At least some of the screaming zanies at antiwar.com, echoing their comrades in nuttiness at Lewrockwell.com, have now dubbed the crisis in Ukraine a coup…..by the opposition! According to the blog entry on The Ukraine Coup “the elections weren’t stolen: so says the BHHRG, one of the few NGOs in the West that isn’t a handmaiden of the Empire.” I wasn’t there, so I couldn’t conclude on the basis of personal observation that the election was stolen, but plenty of other observers were and they concluded that it was. (Ah, but they must be “handmaidens of Empire.”)
The Lew Rockwells and Justin Raimondos of the world have become so filled with sputtering rage and hatred of the USA that if the U.S. government favors something, you can count on them being against it, and if the U.S. government opposes something, you can count on them being for it. They compare Iraqi police recruits to collaborators with the Nazis (i.e., in their twisted perception of the world, the U.S.) and cheer on the authoritarian party in Ukraine that is hoping to revive the old U.S.S.R. (The antiwar.com blog mentions “some alleged resurgence of Russian imperialism,” which indicates that they don’t follow Russian politics very closely.) They have become so crazed by hatred of the US government that they openly prefer jihadist, facist, and other open enemies of freedom, if the US government opposes those groups. (In Rockwell’s case, his love for the C.S.A., the Confederate States of America, means that his hatred for the U.S.A. drives him to ever more bitter anti-American tirades.)
They have adopted the worst, and only the worst, habits and attitudes of their old master, Murray Rothbard, who had a penchant for pushing claims beyond their point of validity. Thus, Murray wrote in the first edition (mine is autographed “Feb. 1975, To Thomas Palmer, For reason and liberty — Murray Rothbard”) of For a New Liberty (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973):
“American military and foreign policy since World War II has postulated an imminent threat of Soviet attack against which American energies were supposed to be mobilized. But in contrast, if we take a sober look at Soviet Russian foreign policy since the Bolshevik Revolution, we find a continuing passion for peace which has sometimes bordered on the suicidal. Poland attacked Soviet Russia after World War I, and gained a large chunk of White Russia and the Ukraine as a result. Before World War II, so devoted was Stalin to peace that he failed to make adequate provision against the Nazi attack. The much vaunted ‘expansion’ of the Soviet Union occurred only and solely in response to the unprovoked German attack; in defeating Germany, the Soviet Union had to roll over Germany’s military allies in Eastern Europe. Not only was there no Russian expansion whatever apart from the exigencies of defeating Germany, but the Soviet Union time and again leaned over backward to avoid any cold or hot war with the west.”(p. 293; emphasis added)
So the annexation of territory from Romania and from Poland and the installation of communist dictatorships throughout eastern and central Europe were only a part of a defense against German imperialism and then U.S. imperialism. A potentially rational case against military interventionism was turned into a completely over-the-top defense of Soviet expansionism. I recall the conversations in 1978 when Murray was persuaded to revise the text for the second edition, as it was so obviously untenable. He took out the phrase “continuing passion for peace” and changed “so devoted was Stalin to peace” to “So unprepared was Stalin” and “So unwarlike was Stalin.” He recognized that what he had written before was indefensible.
We now see the worst vices of Murray again in the likes of Raimondo and Rockwell, two men who lack his virtues. In their worldview, the enemies of the US must be our friends and the friends of the US must be our enemies. They have not only done injury to the name of Ludwig von Mises (whose name Rockwell appropriated for the institute he runs) and of the concept of being “antiwar”; they have lost their moorings to morality and to reality itelf.
Update: The bloggers at antiwar.com have now become expert dermatologists and concluded, on the basis of a nonpublished letter-to-the-editor allegedly by an associate professor of dermatology at the University of Toronto, that Yushchenko’s shocking and rapid change in appearance wasn’t a result of poisoning. It must be true, because if it were true, it would support their view of the world, which is that all bad things emanate from the United States government. Ergo, it must be true.
