Weber.html

“As the Sobran affair shows, public skepticism about the Holocaust is still far from being "acceptable." Nevertheless, Sobran's iconoclastic commentaries are a welcome indication that things may be changing, however, slowly, for the better.”

Sobran shares with the Paleolibertarian elite an ultra-Catholic orthodoxy. Thomas Woods says he’s a “Latin mass” Catholic. Rockwell’s blending of Catholicism with his politics is obvious. Sobran used to write for the “Wanderer” a Catholic publication very popular with far Right Catholics. In it Sobran had kind words to say about the IHR and it’s mission. He wrote the IHR “produces a scholarly bi-monthly magazine, The Journal of Historical Review, which deals not only with the Holocaust but with a range of other historical topics. It runs long and fascinating articles on such subjects as Lincoln's real views about race.”

Now in spite of the books that the IHR promotes Sobran denies they are anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi. He wrote that such accusations are disproved “by the Journal’s calm and reasonable tones, in contrast to the shrillness and violence of its enemies.” Well, at least he didn’t say “traditional enemies”.

Sobran was defending the IHR which had scheduled a conference in Beirut to promote their version of “revisionism” to Arabs in the Middle East. Sobran says these conference include “the brilliant, controversial British historian David Irving” But this conference was cancelled when the Lebanese government withdrew permission for the conference. Sobran says this was “reportedly [done] under American pressure, and the United States Government, it is not far fetched to suspect, had in turn by pressured by the usual suspects: Jewish-Zionist organizations.” Note the term used by neoNazis repeatedly, “the usual suspects”. This is often used in lieu of the term “our traditional enemy”.

Sobran says he has “stayed aloof from the Holocaust controversy; I always tune out when people get into the fine points of how gas chambers are constructed.”

Sobran has real praise for the IHR crowd. He spoke to their conference and told them that many people say he is courageous for critiquing Israel. Then he said: “But if I’m ‘courageous’ what do you call Mark Weber and the Institute for Historical Review? They have been smeared far worse than I have; moreover, they have been seriously threatened with death. Their offices have been firebombed. Do they at least get credit for courage? Not al all. They remain almost universally vilified.”

Mark Weber, the man who is to lecture on the Jewish grip on America, Sobran said was “mild-mannered, good-humored, witty, scholarly man who habitually spoke with restraint and measure” while opponents of the Institute are “raving, hate-filled lunatics”. Sobran’s response was “I began to wonder: if they can’t tell the truth about ‘Holocaust deniers,’ how can they tell the truth about the Holocaust itself?” http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html

No doubt the IHR crowd roared with approval when Sobran told them: “an ‘anti-Semite’ used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”

This was the banquet speech and the IHR loved it. They said Sobran gave a “stimulating banquet address entitled ‘For Fear of the Jews,’” and that he was “witty and effective” in his “critique of the US-Israel ‘special relationship.’ He deftly dissected the Zionist state’s familiar pretensions, and detailed how the Holocaust story is used to justify support for Israel.”

Sobran thinks that an organized Jewish “faction” exists which he calls “The Tribe” and which he says is pro Israel and Leftist or “progressive” in other matters. These Jews allegedly take these views precisely to because of their supposedly hatred of Christians. “What is striking about the Tribe is not that its positions on such matters are necessarily wrong, but that they are anti-Christian. ...Jews today define themselves formally by descent (or, less politely, race, through the term is taboo) rather than by religion; and less formally, by antagonism to Christianity. It would be inaccurate to say that the Tribe adopts certain social attitudes and political positions even though these are repugnant to most Christians. It adopts them chiefly because they are repugnant to Christians.” http://www.sobran.com/articles/faction.shtml

His comments do sound terribly anti Jewish to me. But then the Paleolibertarians have a very high threshold for defining racism. One can attack and defame entire races or groups of people but unless one actually says they should have their rights violated they seem to think such collectivist bigotry is simple another opinion. Even when they start talking about physically removing people from society this is dismissed and they whine they are being “misunderstood” -- again! Sobran says that Christians are naive about the “Tribe” (which sounds so much better than says “the Jews” each time though he is quite explicit that it basically means the same thing): “Christians have become remarkably naive about it. Christ tells us to forgive our enemies, but he doesn’t ask us to pretend they are our friends.,” And read these comments and ask yourself if these are anti-Semitic:
“Enough already. It’s time to face the possibility that Jewish problems are sometimes due to Jewish attitudes and Jewish behavior. My father once remarked to me that the Jews are disliked everywhere they go because of “their crooked ways.” Though, as I later learned, Dad had been an altar boy, he said nothing about Christ-killing; he’d long since left the Church and he didn’t particularly care who had killed Christ. As a matter of fact, he didn’t particularly dislike Jews; but he did think it was their ethics, not their biblical record, that had earned them their low reputation.”

