Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the German Extremist Nationalist Right

 Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the German Extremist Nationalist Right, Hans Hermann Hoppe Racist
Hans-Hermann Hoppe pictures with Lew Rockwell.

Lew Rockwell and Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Together They Have
Opened the Gates of Hell and Welcomed the Most Extreme Right
-Wing Racists, Nationalists, and Assorted Cranks

The nutty professor from Las Vegas who has had such problems with his remarks about “undesirables” has been interviewed in the right-wing extreme nationalist German publication, Junge Freiheit, which celebrated his attacks on “democracy,” a concept which, it turns out, they also oppose. Junge Freiheit describes itself as follows:

Die JUNGE FREIHEIT h��?���¤lt die gro��?���¸e kulturelle und geistige Tradition der deutschen Nation in Ehren. Ihr Ziel ist die politische Emanzipation Deutschlands und Europas und die Bewahrung der Identit��?���¤t und der Freiheit der V��?���¶lker der Welt.

Translation: The YOUNG FREEDOM (paper) upholds the honor of the great cultural and spiritual tradition of the German nation. Its goal is the political emancipation of Germany and of Europe and the protection of the identity and the freedom of the peoples of the world.

Hmmmm…. “Emancipation” from…whom? Maybe from that group of alleged oppressors from which an earlier German nationalist movement sought to emancipate the Fatherland? The identity of the oppressors is coyly left unspecified, but those who understand German history should have no doubts. (Note also that there is no discussion of individual identity or freedom, but that of the “peoples of the world.” In the “PC Politics” that Hoppe and Junge Freiheit deride, that is known as “identity politics.”)

The paper has the distinction of having just won on June 28 a court case that has at least temporarily lifted its pariah status as being under the observation of the office for protection of the constitution, as Der Spiegel has reported. (The interviewer made a joking reference to the issue by asking “Sind Sie ein Fall für den Verfassungsschutz?” “Are you a case for the Office of Constitutional Protection?”) Perhaps a victory for freedom of speech that that they are no longer under observation, but when publications in Germany have been put under observation it is for some reason. Junge Freiheit promotes the ideas of holocaust denier David Irving, for example, although it’s always careful to stay juuuuussst on the legal side of the line. Perhaps holocaust denial, for example, should not be illegal at this time in Germany (I disagree with those who think that it should have been legal in 1945 or 1950), but allowing people to say something doesn’t mean that it’s true. Its writers also promote “revisionism” over long settled border issues regarding Poland and the Czech Republic.

The text of Hoppe’s zany interview has been posted online by an evidently similarly minded crank (also Geistes-Kranken in the German sense of that term) named Heinrich Kraemer, whose handle shows a charming little sign with a crescent and star attacking a German eagle and the words “Yesterday Bosnia, Today Kosovo, Tomorrow Germany.”

A commentator named “Prediger” [“Preacher”], who adorns his handle with the phrase “Freedom for Ernst Zündel” (Zündel is a notorious neo-Nazi currently being held in Germany awaiting trial for “Volksverhetzung,” incitement of the masses, which includes holocaust denial) posted Hoppe’s remarks and added “I like him!” Kein Wunder! No surprise!

Hoppe offers an inane attack on “democracy” per se, identifying it with unrestricted mob rule and not distinguishing such a system from the constitutional liberal idea of a limited republican government based on A) constitutionally protected freedoms and B) democratic voting for the choice of representatives.

It seems that Hoppe is not the only one opposed to democracy, for the upholders of the honor of the German nation at Junge Freiheit also oppose democracy. Imagine that! Junge Freiheit had also run a gushing review of one of Hoppe’s parodies of philosophy and social science last year.

Hoppe offers a particularly dumb comparison of democracy with monarchy, in which the former is simply a system of uncontrolled theft and redistribution, whereas under the latter justice is respected:

VerschÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤rfend kommt hinzu, daÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸ die Partei, die gerade herrscht, dazu nur vier Jahre Zeit hat — bis wieder gewÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤hlt wird. Um so schneller und verantwortungsloser vollzieht sich diese Umverteilung. In der Monarchie dagegen, als deren “glückliche” Ã?Â??Ã?Â??berwindung die Demokratie zu Unrecht gilt, war der Staat potentiell für immer in den HÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤nden ein und derselben Dynastie. Dementsprechend schonend geht ein Monarch mit seinem “Besitz” um. In der Demokratie gehÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¶rt der Staat dagegen keinem, dementsprechend hemmungslos saugt ihn die gerade herrschende Partei aus.

