I (and some of my colleagues) received a very odd little message from a lewrockwell.com columnist named Daniel McAdams:
From: McAdams, Daniel [Daniel.McAdams@mail.house.gov] Sent: Thu 12/9/2004 5:07 PM
To: Tom Palmer
Cc:
Subject: Ukraine Compromise Seems Reasonable
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016265.php
A CATO “scholar” fawning over the US-taxpayer funded candidate in Ukraine. How statist…
Isn’t there anyone at CATO who can keep foreign-policy freelancers like you on the reservation? It’s embarassing.
Realities in Ukraine:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr120704.htm
———————————————–
Daniel McAdams
This is the same person who today wrote a truly bizarre attack on economic and political liberalisation in the former captive nations of the Soviet Bloc. Like others in that group, he is obsessed with undercutting the liberal opposition in Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, and elsewhere. McAdams quotes a British activist/historian named Mark Almond who, with McAdams, seems to have made a career of defending people such as Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko (scroll down for letter from Almond and LRC article by McAdams) and other unsavory characters from the mass movements that ousted Milosevic and Shevardnaze. Here’s McAdams:
But now the goals of the NWO [New World Order] lay bare for many of us to see and…they look very familiar to those of us well-versed in the communist dictatorships. As Mark puts it:
People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power.
I would only add that their dogma of “free markets” is mere propaganda for Western consumption. In reality it is an economic system every bit as closed to entry to those not “of the Party” as was the one they just over a decade emerged victorious from. It is only free in that they are free to steal that which is not theirs and to use the muscle that buys them to keep anyone else out of the game.
Huh? “[T]heir dogma of ‘free markets’ is mere propaganda for Western consumption”? I remember the situation in Poland and in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia and in the USSR under the old regime; it’s better now — a lot better. (Personally, I’m in favor of “consumption,” whatever Mr. McAdams may say, and I suspect that those who suffered for so long under communist shortages and shabbiness rather like it, too.) Or does Mr. McAdams mean that no one favored free markets in those countries and that the phrase “free markets” was only to trick westerners? That hardly seems plausible, and the claim that what people in the liberated nations of central and eastern Europe now have “is an economic system every bit as closed to entry to those not ‘of the Party’ as was the one they just over a decade emerged victorious from” is simply unhinged, crazy, and utterly unbelievable. Laissez faire it ain’t, but “every bit as closed to entry” as one-party socialism? “[O]nly free in that they are free to steal that which is not theirs and to use the muscle that buys them to keep anyone else out of the game”? Who could take such a person seriously?
Is this attack on freer markets, freer presses, and more personal liberty what now passes for “libertarianism” among the LRC crowd? To think that such people cluster around an institution named after Ludwig von Mises. I feel so sorry for the poor shade of Mises. I truly do.
Reading McAdams, Almond, and their friends is remarkably like reading the bizarre ramblings of (convicted terrorist) Antonio Negri and Duke University professor Michael Hardt in their extreme leftist anti-free trade manifesto Empire, in which [in 2000] they waxed enthusiastic about Islamic fundamentalism (“The postmodernty of fundamentalism has to be recognized primarily in its refusal of modernity as a weapon of Euro-American hegemony — and in this regard Islamic fundamentalism is indeed the paradigmatic case.” [p. 149]) and were quite excited by the prospect that “the more capital extends its global networks of production and control, the more powerful any singular point of revolt can be.” [p. 58] (“[T]he construction of Empire, and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships, means that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any point.” [p. 59]) Perhaps not by coincidence, Mark Almond’s group is praised by the same crowd as “one of the few NGOs in the West that isn’t a handmaiden of the Empire.” The language is almost lifted from Empire, which [apologies for the terrible and remarkably opaque writing style of Negri and Hardt] includes extensive attacks on “humanitarian NGOs,” “some of the most powerful pacific weapons of the new world order — the charitable campaigns and the mendicant orders of Empire,” [p. 36] whose “demonstration of the new order as a peaceful biopolitical context seems to have blinded these theorists to the brutal effects that moral intervention produces as a prefiguration of world order.” [pp. 36-7] (That is followed by a condemnation of the use of the term “terrorist,” “a crude conceptual and terminological reduction that is rooted in a police mentality.”)