“The popular verb jew would seem to bear him out. So do countless ethnic jokes about Jewish sharp dealing and devious conduct. So, in fact, do Talmudic passages authorizing Jews to relieve gentiles of their property, if they can do it without incurring anger against Jews in general. These are the sorts of things that actually irritate (and sometimes amuse) non-Jews. Has anyone ever heard a joke about Jews killing Christ?”

“The Tribe’s obloquy long predates the Third Reich’s propaganda. Government libel campaigns, a feature of the modern world of mass communication, rarely succeed for long; even popular myths die out over time. But a durable reputation, lasting over many centuries, is hard to account for unless it contains some truth confirmed by experience. Few Christians have said that the Jews killed Christ; they have always said that the Jews rejected Christ, as indeed Jews still do. The Tribe itself makes rejecting Christ a defining feature of Jewishness, even more than adhering to Judaism.”

Now one can almost ignore such comments from one lone lunatic. But what does one do when an entire group of people take similar types of positions. If there was just Sobran we could ignore it. But the Paleolibertarians have a whole group of such characters. We are treated to individuals who have affiliated with the IHR, with the League of the South, with various racialist groups as did Samuel Frances. We have people who justified the police beating of Rodney King and did so in the name of libertarianism. We have people who invent the theory that Jews knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and hid the truth for their Zionist agenda. At some point when we see Jews targeted, blacks targeted, non-white immigrants targeted, gays targeted, etc., you have to ask yourself what is the main motivation for these people. And when their defenders keep making excuses for such affiliations and statements one has to wonder if they are worth listening to any longer.



 
Abuse Policy
06.28.05 (2:44 am)   [edit]
One regualr contributer to the Paleo websites has inundated our message board with abusive messages. We are “psychopathic fuckheads”, “morons”, “cowards”, “idiots”, and more. They are so articulate and mannered.

As I said originally my experience in reading their “contributions” to other blogs is that they become totally unhinged and resort to abuse almost immediately. My policy is to remove such posts simply because abusive material like that is rude, abrasive, and offensive to decent people. For all their talk about cultural conservativism and manners, etc, they lack any culture, conservative or otherwise.

Whatever they say about things they haven’t changed much in 25 years. These people were out to “smash” anyone or “crush” anyone who stood in the way of their radical vanguard. Things remain the same today. Instead of working with the SDS they have simply moved over to the League of the South. They are still extremists who seem more motivated by the desire to destroy something than the desire to build a free society. Oddly the Paleo blog refuses to allow comments at all. Yet when others allow comments these individuals use it as an opportunity to heap verbal abuse on people. Perhaps they cut off comments on their own blog because they project on to others their own attitudes and behavior.

For the record if one posts such messages of abuse about them I’d remove it as well. And when people tried to name specific individuals here for certain things which were not germain to our issue those posts were removed as well even though they basically supported my argument. I do not believe that libertarians need to stoop to level of debate used by the Paleos. It is tempting to leave the comments up just to show the quality of their debating skills but I don't want to contribute to such actions. I figure that abuse is like graffiti. People do it because they enjoy seeing it out there for the world to witness. Remove it and you remove the thrill they get from their dysfuctional behavior. The reward they get is seeing their own abuse in print. Take that away and they may eventually learned to be civilized. Well, one can hope anyway.

 
Rewriting biographies
06.24.05 (1:48 am)   [edit]
The Paleo web site, LewRockwell.com, has been running intellectual biographies of how people become libertarians and how they develop intellectually. I’ve read many of them and they seemed heavily leaning in the direction of “how Murray Rothbard changed my life.” It reminded me of the satire that Tuccille wrote, “It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand” where he ridiculed Objectivists for saying how Ayn Rand changed their life.

It struck me that while Rothbard was an important figure in many ways that this seemed disproportionate to the reality I experienced with many Libertarians. It gave him more prominence than I thought the facts warranted. I just assumed people wrote it that way because the Rothbard Institute (sic) wants it that way or they assumed as much. I didn’t know if this was explicitly required or not. But one contributor, would be, to that site has let the cat out of the bag. Bryan Caplan was asked to write such an intellectual biography. He did and they told him it was not acceptable. Here is how Caplan puts it: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/autobio.htm
“‘A Note to the Reader: This essay was originally solicited by Walter Block for his forthcoming volume of libertarian autobiographies.  Much to my surprise, however, he was only willing to accept it for publication if I heavily edited the content, particularly the sections critical of Murray Rothbard and Austrian economics.  His main argument was that if he accepted my essay unchanged, he would have to allow other contributors to reply to my controversial views.  I remain puzzled by this idea.  It seems to me that the only way to "reply" to an autobiography would be to accuse the author of misrepresenting the story of his life.  Unfortunately, Walter and I were unable to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, so I have decided to run the unedited, uncut, no-holds-barred version here on my webpage.  Enjoy. - B.C.”