Translation: Aggravatingly added to that is the fact that the party which currently rules has only four years until there are elections again, meaning that that redistribution will be carried out all the more quickly and irresponsibly. In contrast, under monarchy, of which democracy is unjustly considered the “fortunate” overcoming, the state was potentially forever in the hands of one and the same dynasty. Correspondingly a monarch treats what he possesses [sein Besitz] quite carefully. In contrast, under democracy the state belongs to no one; correspondingly the currently governing party exhausts the state without restraint.

Not only does Hoppe fail to understand a basic distinction (in his native language!) between “Besitz” (posession, tenure, or occupancy) and “Eigentum” (property), but he shows barely any understanding of why property generates economic growth. Property (rather than mere possession) is the foundation of markets, through which goods are traded and capital values are established; the right to capture the residual (e.g., the difference between the purchase price and the sale price) is what leads people to take actions that will maximize the capital value of their property; since there is not much of a market for the buying and selling of monarchical “Besitz,” there’s damn little incentive for monarchs to act so as to increase the capital value (since there’s no market to establish one) of what they “possess.” Moreover, there is a connection between the legal security of property, as distinct from mere possession, and economic growth and prosperity. (One might compare the experiences of monarchies the rulers of which considered the entire realm their “Besitz” with the republican/democratic U.S. during the nineteenth century to see how that worked.) The late Mancur Olson, who was an economist (in contrast to Hoppe, whose knowledge of economics is profoundly cartoonish), understood the relation between the institutions necessary to economic freedom and those of democracy:

Interestingly, the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions taht are needed to have a lasting democracy. Obviously, a democracy is not viable if individuals, including the leading rivals of the administration in power, lack the rights to free speech and to security for their property and contracts or if the rule of law is not followed even when it calls for the current administration to leave office. Thus the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and contract rights.” — Mancur Olson, “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, September 1993, p. 572

(It turns out that another Lew Rockwell writer, Paul Gottfried, writes for Junge Freiheit and “defends the magazine for rejecting ‘the view that every German patriot should be evermore browbeaten by self-appointed victims of the Holocaust.’“)

There’s more to be said, but people can figure out the implications for themselves. Hoppe and his promoter, Lew Rockwell, have done their best to open the gates to the nastiest denizens of the fever swamps. They have laid out the welcome mat to holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, bigots, racists, neo-Confederates, and others who are understandably unwelcome elsewhere. Decent people should take a stand against them.

P.S. I expect the usual comments about being an “idiot,” a “queer,” and the like. What I urge fair minded readers to ask is whether eager defenses of the free-speech rights of Junge Freiheit and their ilk are equivalent to defenses of what they believe and of Rockwell and Hoppe for associating with the racist, nationalist, extremist fringe of German and American politics.

P.P.S. Well, my fears were realized. Rather than defend Hoppe’s strange and economically ignorant views about “Besitz,” “Eigentum,” and prosperity, or his flirtation with extremist German-nationalists, or the call for “the political emancipation of Germany and Europe” and the associated “identity politics” of nationalism associated with it, the defender (well, one and a half defenders) of Hoppe have tried to paint me as a denier of free speech because…..in 1945 and 1950 I would have kept the ban on the National Socialist party. So let me repeat just to be clear: just because a party should not be banned doesn’t mean you should admire them. Just because they defend their freedom to speak it does not follow that they would defend yours. My point is not to ban or to maintain observation of Junge Freiheit, but to insist that decent people don’t get in bed with them.

P.P.P.S. Someone writing under the name of “Clement Goettel” (who, when googled, shows up in one and only one place, this blog posting) has taken up the bulk of the comments, so new readers might scan them (not to take them lightly, of course) and find a variety of other commentators, as well, some of whom offer corroboration of what I document or who pose other but related issues.

132 Responses to “Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the German Extremist Nationalist Right”

  1. Clement

    “When publications in Germany have been put under observation it is for some reason.”

    That statement speaks volumes about the real politics of Tom Palmer, witch-hunter. The German “office for the protection of the constitution,” which you refer to, is in reality the German political police, many of them recruited from the old Stasi (Communist secret police).

    What you quoted from the interview seems pretty much standard Hoppe, and you’re cries of horrified outrage seem much ado about nothing. Everybody knows libertarians have a critique of democracy, and Hoppe is merely making it in the starkest terms imaginable: a “thought experiment” which underscores his more general criticism of the democratic ethos.

    So in spite of all the scarifying about “holocaust denial,” racism, and other Very Bad Things, there is apparently none of that in the actual interview. Ho hum….

    In any case, Junge Freiheit is not a neo-Nazi publication, and seems like the equivalent of Chronicles or The American Conservative in this country. And another point needs to be made: just because Hoppe was interviewed by Junge Freiheit hardly means he endorses any or all of their views. Have you ever been interviewed by a left-wing publication? If so, does that mean you are embracing their editorial viewpoint? Of course not.

