tBlog - Sobran and his friends

Sobran and his friends

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

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.

posted by: Bill Woolsey (reply)
post date: 07.03.05 (10:03 am)

The message above appears on this blog. Part of it runs 2/3 across the page. The text is a single, newspaper-size column. I think there is something wrong.

posted by: anticollectivist (reply)
post date: 07.03.05 (10:04 am)

Usually where there is smoke, there is fire. But this is a case of "where there is fire, there is fire." How much racism and antisemitism can be explained away? Those guys are racist to the core. Why do other people who are not racists continue to work with them at all?

posted by: Steve Horwitz (reply)
post date: 07.04.05 (9:27 am)

Nice work here. Shining the light on the cockroaches is always the best medicine. Let's call them what they are, and not let them call themselves what they're not - libertarians.

posted by: Mr. Libertarian (reply)
post date: 07.05.05 (6:11 am)

Nope Steve. We are libertarians, we follow Rothbard. You are neocons, and probably get paid by Rove and Zionists to promote the Evil Empire.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.05.05 (8:21 pm)

Wow. That last one is just a bit frightening. "We are libertarians, we follow Rothbard." Ohhh-kaaayyy....Not that there's anything wrong with being in a cult, mind you.....

posted by: Gil Guillory (reply)
post date: 07.06.05 (7:21 am)

I find posts like this fascinating. I don't doubt that Sobran has views with which I vehemently disagree, but does that mean that everything he writes is worthless? When I scour lewrockwell.com or sobran.com for what might reasonably be called anti-semitism, I find nothing. Oh, yes, there are articles about Zionists and Israel, but racism and particularly anti-semitism are all but "hiding". So, it doesn't really ring true to me that they are infesting the libertarian waters with racism. How can an intellectual agenda be both hidden and operative? How could Sobran persuade me to become a racist unless he actually built a case for racism plainly on his site?

Instead, the paleolibertarians seem to be coloring the libertarian waters with common sense by developing themes from the Old Right.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.06.05 (7:45 am)

" developing themes from the Old Right."

I think you answered your own question.

The Old Right was tainted by brushes with Fascism, anti-semitism and racism. This stench of "America First" hasn't gone away.

You should try reading the Old Right source materials, and not Rothbardian handjobs.

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 07.06.05 (12:52 pm)

newbie is correct when he says the Old Right had these problems But they tried to deal with it in a reasonable way. So John T. Flynn tried to expel nazi types from America First. He didn't rush out and try to explain why these people are cultural conservatives worthy of support because they oppose the war effort.

Lindbergh got unfairly tainted by taking remarks he made out of context. But even though they knew he was unfairly tainted they reached the point where they asked him to step aside just to avoid the appearance of a problem. of course the new conferderates do it differently. they invite the problems to speak to them and justify the alliances!

posted by: Marcus (reply)
post date: 07.07.05 (5:22 am)

Is Justus Doenecke, probably the most widely respected author on isolationism a Rothbardian handjob? He is undoubtedly the leading authority on the American First Committee, and the isolationist movement, and he stated that the accusations of fascism and anti-Semitism are completely unfounded. So did Wayne S. Cole, a leftist, in his book The Battle Against Intervention.

Those accusations were made by complete scam artists like John Ray Carlson who went "undercover" and unfairly smeared the isolationists through exaggeration, guilt by association, and outright fabrication just like the ADL, SPLC, and for that matter this site, David Frum, and Tom Palmer do.

As someone who has actually exhaustively examined the Old Right source material, I would add one more point on Lindbergh's comments. Again, I think when taken in context they would be unobjectionable. Nonetheless, John T. Flynn, The Chicago Tribune, Robert Taft, Rober Wood and most of the prominent isolationists denounced the statement, and as stated Lindbergh stepped down from his position. If they were so teeming with anti-semite fascists you think they'd all say Lindbergh didn't go far enough.

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 07.07.05 (5:41 am)

Marcus is correct. First Doenecke is excellent. I have read his book on American First along with Cole's book as well. It is true that scam artists made the accusations but so did the interventionists who figured it would embarass the non interventionists.

Lindbergh's comments, in context, are not problematic at all!. In fact it is regretable that he didn't go with an earlier version of the speech where his point was far more clear and precise. But he wanted to make it shorter and cut.

