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
Blog
| 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/arc... 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&rdq uo; 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&rdquo ; 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/arc... 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/v0... “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... 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/article... 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&rdqu o; -- 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. |
| Tracleer |