    Perhaps Tom Palmer has missed his true calling. Instead of working for Cato, you ought to be applyng for a job at the German “office for the Protection of the Constitution.” Palmer of the Thought Police, out to save us from “right-wing extremism”! It has a certain ring to it….

  2. This is seriously disturbing. Hoppe always struck me as kind of a nut and embarrassing. This confirms all my fears and more.

    Clement should read more about David Irving and his trial (he sued someone else for what she said, not the other way around, by the way) at http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html . The Junge Freiheit paper looks very nationalist and very antilibertarian, especially if they are promoting “changing the borders” and pushing the ideas of Irving. (I assume the translations are good – I’ll check them out with a friend who reads German, but Dr. Palmer has posted the German and the English with links, so I doubt that he would be making it up). And Dr. Palmer said removing the “observation” was a victory for free speech, but not a sign that they aren’t neoNazis. Clement is implyling that Palmer favors censorship, which he made clear that he doesn’t. He made that quite clear-the issue is what Junge Freiheit writers believe, not whether they have a right to say it.

    If Hans is hanging out with neoNazis, that tell sme a lot about him and about Lew. More than enough to keep as far from them as I can.

  3. Clement

    The British Telegraph has interviewed David Irving: so has the Times of London. Does this make them neo-Nazi?

    One could make the argument that National Review is “nationalist,” or that the Weekly Standard is “unlibertarian,” and yet somehow I don’t think you believe that no libertarian should permit himself to be interviewed by either journal. Your argument — or really the lack of one — is completely absurd.

    Why is questioning Germany’s present borders evidence of neo-Nazism? Answer: it isn’t. Neither Palmer nor yourself has come up with a single “neo-Nazi” quote from Junge Freiheit. But since Palmer has been on a tireless campaign to smear Hoppe — and any number of other people — on the basis of a personal vendetta, then this is hardly surprising. You don’t need evidence: proof is superfluous. Both Hoppe and Junge Freiheit are condemned on the basis of … nothing.

    Junge Freiheit has been physically attacked by German communists and anarchists: the printing plant where it was printed was burned by left-wing arsonists. You seem to be the spiritual allies of these people.

  4. So since he can’t smear Dr. Palmer with favoring censorship, since he said he doesn’t, Clement is defending the opinions of Junge Freiheit. I’ll check them out with my friend, but they sure sound like bad news to me. Questioning Germany’s borders, eh? That kind of sounds like people who’d like to start a war in the name of Greater Germany.

    And does this sound like the statement of The Times of London?
    Translation: The YOUNG FREEDOM (paper) upholds the honor of the great cultural and spiritual tradition of the German nation. Its goal is the political emancipation of Germany and of Europe and the protection of the identity and the freedom of the peoples of the world.

    Who is oppressing the German nation and the “peoples of the world”? That kind of sounds like neoNazi propaganda to me.

  5. Clement

    I never said that Palmer advocated censorship. I only quoted what he wrote:

    “When publications in Germany have been put under observation it is for some reason.”

    That is worse than advocating censorship: it is endorsing the censorious spirit that animates witch-hunters and Thought Police the world over. I wonder: in what other countries, aside from Germany, does Palmer the great “libertarian” give the political police the benefit of a doubt?

    That “kind of sounds like neo-Nazi propaganda to me”, eh? Tim, if you’re really accusing a publication that you have admittedly never read of being neo-Nazi, then don’t you think you need a bit more evidence than that it “kind of sounds like” it to you? You’ve got to be joking….

  6. Have you read it? I read the statement that Dr. Palmer translated. That DOES sound like neoNazi propaganda to me. And it does look like the translation is right, even for someone who can’t read the German original just above it. Do you read German?

    And saying that Junge Freiheit was under “observation” for a reason is only that-it was for a reason, which I assume means that they really are neoNazi sympahtizers, not that they should be censored. As to the German, I have emailed my friend and will call him tomorrow and ask him to comment, too.

    Are there other German readers out there who would confirm Dr. Palmer’s reading? Just the statement about “the honor of the great cultural and spiritual tradition of the German nation” and the “identity and the freedom of the peoples of the world” should give any libertarian (not to mention any Jewish or Polish person) the creeps.

  7. Have you read it? I read the statement that Dr. Palmer translated. That DOES sound like neoNazi propaganda to me. And it does look like the translation is right, even for someone who can’t read the German original just above it. Do you read German?