Further Update: The hateful mocking of Viktor Yushenko at antiwar.com continues. Have they no shame at all? The terrible illness that has ravaged Viktor Yushchenko is made into an occasion for mockery:
“The prince becomes a toad — and, no, I seriously doubt that Yushie’s physical deterioration has anything to do with a nefarious plot by Putin’s KGB against his good looks. Instead, let me suggest an alternative theory, one not contradicted by expert medical testimony — and the account of a parliamentary inquiry, — and it is this: perhaps the Faustian deal that Yushchenko made with the U.S. government has taken its toll, and, as in the dramatic climax of Oscar Wilde’s famous tale, “The Portrait of Dorian Grey,” his sins are being visited on his once-handsome visage, ravaging it — and revealing his inner soul.
Just a theory, mind you.”
What truly twisted and perverted minds.
“It must be true, because if it were true, it would support Tom Palmer’s view of the world, which is that all bad things emanate from Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. Ergo it must be true.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E7DF1438F93AA1575AC0A9629C8B63
FOREIGN DESK
Poison Assertion Rejected
Published: September 29, 2004, Wednesday
VIENNA, Sept. 28 — An Austrian hospital that recently treated Viktor A. Yushchenko, the Ukrainian presidential candidate and opposition leader, said Tuesday that accusations that he had been poisoned were baseless.
The Rudolfinerhaus Hospital gave no further details about what might have caused Mr. Yushchenko’s symptoms, but the hospital said it would hold a news conference on Wednesday to discuss the case.
Earlier this month, Mr. Yushchenko stopped campaigning for the Oct. 31 election and flew to Vienna for treatment after becoming ill with what aides said was first thought to be food poisoning but later said was chemical poisoning.
He returned to campaigning 10 days ago and has accused the Ukrainian authorities of poisoning him to remove him from the race. He has difficulty speaking, and one side of his face appears paralyzed.
Aides to President Leonid Kuchma have dismissed the accusations.
————————————–
Grow up, Palmer. You’re making a fool out of yourself.
Published: 09 – 29 – 2004 , Late Edition – Final , Section A , Column 1 , Page 9
Mr. Tamiroff didn’t bother to note that I didn’t insist that it was true. I’m not a dermatologist. I did report that many people believe it to be true and that, based on past KGB behavior, that’s plausible. Mr. Tamiroff, you really ought to work on your reading skills.
P.S. The email I sent to “Akim Tamiroff” was bounced back and a little research found that it’s the name of an actor born in 1899 in Baku, Russia who acted most recently in “Don Quixote de Orson Welles” in 1992 and in “The Great Bank Robbery” in 1969, and who writes remarkably like Justin Raimondo, as have several other letter writers to my blog in the past. Hmmmm…. It even turns out that several of the more nasty comments on my site all have the same IP address, as does “N. Gorovsky,” who posted an entire column by my colleague and friend Doug Bandow (although how it rebutted me was not entirely clear).
Stalin was so committed to peace that he laid the foundation for an arms race that would last over fifty years. In fact, he was so “unwarlike” that the option of combat wasn’t even on the table in 1945. Why he peacefully conquered through Poland, such a dove he was.
That sort of logic is the same bumbling that denies Putin’s lurch toward the good ol’ KGB days. Of course he at least is making no effort to mask his rapid centralization and grab for power with any marxist pathos, so it’s easy to say “alleged” simply because the new hammer and sickle is blue, white, and red. Or orange, as it were.
Don’t try to wriggle out of it, Palmer. You obviously believed Yushchenko’s tall tale. Try working on your research skills — or is the only research you feel obligated to do is finding out what rockwell and antiwar.com think and inverting it. Oh, and i see you’ve turned on your old mentor Rothbard, even gracelessly managing to cite his autograph on your copy of FANL.
What class.
Anyone acquainted with Justin Raimondo’s writing style will recognize it immediately above this comment. Interestingly, the comments that make the case so strongly that Yushchenko wasn’t poisoned, but just had…well, something else that would cause the leading opposition figure to change his appearance completely in a few months, came immediately after Justin Raimondo posted a typically out-of-control and screechy rant on the topic at antiwar.com. Quite the coincidence.