 
Decent and humane killers
06.23.05 (1:37 pm)   [edit]
There is one thing that this so-called League of the South said which really has been eating at me for a couple of days now. They wrote: “Southerners on both sides who were ‘racist’ by principle were decent and humane in their actual conduct.” http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/intro_articles/newdixiemanifesto.html

What kept this churning over and over in my mind was the recent conviction of fundamentalist minister, and former Klansman, Edgar Killen for helping plan the murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi. Three young men, with the complicity of racist police officers and Klan officials were taken out and executed. Are we to think that Killen was “decent and humane” in his actual conduct?

Killen was a Baptist minister and the owner of a sawmill. When the civil rights workers were arrested by racist Southern sheriffs http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm for allegedly speeding and were held in jail until the Klan could organize. Killen, a local Klan official, was notified that the men were being held and would be released at a specific time. Killen did the organizing of the attack and recruited the murderers. The Klan intercepted the men, beat them and shot them to death.

In 2002 a 72 year old former Klansman, Bobby Frank Cherry was finally convicted for a bombing of an Alabama church that killed for black girls. Some 38 years after late Klan official Sam Bowers was convicted of a firebombing that killed Vernon Dahmer.

What took so long? The moral vision of the American South refused to condemn these men. Not only did it refuse to condemn them but it routinely turned a blind eye to racist atrocities. General racists attitudes were widely embraced and the typical Southern church endorsed them from the pulpit.

Thomas Woods is a Mises Institute scholar and a regular writer for LewRockwell.com. He is one of the leading Paleos around. As we discussed already he was a founding member of the League of the South. Mises scholars speak at League functions. League scholars contribute to the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com. They are quite chummy with one another. Woods is a fan of the Southern culture which allowed these things to happen—or at the very least did little to stop them.

Woods quotes one theologian, sympathetically, who claimed the Civil War was not fought between abolitionists and slavers. On the North, he said, “they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins” and on the South there are “the friends of order and regulated freedom”. It was, he said, a battleground between Christianity and atheism. Woods own view is that the “destructive trends that continue to ravage our civilization” began in 1865 with “the defeat of the Confederate States of America”.

Woods says that the North was best represented by people like Thoreau with “an atheistic philosophy, which refused to recognize any authority to which the individual has not explicitly consented, and which in any case tends to shun collective affiliations of any kind”. Woods refers to this as “the cult of the individual”. Woods said that the League of the South “reminds us that many Southerners are prepared to defend their civilization” and that they have a sense of history and tradition. Those who opposed the South did so because they were atheistic individualists who opposed a “Christian understand of authority, social order and theology itself.”

But what kind of Christian order was it? What about that fine tradition of lynching? Not all lynchings took place in the South—just a disproportionately large number of them. According to one source about 90% of all lynchings took place in the Deep South. And about two-thirds of the remaining numbers took place in six states bordering the South. Half of all lynchings ever took place in Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana and Alabama. The only states were lynchings never happened were all in New England. So while not uniquely Southern lynching is predominantly Southern.

Nor is it always racial. But it is most of the time. Almost all lynch mobs are white. Over two-thirds of their victims were black and the percentage of white victims declined over the years mean more and more blacks were victims. Records of lynchings from 1882 to 1951 show that numerous reasons were given for this mob execution. About one in 50 were because a white person said he was insulted! About a quarter were given for miscellaneous reasons which included “disputing with a white man”, attempting to register to vote, testifying against a white man and asking a white woman to marry.
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

Lynchings were not just hangings. Sometimes the victims were shot to death. “However, may were of a more hideous nature—burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration and other brutal methods of physical torture. Lynching therefore was a cruel combination of racism and sadism, which was utiilized primarily to sustain the caste system in the South. Many white people believe that Negroes could only be controlled by fear. To them, lynching was seen as the most effective means of control.” http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

What is going on in the head of man when he helps found an organization that claims that racists in the South were “decent and humane in their actual conduct.” The three men killed by a mob organized by Killen might disagree. The family members of the four small black girls killed by the bombing attack of Bobby Frank Cherry might have a contrary opinion. Thousands of victims of lynch mobs are testimony to the contrary.

Racism in the South was not decent and humane but cruel, paternalistic and vicious. The Jim Crow laws mandated that all businesses adopt the predominant Southern view of blacks and treat them as inferior. It was the back of the bus because that was what the fine Christian culture of the South demanded. It was lynching because this culture allowed it. And when cruel and ignorant men did vicious things white Southern Christian juries refused to convict. That too was part of the tradition.

One of Wood’s compatriots in the League of the South, Robert Hayes, said that the South is being invaded by an alien culture “very different from our Southern culture”. These aliens “will almost always work against our best interests. We have allowed too many of these people to get into positions of influence and power. These people are Yankees.” Hayes says that these Northern values are destroying the South. “We have precious little time left to actuate an action plan to stop the loss of our territory and destruction of our Southern, European, Christian Culture.” Well, maybe there has been an invasion. Maybe the old values are dying. Maybe that is why justice is finally being done and vicious killers are finally going to jail.