    And saying that Junge Freiheit was under “observation” for a reason is only that-it was for a reason, which I assume means that they really are neoNazi sympahtizers, not that they should be censored. As to the German, I have emailed my friend and will call him tomorrow and ask him to comment, too.

    Are there other German readers out there who would confirm Dr. Palmer’s reading? Just the statement about “the honor of the great cultural and spiritual tradition of the German nation” and the “identity and the freedom of the peoples of the world” should give any libertarian (not to mention any Jewish or Polish person) the creeps.

  8. Clement

    You give me the creeps. The statement Palmer translated reads nothing like neo-Nazi propaganda. Perhaps the “emancipation” referred to means emancipation from a government that has an agency monitoring the political activities and beliefs of its citizens for signs of political incorrectness.

    Here is the interview:


    Judge for yourself. If you know how.

  9. Jeff Riggenbach

    Yes, yes, “Dr. Palmer” (think you could get your nose any farther up his ass, Tim?) “said he doesn’t” favor censorship. But he also candidly acknowledges that he thinks Germans who expressed opinions about the Holocaust that he doesn’t like should have been jailed for expressing those opinions if they did it back in 1945 or 1950. This isn’t censorship? If the shoe fits, wear it.


  10. Clement

    Here is an excerpt from the interview:

    “Junge Freheit: if the democracy not a form of freedom, but rather a form of the exploitation, what does that mean then for the foundation myth of the democracy in Europe, the French revolution?

    Hoppe: certainly our basic picture of the French Revolution yet basically must be rectified, although there has already been considerable progress in this direction in the last years. The French revolution belongs into the same category of vile revolutions as well as the Bolshevik revolution and the national socialist revolution. Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, looting, -rape and -murder, the general military compulsion obligation and the total, ideologically motivated war – all that we owe to the French revolution.”

    If Junge Freheit is a “neo-Nazi” publication, then why are they giving a platform to Hoppe to denounce national socialism as “vile”?

    Naturally, Palmer didn’t translate that part. He just wanted to arbitrarily assert that the venue in which the interview was published as “neo-Nazi” — without proof — and he assumed that dolts like yourself would fall for it. (and in that he was right….)

  11. Excuse me for not being too keen on supporting the disgusting statements of a few quacks, but unlike Clement or Mr. Riggenbach I don’t take much issue with prohibiting certain speech if it can be directly found to threaten the safety or property of the population.

    After the fall of the Third Reich the Nazi movement was small and crippled but still very much vocal. You still see their heirs every once in a while on the streets of Berlin. If it can be found that an entire group’s activities and/or speech poses an immediate threat to liberty or property, as the Nazis did after the Soviets occupied Germany, then that group needs to be at least under observation.

    I do agree, however, that the Office’s actions are tantamount to the actions of a secret police. Any state office that has “protection” in its title seems like its not kosher.

    The groups statement, when taken in historical context, does smack of the nationalist attitude that most neo-Nazis adopt.

    Furthermore, the fact that Hoppe interviewed for an extremist paper doesn’t indict him as one who subscribes to their views. But his statements and writings speak for themselves. He is no libertarian. Right communitarian maybe, but his thoughts on property ownership and governmental forms are even out of step with Rothbard (with whom I’d agree in an ideal world.)

    Finally, I think what we need to take away from this post isn’t some sort of personal attack (it seems like the comments are full of those though), but an observation more bloggers than he have made: Rockwell and Hoppe have cavorted with some disturbing and illiberal characters. Their associations aren’t based on a committment to liberty, but on uniting the more prominent opponents to what they see as an establishment of “political correctness,” neoconservatism, and Cato-ites poisoining their angry anti-US brand of libertarianism.

  12. Tom G. Palmer

    Ah, back from an evening out and what do I find? Just as I expected, “Clement” and Mr. Riggenbach defending the rights of German nationalists to demand the return of the Sudetenland, question whether the holocaust realllly happened, and the like. They may indeed have those rights.

    I disagree that people had the right to organize to reinstitute National Socialism in 1945, when it was an armed force, or even in 1950, when there was a danger that it might come back; Mr. Riggenbach thinks that constitutional liberalism is a suicide pact and that interfering with the chain of command of the Nazi soldiers storming a city is interference with their “free speech” rights. That is rather a strange view of free speech and one I don’t share. I dare say that in 2005 such restrictions have long since outlived their purpose.