You’re wrong again, Tommy. So why are you so obsessed with Raymondo? It’s kinda funny: you sound so rational and normal and pretty boring when you talk about other stuff. But once you get on the subject of Raymondo, your juices — such as they are — really start flowing…..
Hmmmmmmmmmm……
All I can say is that anyone who has ever had the misfortune of coming into contact with Justin Raimondo (nice touch, misspelling the name) realizes that he offers the kiss of death to any movement to which he attaches himself. I fear for our future now that he has attached himself to the theme of being “antiwar,” since his involvement is more likely to discredit the antiwar cause (through associating it with fondness for jihadists, for example) and therefore to promote war.
Dr. Palmer stated: “The Lew Rockwells and Justin Raimondos of the world have become so filled with sputtering rage and hatred of the USA that if the U.S. government favors something, you can count on them being against it, and if the U.S. government opposes something, you can count on them being for it.”
I think this approach finds its roots in Rothbardian thought itself. Rothbard repeatedly stated that government (or “the state”) is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large; akin to a mafia whose henchmen and bosses are up for election. Accordingly, anything government does is tainted by its inherently aggressive by nature and deserving of (at least some) condemnation.
Rothbard, of course, did not actually hold such an oversimplified view (and neither do Rockwell or Raimondo, at least in principle). Rothbard also repeatedly stated, often crediting Etienne de la Boetie, that no government can exist without at least some form of tacit consent of the people and therefore is not completely analogous to a gang. Nonetheless, the government-as-mafia view is easy to latch onto and overemphasize in one’s approach to government. It is elegant and attractive, and makes the world much easier to comprehend. Unfortunately, it can have the detrimental effect on one’s thought and attitude rightly noted by Palmer above. And for reasons beyond this post (but which should be fairly obvious), it is not technically accurate.
As much as it may be hard for libertarians to hear, there are actually well-meaning, talented, hard-working people in government who would not run a stop sign. Are they acting consistent with liberty? Absolutely not. But to smear them as power-lusting uber-criminals does no one any service.
I was truly surprised at the anti-war.com and Rockwell responses to the crisis in Ukraine. As Mr. Palmer, I was not an election observer, nor am I an expert in Ukranian politics, but the evidence that the election was rigged in some way, as noted by many true freedom fighters like Vaclav Havel, seems weighty enough for a closer inspection of the processes there.
I remember the cover of the Economist not long ago that ran a picture of Vladmir Putin with the caption “Vlad the Impaler”. I realize that many people harbor an animosity toward what they view as U.S. imperialism, but isn’t there room for a prioritization of hatreds? Russian imperialistic impulses are far clearer than U.S. imperialistic impulses at this time. A little healthy skepticism and moral courage, calling into question an election possibly rigged and most definitely signalling a drift towards communism in another former Soviet Republic, might do a lot more for liberty now than the continued overreaction to pro-Western associations.
Understand that Rockwell and Raimondo, much like Rothbard, are political lenninists. They believe in lying and dishonsty to infiltrate existing groups/movements (Libertarian Party, Reform Party, anti-war groups, etc) to take over and use to create anarchotopia.
It is possible that they are just confused and being truthful about their unfounded pro-communist anti-war sentiments.
But I think it is more possible they are instead just pathetically failing at bringing on the “Popular Front Vanguard” through the anti-war Left.
So they are either cynical, dishonest liars trying to trick people into their politics or they really are pro-communist and pro-dictator. Both are equally revolting positions.
Houman: If Rothbard and Rockwell believed as such, why were they against restainment of the greater criminal actions of the Soviet Union and Saddam’s Baathist regime?
Would they diagree with Robber A (e.g. the US) stopping or preventing Murderer B (Soviets) or Rapist C (Baathists) from actions of murder or rape?
Of course they would. But they can’t say that because it is their Lenninist strategy to align with Communists and other murder-statists to overthrow the US state. Not only is this digustingly dishonest, it is also stupid if their intentions are supposed to be greater liberty.