No doubt there were aspects to Southern culture that were benign if not beneficial. It’s racism wasn’t one of them. The League doesn’t see it that way. We can only assume that a founding member of the group wouldn’t have major disagreements with it. But why are some “libertarians” so in love with this man?

 
That's a big confirmation
06.23.05 (3:26 am)   [edit]

It seems that our posting on countercultural matters and the Paleolibertarians has erupted into a full out donnybrook on another web site. http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/021918.php#comments

The one thing I find disturbing is that people are concentrating on the issues of prostitution and drugs. My point was not that at all but the double standards and false claims that the Rothbardians rescued us from such counter culturialists. They were the counter culturialists. I did not identify the Rothbardians by name unless it was documented material. Now I myself saw the things I described. I have spoken to numerous people who saw the same thing. I saw the “Italian Stallion” ad once as a friend of the advertiser showed it to me. Yet one Paleo defender kept insisting such comments, though not the primary focus of our blog, were false.

Others posted comments there and said they saw it. But since they didn’t identify themselves they were dismissed. The one noted: “If you have ever seen [deleted for our site] all worked up in a tizzy, you would definitely not want him coming after you, either.” See this poster still lives near the person in question.

But the interesting comment came from Jeff Riggenbach who is someone I don’t always agree with but whom I’ve always respected. Jeff notes that he worked from June 1978 to January 1982 in the Libertarian Review offices “(next door to the SLS offices and down the block from the Cato Institute offices), and I know damned well that the sex and drug allegations being disputed here are true. X [deleted for our site] used to brag in the office about his ‘Italian Stallion’ ad and the part-time income it provided him.”

I hope we have that out of the way. The comment I made on prostitution and drugs was not a key element of the discussion. I don’t think it should be the focus of our attention. It is not these things the hypocrisy of the Paleos that concerns me as much as the links to racists, bigots and the lunatic fringe of the Right. That is what I think is the issue. And that is what I’m concentrating on. As far as I’m concerned Mr. Stallion and the substance entrepreneurs are a non-issue compared to the advocates of the New Confederacy, theocrats and white supremacists. Concentrating on such consention actions between adults only diverts attention from the real issue -- which may be why some Paleo defenders keep naming names -- which is the Paleo links to very suspect ideologies. Notice: After Mr. Riggenbach posted his confirmation he was called by the individual in question. What was said is known only to them but the result was that Mr. Riggenbach retracted his recollection. 

 

 

 

 



 
Identity: Confirm or Deny?
06.23.05 (2:44 am)   [edit]
The list of “suspects” as to who is RightWatch grows almost daily. About half a dozen names have been offered so far. That we have seen. Now it is our policy to neither confirm nor deny any such guesses. RightWatch (I,we, us, take your pick) simply assumes that any names offered as suspects are good potential sources for information verifying what we have said. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be named! When such names are posted in our comments section they are deleted as policy, as are the identities of some of the people we talked about (who were not identified in our own article). If a specific name is linked to actions where we did not identify the individual we will not allow others to use this blog to do what we ourselves felt unfair to do. And while several people have emailed confirmation of what we said oddly it is “defenders” of these individuals who want to identify them. I’m not sure about the logic behind that.

We appreciate the confirmations, emails of support, etc. Remember if you have material you think of interest or suggestion of areas to look at we appreciate hearing from you. RWtblog.hotmail.com.

 
Some interesting material
06.22.05 (1:14 am)   [edit]
A couple interesting things have cropped up that I’ll share just as background information. I was happy to see the Rothbard/Hoppe Institute has republished the article that Rothbard wrote for the New Left journal Ramparts. I mentioned that article previously. It starts out:

“TWENTY YEARS AGO I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone "Neanderthal" (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that "Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists." Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!” http://www.mises.org/story/1842

He has my sympathy all over again. Twenty years ago I was considered a right-wing libertarian. My views over that period have gotten more conservative in some ways (as a personal life style choice and as the way I recommend for others but I don’t yearn for the state) but now I’m called a “left libertarian”. But when I’m not a “left libertarian” I’m a “neo-conservative”. And what is fun is that the same people who accuse me of being a “neo-con” on one day will accuse me of left-libertarianism the next.

In the article Rothbard says with admiration: “A new, younger generation of rightists, of "conservatives," began to emerge, who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism and boorishness.” He is lamenting this. But it strikes me that the Paleo-libertarians today have also said that the real problem with libertarianism is that we “left libertarians” weren’t working for the “preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the sins of reason, license, atheism and boorishness.”

Rothbard made it clear then that libertarianism was “in opposition to throne and altar, to monarch, the ruling class, theocracy and war.” He wasn’t salivating over Hapsburgs or yearning for a return of the Confederacy which was the friend of “order and regulated freedom” in conflict with “atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politic, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself” as Mr. Woods would put it.