    Junge Freiheit probably shouldn’t even be “under observation” (although I do think that the KKK and other open advocates of violence should be “under observation” so that the police can stop them from planning any more lynchings; being “under observation” is not so unreasonable for people who openly yearn for racial cleansing and murder.) As I feared, however, the defenders of such disgusting associations have jumped on that as their only defense. Yes, yes, yes, Junge Freiheit (and the KKK and David Duke and all the rest) should be able to print tracts about their great white heritage and the “Emancipation of Germany and of Europe” (from whom?) and the extreme identity politics that they profess. (Hey, why bother being an individual when you can be white, instead?) The issue is not whether they have the right to publish plans for revising the borders of Europe (also known as conquering your neighbors), but whether those views should or should not be criticized and whether people should or should not wish to be associated with them. So let’s make that clear. Mr. Riggenbach and I could debate until the wee hours of the night (ah! already true) whether such views should have been censored in 1944 or 1945 or 1950; but it’s 2005 now. So let’s posit that they should not even be “under observation.” Why, if they should be free to publish and should not even be under any suspicion or observation at all, that must mean that all of their views must be wonderful, fully libertarian, and on the cutting edge of the latest exciting developments in Hoppeite theory.

    And yet….not. Poor Clement is left with the lame defense that I did not translate the entire interview. (Fine, that will come, but I do have a job.) I just translated a few of the really stupid things and linked to all the rest. Pretty dishonest, eh? The remarks on the French Revolution and National Socialism are, nonetheless, quite compatible with a certain je ne sais quoi regarding the status of German history, an attitude that Hoppe has expressed in the past in a revie of “The Failure of America’s Wars,” ed. by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger:
    While the facts and the conclusions reached are largely correct and reasonable, the book is not without shortcomings. Even a professed revisionist such as Ebeling cannot free himself entirely from orthodox-leftist historical myths when he appears to liken and classify as on a par the evils of Stalin and Hitler and the socio-economic character of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. From 1929 to 1939, in peace time, Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed about 20 million Soviet citizens, for no predictable reason. Hitler and the National Socialists ruined the businesses and careers of hundreds of thousands of German citizens, but the number of people killed by them before the outbreak of the war was only a few hundred, most of them fellow Nazis and all of them for a predictable reason. Even immediately after the onset of the war, when it became known that the Nazis had begun to engage in mercy killings of the incurably insane (euthanasia), the Catholic bishops, led by Bernhard von Galen, openly protested, and German public opinion compelled the Nazis to halt the program. Bishop (later: Cardinal) von Galen survived the Nazi regime. Under Stalin and the Bolsheviks, any such opposition was impossible and Bishop von Galen would have been quickly disposed of.

  13. Clement

    I won’t bother refuting your argument in favor of the State “observing” people whose political views you don’t approve of. Save it for your high school debating society. Anti-U.S.? Your attitude is profoundly anti-American — and I don’t mean anti-U.S. government, but anti-AMERICAN in spirit. A brazen little totalitarian like yourself should go back to grade school and learn the ABCs of human discourse. Disturbing? Illiberal? Pot –> kettle –> black.

    If anyone is “angry,” it is Tom Palmer and his cult of PCers and witch-hunters.

    No one is trying to unite anyone against “Cato-ites” — “Dr.” Palmer doesn’t represent Cato. Certainly his pro-war views are at variance with Cato’s official positions. As for being against political correctness and neoconservatism — well, what of it? Is this another “thought crime” that the American branch of the German “office for the Protection of the Constitution” classifies as a Hate Crime? Well isn’t that just tough.

  14. Tom G. Palmer

    Well, just one response. Clement has again seized on whether the state should ever restrict any political parties (like the ones who had just murdered millions of people) or observe the activities of groups that preach violence. As I said, it’s long since past time to get rid of the bans of Nazi observances and the like. Fine. And maybe JF doesn’t deserve to be “under observation” (which really means being on a list, not much more). Fine. I’ll agree with that. (Although should no nationalist, racist groups ever be observed? That is a strange stance to take. Should the al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. have been under observation, or not? And since the Hoppeites want to expel all the immigrants of whom they don’t approve — you know, the really dark ones who are so hard to assimilate — and Justin Raimondo wants to “seal our borders,” I presume that they favor keeping under observation and worse people who intend no crime other than working.)

    And pro war? Again, a diversion from the sickening open door Rockwell and Hoppe offer to racists, to extremist German-nationalists, to holocaust deniers, and to the like. (I was anti-war, not pro-war, and I still believe that the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein was unjustified and a gross mistake. But what does that have to do with whether Hoppe and Rockwell are holding hands with anti-libertarian collectivists?)

  15. Anonymous

    On September 5, “Der Spiegel” magazine reported that an investigation had revealed that the OPC had employed former Stasi agents as informants.

    The response of the Berlin Senate was that no former Stasi staff would be dismissed, because information was sometimes needed whatever the source. By November, however, a re-organization of the Berlin OPC was announced.