(I should point out that I was also involved in the “heady days of the late Soviet era,” but unlike Mark Almond not as an agent of any shady agencies. I moved to Vienna [where I was supported by the Institute for Humane Studies and the Carl Menger Institut], raised money, and spent time trekking around looking for those who could spread the message of liberty and providing them with small sums of voluntarily donated funds, donated fax machines and copying machines, invitations to libertarian conferences in Austria, the USA, France, and elsewhere, thousands of books, and copyrights to books such as the wonderful textbook The Economic Way of Thinking, by the late and much missed Paul Heyne, which I managed to have published in Czech, Russian, Romanian, Albanian, and Hungarian [and maybe a few others that I attempted to have published but from which I never received copies].)
Small Update: Lewrockwell.com has taken another step beyond reason and has called, not merely for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but for killing them. In a posting featuring two burned out and ruined tanks the following was posted: “A toast to the defeat of the evil empire – A prayer for the poor fallen souls.” If that is not calling for killing American soldiers, I don’t know what would qualify.
I have just read opinion posted by Daniel McAdams, and I strongly disagree. I do not want to comment accusation regarding influence of the opposition activities on presevation of so called “communist-style of governance”. I do not intend to say that political and economic transformation in former communist countries was perfectly made.
During the transformation we stressed and emphesized peacefulnes of that proces more than decomunization. And I do not want to judge whether it was right or wrong decision.
According to the “propaganda for Western consumption”, I must say that people, not only in Poland, but also in other post-Soviet countries now have any opportunity for any consumption – and it is a nice change after a decades of an empty shelfs in all shops.
However, these people are keeping sceptical attitude toward the “consumption’s lifestyle”, and the values, education and personality are more appreciated by them, than any material goods.
Now I am observing huge revival of civil society in Poland. I know a lot of people, who use all these opportunities given by freedom and free market to create something for a common goods.
For last to weeks I have seen great awakening at the Ukraine, and I am very glad that Ukrainian people were able to fight for their right to free election and their civil liberties. I have also seen enormous spontaneous movement of support given by Polish society to the Ukrainian. Because we all share the same values, and freedom of contract as well as free market is inherent part of civil liberties. And who pay for these – I can assure that ordinary people, some markets gave food, some blankets, some students hire bus to go to Kiev and show their support. Not for the Jushchenko, but to support their freedom of choice.
Tom, how would you respond to Ron Paul’s statement?
I am absolutely not surprised about the nature of- and the motivation behind the support for A. G. Lukashenko. Take a closer look at the site: it is antisemitism meets panslavism & stalinism. We are talking “explosive alliance” here. Another case of “tell-me-who-your-friends-are-and-I-ll-tell-you-who-you-really-are”.
What I have always found quite amazing is the fact that the so-called intellectuals lecturing about the danger of free market economy are precisely the ones who never had to queue outside empty stores, never suffered hunger or never missed anything (except the point obviously).
Apart from that, let us point out that times seem to be changing in Great Britain’s academia indeed:
In the past, full time crypto-marxist America haters from the upper class and their retarded cousins: the Stalin admirers and the part time specialists on proletarian revolutions usually met in Cambridge. Now, in the 21st century they obviouly meet in Oxford. One question remains though: now that the Soviet Union has disappeared, where to defect to after having betrayed your country?
People are starving in PyongYang. It could be difficult- even for someone like Almond-to look away and believe he is in paradise. Plus, it is really far…and there is nowhere to go in the evening to have a Martini (shaken not stirred). Cuba could be an option…at least to get good cigars. But Castro is not immortal, what would happen then? No, too dangerous, so I suggest Minsk. I am sure Lukashenko would welcome him there. He could lecture on the many dangers of modern civilization like free-market economy, free press, civil liberties and the rule of law. Something he grew up with, poor thing, and others still persists on wanting to fight and even die for. Go figure!
Seriously, Mark Almond’s paranoid article on the professional “Regime changers” is another of this stupid conspiracy stories. Endlessly boring…endless probably because since Einstein we know that “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I’m not sure about the former.” –
NV
Interesting comments, all. For LB, I’m going to write something this evening after I get back from the gym. I’ve found out some rather interesting bits of information and want to follow up on them. More later.
LB, I’ve addressed your important question in the penultimate paragraph of the posting above this one: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016326.php. I hope that my position is clear. (If not, please let me know.)