I have argued that “counter culturalism” was a movement of the New Left. It was born then and thrived there and from there moved outwards. I would think that a libertarian would find some of it acceptable on the legal level but not necessarily so on the individual, moral level. So the New Left was where woman’s lib, gay rights, freedom from censorship, the drug culture, etc was founded. Rothbard at the time was quit enthusiastic about how the New Left was moving in a libertarian direction. I didn’t think so. I saw some agreement on minor issues but not on many. And I felt it had the seeds of a more authoritarian sentiment within it. That, I think, proved to be the case.

Murray referred to himself and his band of merry followers “ex-rightist libertarians”. He saw within the New Left a “remarkable shift toward libertarian and anti-statist positions” which I must confess I didn’t see. I, like many Rothbard admirers, did try to work with the New Left on issues of war and the draft for instance. But I only saw a louder, more obnoxious version of the Old Left. I didn’t see them as advocates of a new freedom worthy of an alliance. Nor did it appear that the Right was much better. I still bought into the idea that libertarianism is neither Left nor Right! I still do.

There is an interesting blog commenting on this subject here:
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/06/rothbard-article-online-rothbardian.html I don’t necessarily agree with the site in all details or even most. I just thought the comments of interest.

If you didn’t see it one of the individuals posting comments here wrote that the illusive Thomas Woods essay in favor of ordered freedom and against the evils of individualism can be found here. http://web.archive.org/web/20000602032857/http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/christendom.htm

I have several new items to work on for the site. But it was not my intent to post something new daily. After all, in the grand scheme of libertarianism, this is really a minor topic. Libertarianism is still a fringe movement and the Paleo’s are the fringe of the fringe so one would not spend too much time on it. And demands at work require my attention as well and I still would like to get out of the city by the weekend for a few days away. Though I do hope to stay in touch with the marvels of technology it’s more a matter of finding time.

I should say something about our name. In recent discussions with other libertarians there was a concern expressed by the rise of the radical right: the racist, homophobic, bigoted kind of theocratic thinking that I think is so dangerous. A few of us decided to write about that so we established the blog. The others dropped out due to time constraints. Well I was going to discuss the rise of such ideas within libertarianism. They were going to tackle it in other areas. So the focus narrowed but the blog was already there. But I am assured by the others that they do still intend to make such a contribution and some have said they will send me links and information on my topic as well. So at some point we may widen our focus As I have said before feel free to write RWtblog@hotmail.com



 
A Confederacy of What?
06.20.05 (2:02 pm)   [edit]
The following statement was posted: “Opposition to Lincoln's centralism is not ‘die hard advocacy of the CSA.’” And that is true. To oppose Lincoln doesn’t make one a partisan for the Confederacy and it’s politics of slavery. Nor does it it preclude it.

The argument that Cathy Young made in Reason is that Thomas Wood, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”, was not merely an opponent of Lincoln’s centralism but a supporter of the the slave-holding South. Young wrote:

“Woods is talking not merely about the expansion of federal power but about the triumph of Northern ‘radical individualism,’ religious liberalism, and other cultural evils. He favorably quotes a 19th-century Southern theologian who described the defenders of slavery as ‘friends of order and regulated freedom,’ and portrays the Civil War as ‘a struggle against an atheistic individualism and an unrelenting rationalism in politics and religion, in favor of a Christian understanding of authority, social order and theology itself.’ The Southern cause, he concludes, is ‘the cause of us all.’” http://www.reason.com/0506/co.cy.behind.shtml

In an earlier article on the same subject Young wrote: “The full extent of that extremism is camouflaged in the book. The author's official bio leaves out the fact that Woods is a co-founder and member of pro-secession League of the South. Here's a sample of the League's views, from a position paper: '’Today's white Christian Southerners are the blood descendants of the men and women who settled this country and gave us the blessings of freedom and prosperity. To give away this inheritance in the name of 'equality' or 'fairness' would be unconscionable.’ While generously urging ‘Christian charity’ toward blacks, the paper denounces the idea that 'Southerners should give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.’” http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/21/last_of_the_confederates/ Woods himself admits he is not just a member but a founding member. http://www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/14_thomas_e.htm

Now to be fair to Woods I tried to read the essay of his that is quoted in several critiques. It was published in the secessionist article which was published in the League’s journal. But the links have been deleted. The journal in which it appeared has vanished from the web as far as I can tell. However, the theocratic (and I mean that in the strictest sense of the word) web site reformed-theology.org had reprinted it with Woods permission. This journal is filled with conspiracy theories from the authors who worked with the John Birch Society, Lew Rockwell contributor Gary North is a frequent contributor and it generally takes the view that Old Testament morality law needs to be put into place today right down to the stonings. These theocrats tend to be very pro-slavery saying that it is good for the inferior races to be brought in contact in white Christians. (For a web site that combines this Calvinist theocracy and Southern Secessionism try www.littlegeneva.com.)