    A year later details of the story began to surface. A former Stasi agent who worked for the OPC as an undercover man finally went to the press. He had been dismissed by the OPC. The 76-year-old man said he had worked for East German State Security as an informant until 1974.

    On May 27, 1999, an anonymous letter, apparently written by an OPC whistleblower, made the rounds. The target of the letter was OPC management. The letter stated that a second ex-Stasi man had been used by the OPC. The OPC’s response was that priority would be given to the reorganization which had been announced the previous fall.

    By September 4, 1999, a bureaucratic ruling was made concerning the 76-year-old ex-OPC ex-Stasi undercover agent. He was not allowed to testify in a cae involving an “investigation” into Scientology (which is banned in “free” Germany). before the Berlin Senate investigative committee. This decision had been made for “reasons of state security,” even though he had already told his story repeatedly to the media. Within days, the German Green Party demanded early retirement for the OPC Chief.

    You are the kook, “Dr.” Palmer, hurling stupid smears that don’t even make any sense, and not even bothering to marshall even the thinnest “evidence” for you vitriolic charges, obviously made in bad faith.

  16. Clement

    I am the author of the above unsigned remarks: just forgot to sign my name.

    On September 5, “Der Spiegel” magazine

    should be:

    On September 5, 1999, “Der Spiegel” magazine


    You have offered no evidence that Junge Freheit is “extremist,” or “neo-Nazi.” Hoppe’s interview with that newspaper deals with the evils of political correctness, the stupidity of socialism, and the idea that democracy is merely a system of organized “bribery” — in short, nothing that has anything to do with Nazism, racism, or holocaust denial, and nothing that wouldn’t fit nicely into an issue of National Review, or even Reason magazine.

    In short, Herr Doktor Palmer, you’ve been exposed as a liar — again.

  17. Tom G. Palmer

    Well, Clement (who also blogs under the name of “Justin Raimondo,” or at least blogs from the same computer), I note that there is no link, but, far more significant, the reports on Junge Freiheit were from the Duesseldorf and Baden-Württemberg offices (somewhat equivalent to state-level DA’s offices), not from the Berlin office, which was located in the middle of former East Germany. Your defense is pathetic and absurd, the equivalent of pointing out that FBI reports on the “Council of Concerned Citizens” or its successor, the “Council of Conservative Citizens” (http://www.cofcc.org/ ), which also has its ties to Lew Rockwell, are really planted by Jews, Negroes, and Communists. Spare me.

  18. Clement

    I am Justin Raimondo? “Dr.,” I really do think you need some sleep. The name is Clement Goettel.

    The rest of your comments are equally incoherent. It is well-known in Germany that the Stasi infiltrated the OPC: ask your German friends, they will tell you. And I don’t recall mentioning “Jews, Negroes, and Communists.” You’re imagining things.

  19. Clement

    I am Justin Raimondo? “Dr.,” I really do think you need some sleep. The name is Clement Goettel.

    The rest of your comments are equally incoherent. It is well-known in Germany that the Stasi infiltrated the OPC: ask your German friends, they will tell you. And I don’t recall mentioning “Jews, Negroes, and Communists.” You’re imagining things.

  20. I won’t even bother explaining to Clement the true meaning of political correctness and its woefully small presence outside of the groups that attack its very existence.

    I know paranoia must run strong in your veins, Clement. But no one is imposing PC on you or on anyone. Those that seek to canonize it are just as collectivist as any neo-nazis might be. Neoconservatives don’t belong as policymakers, but to throw that term around as an insult to anyone that irks you isn’t politically correct (in the actual sense of the word).

    And while I’m well aware that Palmer doesn’t represent Cato, that wasn’t my point. I consistantly see Rockwellites attacking Cato for surrendering to the Beltway or the estabilishment or some nonsense like that. Suffice to say that Rockwell and Hoppe are the fundamentalists of libertarianism. That’s fine, until they characterize themselves as mainstream.

    Anti-American? Saying that groups implementing plans to engage in criminal activities that may damage property and life isn’t anti-American. Furthermore, what exactly *is* anti-American? Do you mean historically? Is this the same American of the slave owners? Or the New Dealers? Or Hoover and the Palmer raids? Or is it of McCarthy and the blacklist? If you have some romanticized notion of what it means to uphold Americanism then say so. My alliances lie with liberty. If you mean opposition to America and Americans, then I see none of that in anything I’ve said.

    Clement it’s been a while since I’ve read your little tantrums and personal attacks. Suffice it to say I’ve grown accustomed.