This comment goes with the thread following this one (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016326.php), but Tom has cut off the discussion there, so I’ll post it here in hopes that someone will see it.
I asked Tom to defend his claim that because LRC writers attack Yushchenko or Allawi or whoever Tom favors, they are therefore guilty of “defending” or praising Yushchenko’s or Allawi’s statist foes. Tom responds in a roundabout way, generally conceding the point but arguing that the latter are “much worse,” which is apparently supposed to put a lid on criticism of the former. (To avoid the dreaded “moral equivalence,” perhaps?)
Then, just a couple of paragraphs later, Tom returns to his usual slanderous form, referring to “the sickening glee shown by Lew Rockwell at the killing of Pat Tillman.” For readers who care, what Rockwell said (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006778.html), in its entirety, is the following:
“It’s always interesting when the media trumpet a government story, and then suddenly shut up. Thus it was with Pat Tillman, RIP, the pro football player who enlisted in the Army and was killed in Afghanistan. He was awarded a silver star for bravery, and we were told stories of his derring-do. Now it turns out that the Army PR ops were lying (yes, amazing surprise). Pat Tillman was not killed by Afghani guerrillas. He was machine gunned by his own platoon.”
On Tom Palmer’s planet, this constitutes “glee” at Tillman’s death. Likewise, denouncing the Allawi administration, the Iraqi security forces, or Don Rumsfeld (whom Tom defended recently as not “technically” a war criminal) constitutes “the endorsement of killing American soldiers.”
Readers, please take Tom’s rants about the LRC crowd with many, many, grains of salt.
In response to Patrick, who never fails to rise to the defense of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, antiwar.com, and lewrockwell.com, I propose a test. For a remark to be “mocking,” does it have to carry a clause that says, “This is a mocking sentence”? It seems that it does not. (Patrick is of the school of semantics pioneered by the leftist historian Garry Wills in his silly book about the American Founding, in which he denied that the U.S Constitution established a government of separated and limited powers, since the words “separated” and “limited” do not appear in the Constitution.)
Now let’s pose a second test. For native speakers of English, read aloud Lew Rockwell’s post on the death of Pat Tillman, starting with the title that Patrick left off — “Poor Pat Tillman,” continuing through the phrase about how “we were told stories of his derring-do,” and concluding with “he was machine gunned by his own platoon.” Can one do so without a tone of sarcasm and mockery in one’s voice? It would take a serious effort. Or try this entry (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006835.html ) on lewrockwell.com just the other day:
First of all, I am not an objectivist. But I find this account very interesteing as far as the behavior of Rothbard and his Rothbardian followers at LRC and anti-war.com, because this behavior has been going on for nearly forty years:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html
“After failing to impress Rand, Rothbard tried to forge an alliance with the so-called New Left. He presented himself as something of a guru to the extremists in radical Left groups like Students for a Democratic Society. His willingness to lead them into an anarchist paradise was shunned. He then joined the new Libertarian Party but also had a falling out with the LP because he accused them of selling out to the Right. He then split from the LP and joined the very Right wing he had recently attacked. He, along with Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute, announced that they were paleo-libertarians and actively courted the Right. One of Rothbard’s contacts and friends on the Right was Samuel Francis, a man who easily worked with various racialists and anti-immigration activists. He was, for some time, a conservative newspaper columnist, but his dealings with racists lost him much of his support.”
…
“Rothbard has a history of creating false stories. He held to a Stalinist interpretation of political strategy and believed that a “vanguard” of radicals would lead an anarchist revolution. Rothbard saw himself as the intellectual center of the vanguard. For this purpose he helped form a radical group entitled the Radical Caucus which published a newsletter Libertarian Vanguard. Oddly, all of these people pretty much followed Rothbard into the Republican Party when the LP rejected his ideas. One of the favourite phrases of RC members was “smash.” They always wanted to smash something. Sometimes they wanted to smash the state but all too often then just smashed other libertarians.
The radical vanguard didn’t hesitate to attack other libertarians because they vied with them for control of the party. Under their Stalinist strategies they were required to control the party. Thus they frequently spent a great deal of time attacking anyone who competed with them for control of various libertarian organizations and the party itself. This strategy seemed to be behind Rothbard’s constant attacks on competing influences within the libertarian movement. And, in my opinion, explains his attacks on Rand after he was unceremoniously rejected by her.”