But when one opens the journal page where the Woods article is supposed to appear you get this notice instead:

Christendom's Last Stand,
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Removed by request of the author. 
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/christendom.htm

I thought that particularly odd since the previous page was quite explicit in saying that the article was appearing with the express permission of Mr. Woods. So some years ago Woods gave permission for the article to be disseminated and now he has it withdrawn. It has disappeared from the original location and from a secondary location. It may be that Mr. Woods has changed his mind about the article and no longer stands by what he wrote then. We all mature and change our minds and there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to condemn a man for views he has repudiated. But I haven’t seen anything that indicates Woods has changed his mind.

One Libertarian came to Woods aid and defended him from Young http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/kaercher/kaercher4.html but he spends most of his time implying that if you are anti-Woods you must be pro-Lincoln and trying to prove that Lincoln was evil. That is a point that was not being disputed from what I could see. He then said readers should check out Wood’s reply to Young’s first article on the topic at Rockwell’s site.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods38.html

Here is how Woods deals with Young’s comments about the “reply” in question.

Paragraphs 1,2 & 3: Tells us who likes his book and who doesn’t. No reply to what Young said.

Paragraph 4: Insinuates Young was out to get him, no reply to what she said.

Paragraph 5: Quote a Mises Institute individual about Wood. No reply to what Young said.

Paragraph 6: Attacks unnamed libertarian who didn’t like his book. Attacks another unnamed libertarian web site which he said “tried to portray me as a Klansman” and then responds, “you know the tender solicitude and sympathy that the Klan shows for Latin Mass Catholics.” Actually the Klan has dropped it’s anti Catholicism. But either way no reply to Young.

Paragraph 7: Attacks “Beltway Libertarians” saying they don’t like him because he upholds “Southern tradition”. No reply to Young.

Paragraph 8: Argues that Lord Acton was pro-Southern, again no reply to what Young wrote about his views.

Paragraph 9: Says conservatives previously debated the “Lincoln” legacy but no one I’ve read is opposed to that. There is a argument smuggled in which is saying that to oppose the revival of so-called Southern culture is to be pro-Lincoln. One is no more pro-Lincoln for opposing the Confederacy than one is pro-Saddam for opposing the Iraq war. No reply to what Young wrote.

Paragraphs 10 to the end: Takes on neoconservatives and attacks them. No reply to what Young wrote.

I was hoping Woods would give us some defense for his viewpoints. I figure he had three real options. He could say he did hold such views and no longer does in which case I think the story is over. He could say his views were distorted and explain how and the story ends. Or he can say he stands by the article and we debate what is in it. He did none of that. He never mentioned it. Instead he pretends it never existed and he issues requests to sites that had published it (at least one such request) asking for it to be chucked down the memory hole. At the very least he could have explained why he is trying to erase any records of what his article said? All i can do is assume that the people who originally quoted it did so accurately. My ability to disprove the quotes disappeared when Woods had the article erased. I wouldn’t think that was a wise move unless it confirmed what the critics said and Woods still stands by those positions.

I went to the web sites for the League of the South and read numerous pages. It appears to be semi-theocratic in the sense of wanting to impose some sort of undefined “Christian culture” on the new Confederacy and loosely embraced white supremacy. I say loosely only in the sense that they didn’t say “we whites have the right to rule the darkies”. But they do say just that in gentler, kinder terms.

Here is what they are clear about. They and their League of the South Institute are secessionists. Their Institute calls itself “the educational arm of the Southern independence movement.” http://lsinstitute.org/ They wish to restore “Christian liberties” and reaffirm the old southern cultural heritage. Elsewhere they say: “The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic.” http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/ls-intro.html

As Young wrote they did say that Southerners would never give control of their institutions to another race (which implies that only Whites are Southerners). They also seem to want to water down the evils of slavery which is what Woods was accused of by his critics. The League says regarding race relations in the South: “Southerners on both sides who were ‘racist’ by principle were decent and humane in their actual conduct.” http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/intro_articles/newdixiemanifesto.html

That one sentence has a lot packed into it. First note that the word racist in in quotes which implies they don’t believe there was any racism in the South. Second, while I think there probably were racists on both sides, it implies that the racism was somehow equal in impact and intensity and it says that both groups of racists were “decent and humane”. Now I’m not sure we can call the actions of the Klan “decent and humane”. I don’t think lynching was ‘decent and humane” (and it was almost always white mobs lynching blacks). It was black churches that were “decently and humanely” fire bombed not white churches. I never heard of a anonymous blacks going out and breaking up groups advocating white supremacy but there were white groups that went out and broke up meetings advocating legal equality. This sentence is actually abhorrent to any decent libertarian.