  21. Tom G. Palmer

    A delight to meet you, Mr. Goettel, I’m sure. Your previous posts alternated between the name “Clement” and the name “Justin Raimondo,” which did seem a coincidence. (I had booted one of Justin’s previous IPs after I had to delete some remarkably colorful and tasteless remarks.) So I will just assume that sometimes your computer is used by other crackpots, too.

    Honestly, though, I do not believe for one moment that Junge Freiheit was reported on (read the remarks, Mr. Goettel) by the Duesseldorf and Baden-Württemberg offices because of a campaign by East German Stasi spies a decade after the collapse of the German Democratic Republic. As your friend Justin Raimondo would say, “puh-leaze.” That is the same kind of defense that the evil and vile Council of Concerned Citizens brings out when they were mentioned as the public face of the KKK — “Comm-ah-nists and Jiews” were behind the charges.

    If you and your friends want to go and hang out with German nationalists who dream of retaking Poland and expanding into more Lebensraum, you do so. But be honest about what you are. And a libertarian you ain’t.

  22. Clement

    If you really think I’m Justin Raimondo, then you ARE as crazy as the Rockwell people make you out to be. But then you’ve accused several people on here on being Justin Raimondo — anyone who calls you on your bullshit.

    Talk about crackpots. You take the cake.

    And I see you haven’t bothered answering my principal point: that you haven’t made the case that Junge Freheit represents anything other than German conservatism. Stop smearing, and start documenting — “Dr.”

  23. Tom G. Palmer

    Well, Clement, you may be achieving your purpose, which is to wear down anyone else who would bother to read this far. In another thread (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/021918.php ) you and Mr. Raimondo (and the name of “Atlett,” whose sole comment was “Tom Palmer is an idiot.”) used the very same IP in succession (the IP was: Suffice it to say that you, Atlett, and Justin Raimondo are close.

    And anyone who wants to find out what a remarkably dishonest person Mr. Raimondo is, just recall his deliberate and willful lying, on which he was caught, about a forged memo allegedly from the U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan that he knew to be forged but presented as authentic: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/020009.php

    But I digress. Junge Freiheit does not represent “German conservatism,” unless your defintion of “German conservatism” runs to claims on the territory of neighboring countries, making fun of “Shoa-business,” publicizing the holocaust-denial of David Irving and that crowd, and on and on. I know a number of German conservatives, Mr. Goettel. Those views are not “conservative.” They are associated with the nationalist, anti-individualist, collectivist, irredentist, and chauvinist far right of German politics.

  24. Clement

    Your obsession with Raimondo is boring, but if you want to engage in your rich fantasy life online that is your concern. (FYI, IP addresses are not fixed. You say you banned Raimondo from making comments, and yet you claim I am him: how exactly does that work? Yet these comments are appearing on your site.)

    The main issue is how you try to smear people without citing their actual words. You still haven’t pointed out a single word in the interview with Hoppe that could remotely be identified with “holocaust denial,” racism, neo-Nazism. Confronted, you go into “Exorcist” mode, screeching about “dishonesty” and linking to some irrelevant item (Raymondo again) that has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is YOUR essential dishonesty: show us what is “racist” and advocates “holocaust denial” in the Junge Freheit interview. Put up or shut up.

  25. Clement: IPs are fixed if they’re static. However, they can also be dynamic (DHCP) and be reassigned. It depends.

    If this is the case then you can be either the same person who posted as Raimondo last time or have been assigned the same IP by the server as the person who posted as Raimondo in the RightWatch OP. (I don’t care who you are; it’s your arguments I care about.) Just wanted to point out that minor issue is all.

  26. Tom G. Palmer

    Let’s see…first, you refuse to defend Hoppe’s utterly stupid remarks about “democracy” and “monarchy.” Ok, they’re indefensible. Then you insist that *in the interview* there be evidence of holocaust denial. Well! That allows you to avoid any evidence that the magazine itself promotes holocaust denial (see the remarks about David Irving), or promotes reclamation of lost territory, or makes light of “Shoa-business.” You really are clever, Mr. Goettel. Shift the ground, drag red herrings across the path, raise other issues, such as your mischaracterization of my views on the Iraq war, do your best to avoid the fact that Hoppe has been promoted in and has shared a very special solidarity in opposition to democracy with an ultra nationalist German far right magazine — and that it is of a piece with the connections with holocaust deniers (Joe Sobran), vicious racists (Sam Francis), and the whole scary crew of anti-libertarian far rightist ghouls that Lew Rockwell and his mad professor comarade have invited into the libertarian movement.
    (And it’s odd that within a very short time posts under your name, Justin Raimondo’s and “Atlett’s” would appear all with the same IP. Maybe I just don’t understand the technology all that well, but I’ve been told that means that they’re coming from the same place. It seems likely that you’re rather close to those other two to use the same computer system and are an eager, eager defender of Raimondo, in any case, as your previous threads showed. Whatever.)