I don't believe the Old right was teeming with undesireables in general. There were a few here and there but mostly they were isolated and on the fringes.

I do not believe that associating with the types that are being embraced by the Rockwellians is good. I do not reject Doenecke at all quite the opposite. I am a non interventionist. But I think our cause is hurt when we embrace people who attend white supremacy rallies, speak at conferences with neo-Nazis and admirers of Hitler, embrace the Old South and the confederacy, etc.

Some of the Rockwellians try to pretend that to oppose their dancing with the ugliest girls at the ball means one doesn't think you should be at the ball -- or be part of the antiwar movement, etc. I just think they need to have a better choice of partners.

There is much with that that is good regarding their positions. Far more so than with Objectivist nut cases. But they do us a huge disservice by working with this fringe people and I suspect that some of them are themselves bigots who are not bothered by the extreme views of their allies and would more openly embrace them if they thought they could get away with it.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.07.05 (9:04 am)

So your response is post more Rothbardian handjobs?

Puh-lease. You really are True Believers. It is completely true that not all the Old Right were endeared to fascism or anti-semetism. But SOME OF THEM WERE. Denying it only makes you seem even more cultish (if that's even possible).

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.08.05 (10:17 am)

Balloon Juice vs Dustin "It's all about the Joos" Ramindo:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005742.html

posted by: Bill Woolsey (reply)
post date: 07.08.05 (3:23 pm)

Gil Guillory claims that he can find nothing by Sobran on LewRockwell.com or Sobran.com that is anti-semitic. Well, I agree with him regarding LewRockwell.com. While I don't read LewRockwell.com carefully, it seems that he only includes columns by racists like Sam Francis or anti-semites like Joe Sobran that aren't racist or anti-semitic.

But on Sobran.com?

http://www.sobran.com/articles/faction.shtml

There is a good bit of that which seems very anti-Semitic to me.

Sure, not every single Jew is involved, but supposedly the "Jewish faction" is out to destroy Christian culture. That isn't about Israel or Zionism. Now, I suppose if one is anti-Christian, it wouldn't necessarily seem all that bad, but Sobran clearly is taking the postion that the "Jewish Faction" is a terrible danger because it is destroying something good.

What does it take to be an anti-Semite?

When I read Buckley's long discussion of why he fired Sobran, I was a bit sympathetic to Sobran. Some big-time Jewish intellectuals did seem to target him and got him fired from the National Review, almost entirely because he was fanatically anti-Zionist. At least the only other problem Buckley saw was that Sobran said he found some wacked out racist publication stimulating.

But it isn't too hard to find stuff by Sobran that is about how the Jews run everything and are destroying Christian culture. At the very least, isn't that a proposal that the Christian majority boycot Jewish intellectuals and artists?

Marx and Freud were Jews. Their purportedly bad ideas (well, I don't like them much either) are tied to their being Jewish. And supposedly, these crazed ideas are especially attractive to Jews.

What does it take to be an anti-Semite?

And, of course, reading all that, the fact that he found the racist publication "stimulating" is no surprise and a much more obvious strike against Sobran.

posted by: anonymous (reply)
post date: 07.09.05 (1:49 am)

It seems to me that these paleolibertarians have really jumped into a cesspool. and are rather disreputable. What a combination that includes the like of Sobran, Raimondo, Garris, Rockwell, Hoppe, ad nauseum. Now Raimondo is back with his the “Jews knew” theories over the London attacks. I’m waiting for him to argue they planned it!!

Reading the information here and at tomgpalmer.com has really opened my eyes. I didn’t pay attention to the type of scurriilous activities with which these people have been involved. Why does anyone think they have any credability at all?

I think I can write like Raimondo: “Sources indicate that long before the German people were aware of it, and even many high level government officials, the Jews were aware of the Holocaust. One can only speculate but their knowledge of the event seems to indicate that they wanted it to happen. Obviously such genocide would raise sympathy for the Zionist state. It would be in the interests of organized Zionism to allow this genocide to continue.”

posted by: Bill Woolsey (reply)
post date: 07.10.05 (5:10 pm)

I believe this is unfair to Raimondo.