Now for their “soft” racism. I quote: “The League seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the South because the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English have given Dixie its unique institutions and civilisation. Should the Christian, Anglo-Celtic core be displaced, then the South would cease to be recognisable to us and our progeny. We must maintain this all-important link to our European heritage from which we have drawn our inspiration. Anglo-Celtic Southerners and their European cousins have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed us. If we will not promote our own interests, no one will do it for us.” http://www.dixienet.org/positions/free-ac.htm This is pretty much the way David Duke, former head of the Klan, is expressing himself these days. It’s called marketing. Instead of saying you are promoting white supremacy you say you want the system to protect your culture. Again note how the Southern culture they talk about clearly excludes blacks and Indians who lived there for about the same period of time—obviously longer for Indians. When they previously discussed blacks in juxtaposition to Southerners this was not an error. It was intentional. They do not believe that Southern blacks are part of the Southern nation. They are aliens living in a white, Christian land. The League does say they should be treated justly but it is clear that it is against equality.

The League has one page showing how the US congress voted on issues and then they separate out the Southern representatives to shows how the new Confederacy would have voted on the same issues. The implication certainly is that the South was the good guys (and on some issues they were). But included in the policies of the new Confederacy was foreign aid for the Contras, retention of US control over the canal in Panama, prayer in state schools, banning abortion and keeping out immigrants. http://leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/intro_articles/csatoday.html

Now some supporters of the Paleolibertarian agenda try to pretend these secessionists who want a white, Christian nation are really libertarians at heart. The League of the South doesn’t buy into that at all (and remember we are discussing them because Mr. Woods is a founding member). First the League makes it clear that this libertarian idea of equal rights is out the window. “In a starkly secular libertarian world where everyone has the same, duplicate rights as all others, and government exists not to enforce organic values, but merely to prevent imposition on rights, some very startling results become obvious. The government guided by the god of human individualism must set out to tear up all human relations and constructions that are grounded in anything other than human individualism and consent. Herein libertarianism and Critical Theory connect. At this point, extreme libertarianism joins not only with secularism, but also with feminism, the Civil Rights Revolution, and internationalism.” http://www.lsinstitute.org/ExLib.htm

They say that Southern culture didn’t buy into this sort of equality of rights egalitarianism. This is correct even if that is glossed over by Mr. Woods. Instead it gave rights on the basis of who you are. So everyone’s rights are protected because the only real rights they have is determined by what group they belong to. So fewer legal rights for blacks is okay because their black. It’s based on who they are and therefore not a infringement of equal rights. I quote: “Southern Conservatism openly essays at being just, not egalitarian. It finds justice in treating a man or woman as who he or she truly is-who he or she is, in reality. It finds rights, duties, liberties, and communal values, in the Common Law of the land and people, the Common Law handed down to it through time, a Common Law constructed as the framework for an organic society. It does not find these things in the application of abstract principle answering questions of how to benefit the lowest-common-denominator at any given moment.”

And what they are setting up is a Christian system of law. This is one reason Reconstructionists are on their side much of the time (not all of course but generally). “Furthermore, the Common Law of a Christian people is necessarily a Christian Common Law. And the Common Law of a Christian people knows its own and is not ashamed of its own, neither its values nor its ethnicity.”

And if you get real inspired to join this cause for a racially based, Christian-based revived Confederacy you can sign a declaration linked to by the League to that effect. http://www.petitiononline.com/cripps/petition.html Here are a few excerpts:

“The national culture of the United States is violent and profane, coarse and rude, cynical and deviant, and repugnant to the Southern people and to every people with authentic Christian sensibilities. Purveyors of the national culture have everywhere lowered standards of morality and debased human dignity. They have appealed to mankind's worst impulses through profanity and obscenity in the arts and literature; they have depicted decadence and debauchery as normal and desirable; they have distorted Southern symbols and denied our right to interpret or display those symbols; they have assumed the authority of parents in the areas of religion and education; they thus have driven a wedge between the generations; they have prostituted all areas of thought and learning for market share; they have demonised Southern heroes and canonised tyrants and war criminals; they have distorted Southern history to advance their ideas of social justice; they thus have driven a wedge between the races and regions; they have destroyed hope; they have spread despair; they have called good evil and evil good; they have everywhere substituted the opinions of men for the decrees of God.”

“To our Southern forebears the triune God gave the inspiration and wisdom to create a confederated, constitutional republic based on the principle of local self-government and sustained by a vibrant and vital cultural heritage. We consider our heritage a sublime and unmerited blessing and we cherish it. Today it is threatened as never before by the godless national culture of death, supported by an overbearing government that acknowledges no limits to its power.”

“We reaffirm the cultural inheritance of our honourable forefathers and declare to the world our intention to defend and preserve it. The preservation of historic cultures--especially those that establish liberty--has never been cheap or easy. We hereby proclaim to the world that the struggle to protect and advance our Southern cultural heritage begins in earnest today...Henceforth, we shall stand steadfast in defense of our inheritance as free men and women of the South, and we welcome all who share our principles to stand with us. “

“As witness to our intent, we affix our signatures to this Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence...invoking the blessings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, on a just cause.”