Good grief! What a response. Gee, Tom, any native English speaker not blinded by irrational hatred toward a particular organization would indeed read the Tillman comment as mocking — not toward Pat Tillman himself, but toward the US military’s PR apparatus, the mainstream media and politicians who lapped up the phony story and made Tillman (like poor Jessica Lynch) a symbol of heroic US foreign policy, those who lionize US commanders for their brilliant strategy and tactics, and so on. Only a fool would read this celebrating a young American’s death.
If anyone doubts that poor Tom Palmer has dropped out of the libertarian ranks to join the neoconservatives (some sort of soft, “market-liberal” neoconservatism, I’m sure), note that he reacts to criticism of US foreign policy exactly as the neoconservatives do: with childish name-calling. The paleo-libertarians Tom despises have a “truly sickening hatred of the United States.” Right, read lewrockwell.com or antiwar.com and you can see the anti-Americanism seeping through everywhere. Why, I bet these people don’t even have “Support Our Troops” stickers on their cars! As Bill Clinton said, you just can’t love your country and hate your government.
A little note for Patrick.
I just remembered why it seemed obvious to me to tie in Lew Rockwell with the pro-segregation Citizens Councils. It’s because he so frequently touts one of the weirdest and creepiest writers in America, Sam Francis, a man who rails against “race mixing” and who is deeply involved with the successor to the Citizens Councils, now called the “Council of Conservative Citizens.” Francis recently spoke at a CofCC conerence on the panel on “The CofCC Responds to the Bush Neo-Conservative Treason Lobby.” His topic: “NeoCon Racial Treachery.” Do a quick google search of lewrockwell.com and see how often you find glowing references to and articles by….Sam Francis! (The CofCC’s latest newspaper screamed the headline “White Conservatives Give Bush Win.” Subtle, no?) The CofCC is racist through and through. And Lew Rockwell has dirtied the name of such classical liberals as Ludwig von Mises by association with such disgusting and vile people.
Finally, Patrick’s grip of logic is rather tenuous:
All X’s call Lew Rockwell anti-American.
Tom Palmer calls Lew Rockwell anti-American. Therefore, Tom Palmer is an X.
A neoconservative I’m not. But if you reject neoconservatism it doesn’t follow that you have to root for the jihadists and hope for the defeat of American forces in Iraq. Similarly, if you condemn those who are so keen that “maybe the US will be routed sooner than expected,” it does not follow that you are a neoconservative.
I’ll read the paper that Teddy cites, as I had not seen it before. Murray Rothbard had his good features and his bad, but it’s exclusively the worst that have been cultivated by Lew Rockwell and his crowd.
A fair enough point about my logic. I should have not implied that Tom’s reckless charges of “anti-Americanism” (which he repeats above by claiming the LRC crowd is “rooting for the jihadists”) make him a neoconservative. I was only poking fun.
But how is this logic any better?
Sam Francis is a racist.
Lew Rockwell quotes Sam Francis and runs some of Sam Francis’s columns. Therefore Lew Rockwell is a racist.
Or:
America-hating Muslim fanatics criticize American foreign policy.
Lew Rockwell criticizes American foreign policy. Therefore Lew Rockwell is an America-hater.
My personal favorite:
Don Rumsfeld is a very bad guy (not technically a “war criminal,” according to Tom, but most libertarians wouldn’t quibble with the moniker).
The Cato Institute proudly counts Don Rumsfeld as an adviser and invites him to Cato events. Therefore…. (you get the idea)
Well, Patrick, let’s try this.
Tom Palmer says that Lew Rockwell associates the name of Ludwig von Mises with racists.
Sam Francis is a quite open and despicable racist.
Lew Rockwell associates the name of Ludwig von Mises with Sam Francis.
Get it?
(By the way, regarding the term “war criminal,” you may not be aware of it, but that is a term of law, as well as a term of condemnation. Donald Rumsfeld may qualify for the latter, without qualifying for the former. Hence the term “technically” in my post from some time ago.)
As for the rest, it’s reached a point of negative marginal returns. Fair readers will look at the record and make up their own minds. I’m not interested in endless cat fights with the hangers on around Lew Rockwell. I want people who find the ideas of Ludwig von Mises attractive or exciting to know that they are signing on for something very different if they become involved with the crowd that has so shamefully appropriated his name.