He is "promoting" the theory that Israeli intelligence knew something about what was going to happen on 911 and failed to share it with the Americans. He has now latched onto some early reports about the London attack to suggest that Israeli intelligence knew something about that as well.

Raimondo also suggests that the reason Israeli intelligence has failed to share this information with the U.S. (or Great Britain) is the belief that such attacks will motivate the U.S. (and Great Britain) to go to war against Israel's enemies.

It is all a bit like the effort by Great Britain to get the U.S. to enter WWI.

Israeli intellegence (and presumably Sharon, though that wouldn't necessarily be true,) aren't the same thing as "the Jews." While they are Jewish, they are only a very small subset of all Jews.

I don't know that Raimondo has even bothered to point out that there is no reason to believe that the vast majority of Jews in Israel, America, Great Britain, or elsewhere, would support letting terrorists attack the U.S. to motivate the U.S. to go to war against Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

In other contexts, he has pointed out that it is Christian Zionists who come closest to supporting Sharon's agenda. (Actually, it seems like the Christian Zionists come close to the views of the most crazed elements of the settler movement, which is currently down on Sharon.)

Anyway, if someone were sufficiently paranoid about the survival of Israel, and just about as willing to sacrifice innocents for interests of state as has been typical of secret service organizations in the past, "allowing" some kind of attrocity by their enemies on innocent civilians of a potential ally would be sensible.

Considering that the U.S. is allied with both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism by Fatah and Hamas against Israel, getting the U.S. to turn against Saudi Arabia would be plausibly in Israel's national interest.

Now, the downside to any such strategy is the possibility of getting caught. And so, I am inclined to discount Raimondo's conspiracy theory.

I know I am very cynical, but I just don't think it is realistic to believe that humanitarian concerns would prevent the intelligence services of a country from "allowing" innocents of a potential ally from being killed if the result was to get the ally to put more resources into their common cause. But, fear of getting caught--that would be a problem.

posted by: Vince (reply)
post date: 07.12.05 (9:30 am)

Be careful when you start lumping paleolibertarians and anarcholibertarians in with Nazis, etc. While racism, sexism, anti-semitism are intolerable to real libertarians (small 'l'), there are precious few publications of any stripe that will publish anything a paleo- or an anarcholibertarian has to say. Conversely, the neocons LOVE to publish "liberventionist" opinions in their mouthpiece publications, because "liberventionists" like Tom Palmer refuse to criticise the Bush Administrations illegal, imperial, racist wars. So reject Hoppe, or Woods, or any of the other paleolibertarians you find objectionable, but realize two things about which they are right: Lincoln was a disaster of a president, who caused the unnecessary deaths of over 500,000 people while destroying federalism (and not freeing ONE slave), and; Zionism is a big part of the reason we continue to meddle in the Middle East, and therefore at least a contributing cause of the illegal, racist wars there. (Note also that not once did I call you a "fuckhead"). Sincerely, Vince www.libertyguys.org

posted by: Steve Horwitz (reply)
post date: 07.13.05 (1:57 pm)

I find it hilarious to be called a "neocon" for agreeing that LRC and the LvMI are dancing with racist/anti-semitic devils. I guess 25 years as a libertarian, and one who came to it through Rothbard among others, not to mention a 20 year career of published work in economics, all of which is clearly libertarian, don't count for doodly. Please find anything I've ever said in support of the War in Iraq, or anything I've ever said in support of anyone who is rightly labelled a "neo-con."

Applying the neo-con label to me in the face of absolutely no evidence to back it up is kind of odd. I guess the only evidence one can dredge up is that I have Jewish last name, eh?

posted by: Bill Woolsey (reply)
post date: 07.13.05 (2:59 pm)

Reply to: Steve

I'm not sure that "Mr. Libertarian"
wasn't being sarcastic. I mean, it
was a bit over the top. Right?

Libertarians all follow Rothbard and
everyone else is in the pay of Rove
and the Zionists? Come on.

That statement is making fun of the
paleo-libertarians, right?

posted by: Steve Horwitz (reply)
post date: 07.14.05 (6:23 am)

Reply to: Bill

I hope so Bill, but my own view is that there's no statement so outrageous that it couldn't reasonably be attributed to "followers" of Rothbard.

Tracleer