This does sound very theocratic to me and I honestly believe that their constant discussion of “culture” means race something they are more clear about elsewhere. Certainly some of the signers of that petition left white supremacist messages on the site so they seemed to think so as well.

Now why spend any time on the League. Wood is not the only Rockwellian Paleolibertarian type to associate with them. You will find a couple of Paleolibertarians have worked with this group as well and other League lectures have written for Rockwell. But Woods was a founder of the group. And the whole debate about his membership came out because it was said this his book on history intentionally distorts facts to give a pro-Confederacy viewpoint and that this is inspired by Woods’ belief in the revival of this confederacy. At issue was what sort of group did Woods endorse. I wouldn’t even condemn him for speaking to them or listening to what they had to say. But being a founding member was more than that. That implies endorsement.

Now why is Woods being promoted by these Paleolibertarians so strongly. Rockwell’s web site carries around 50 articles by this man—including a review he wrote about his own book. He is not merely someone to whom they link because he occasional writes something interesting. He is a regular columnist for them. He lectures for Rockwell’s Mises Institute and I note at least one other League of South lecturer is also a frequent contributors to Rockwell’s site.

Woods founding membership in the League of the South certainly makes one wonder what kind of libertarian, paleo or otherwise, he’s supposed to be. And equally one would wonder why Rockwell’s site and the Mises Institute are so fond of him. If he were the only such bird in the Paleolibertarian flock you might ignore it. But he isn’t.

A slew of Rockwell linked writers have come out with book after book fighting what would appear to be a war that has been over for 150 years. Woods is an adjunct scholar for the Mises Institute. An internal search of the Mises site shows Woods mentioned over 500 times. Other seccessionists associated with the League, like Woods, lecture to the Mises crowd. Mises related academics lecture for the League. It’s a very cozy relationship to say the least. But are the goals of the League really what libertarianism is all about? I don’t think so.



 
Should we unite?
06.20.05 (6:35 am)   [edit]
Short: to the point and a valid question, so I thought I’d post this comment on the main board along with my reply.

“Well, thanks for the quick reply. I'd prefer to be saved from the "counter-culturalists" by discussing their ideas rather than their inconsistencies or history. But for those who see value in getting the history of the movement "right", I guess you'll provide one version of that history.”

“But from my narrow point of view, what's needed in the libertarian movement is not a "correct" history or more ways to differentiate between the players, but rather a unification of the already too numerous factions.”

“To have someone with your apparent lengthy background in the movement and your ability to write spend time on dividing instead of uniting seems to me to provide the ideal demonstration of why the movement has trouble getting out of its own way... :(“


Dear : (

Sorry to make you sad. You raise some valid points. I am not trying to save anyone from counter-culturalists as I said here. The issue was that some people, who have allied themselves with very unlibertarian people, are using “counter culturalism” to attack the libertarian movement. They wish to divide the movement. Not divide it as much as have it march in lock step with them. This was how they’ve been for a long time however.

When they were the Radical Caucus they were willing to “smash” anyone who disagreed with them. See George Smiths essay discussing this tactic. Mr. Smith explained their actions 20 years ago: “All enemies, and especially internal enemies (‘deviationists’”, must be “crushed.” The end justifies the means. Short of violating rights, Libertarian Leninists exhibit few constraints on their behavior. Their tactics run the gamut from gossip and personal attacks to serious.”
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vis05.txt

Now I will not that unification is not necessarily good. First, which tactic is the right one? I don’t know. Better to allow diversity. Second, when the movement was centered in the LP their was one center of power, one center of resources, etc. That meant that the diffirent approaches were inevitably drawn to fighting with one another for control of that center. I don’t think that was good.

I don’t really care if the Paleo’s want to start some other movement. I wish they wouldn’t use the name of Mises to do so. I even think they are starting to get away from Rothbard to some extent. Here is where I have major problems. We are now getting messages that seem very close to crossing the line of being racist (if they haven’t already crossed the line). We have White Supremecists and anti-Semites getting plugged and endorsed by Paleo-Libertarians. Instead of being a principle alternative to the Left and Right, or extreme Left and far Right, they are allmost merging us with the far Right. They want us to downplay social freedom, they want us to join in a racist campaign to keep immigrants out (and it racist as I will try to show later). I think they are doing a great deal of harm to the name of libertarianism.

In the past we had our share of eccentrics, loonies, wierdos and strange ones. No one says the contrary. And a lot of people perceived us a strange or weird. But we were never associated with hate. We were never branded racists. We were seen as the people the Right knew they could rely on to support free enterprise--that was in the days when the Right believed in free enterprise--and we were seen by the Left as those people who would go to the wall for civil liberties. But we were never associated with Jew-haters, anti-gay bigots, racists, theocrats and so forth.

 
Tracleer
Tracleer