  27. Back at my computer. Some of the remarks above are pretty gross and uncalled for. I heard Dr. Palmer lecture and I learned that he is a learned man; I learned from my parents to be respectful of people like that.

    I agree that the items that are translated make Junge Freiheit sound kind of awful to me. I’ll wait until I can talk to a friend who can translate a lot more for me, but what I’ve seen from some googling is pretty disturbing. Here’s the Der Spiegel on the magazine that Clement calls “conservative”,

    Voigt, a Munich political scientist and the son of a former Nazi SA officer, just recently expressed his reverence for Adolf Hitler when, in an interview with the radical newspaper Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom), he referred to Hitler as a “great German statesman.” At a party get-together in the Bavarian town of Senden, Voigt joked about Berlin’s new memorial to commemorate the victims of the Nazi extermination camps — an undulating series of cement blocks: “We would like to thank them for building the foundation for the chancellery of the new German Reich.”

    Ok, so maybe this Mr. Voigt is really a “Stasi” agent who just said that to get the office to protect the constitution to come down on the magazine where he said it. If you believe that, I’ve got some good real estate you might want to buy.

  28. anonymous1

    Since you’ve brought up David Irving again, I wonder if you could tell us why you consider him a Holocaust denier. Is it because you accept the outcome of the UK libel case? Or is it due to his affiliation with revionists? I am under the impression it wasn’t long ago that he was considered a top mainstream historian and yet now he is branded a barbarian due to allegations of thought crimes. Tell me why I must shun David Irving.

  29. In 1945, Germans who denied the holocaust should have been dragged in chains to the camps to see for themselves, and help clean up. (In fact, this was done, although maybe not often enough.)

    Tom Palmer’s main point — that Hoppe speaks nonsensical ideas in partnership with very “unlibertarian” organizations has ben established beyond a reasonable doubt.

  30. Clement


    You haven’t established how or when Junge Freheit “promoted” David Irving’s view of the holocaust — Irving is verboten in “free” Germany — and yet you have continually repeated his name in connection with Hans Hoppe’s interview. What is the connection? There is none. You’re simply lying.

    Why is anyone who questions the complete subjugation of Germany and the fixing of its postwar borders a “Neo-Nazi”? That’s absurd: another lie on your part.

    You can use all the scary modifiers you want “ULTRA-nationalist,” “FAR right”, whatever, but they don’t constitute an argument. For that you need evidence, and you refuse to give any. That’s because you’re lying.

    “Red herring”? “Shift the ground”? I think you’re projecting here: YOU brought up Justin Raimondo (who I am supposed to be!). Your entire argument — that Hoppe is evil because he allowed himself to be interviewed by a magazine of which you disapprove (for reasons not readily apparent from the evidence) — is a “red herring.” That’s because habitual liars always drag in diversions to blind us to their essential viciousness.

    You’ve only made one point about Hoppe’s actual views as expressed in the Junge Freheit interview, and that is his comparison of democracy and monarchy. You may not like his critique of the democratic ethos, but I think you fully realize that his argument is meant to be ironic: he hasn’t gone out, after all, and set up a Monarchist Party that seeks to impose Crown & Altar on us all. He is merely saying that even that system is demonstrably better and more free than the mob rule of democracy. In the interview he compares democracy to systematized “bribery.” Does this mean he is a totalitiarian? Of course not. Again, Palmer is exposed as an inveterate liar.

  31. Tom G. Palmer

    Where to beginwith David Irving? Teaching one’s children to give the Fascist/Nazi salute and singing Nazi marching songs is, I guess, just one of those things that doting fathers do. But more importantly, he had his chance to disprove that he is a holocaust denier when he sued Deborah Lipstadt to try to shut her up. The evidence that was unveiled at the trial was proof positive that he is not merely a holocaust denier, but an actively anti-Semitic, racist, pro-Nazi. (Here’s a sampling of coverage from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/ )

    There’s no denying that he’s smart and even a brilliant researcher, but he’s a researcher with an agenda, and that agenda is to rehabilitate the reputation of the Third Reich. As such, he has systematically twisted evidence to suit an agenda. That is why the daughter of Margit von Mises, Gitta Sereny, reviewed his book on “Goebbels” as “Spin Time for Hitler” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,2763,194411,00.html http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/shows/sereny/indep.html ) and, true to form, David Irving called his lawyers to shut her up.

    The neo-Nazis are generally smart enough not to go around and just announce that they’re neo-Nazis. No, they’re just coy enough to allow their fans to deny it and to say that they’re just being persecuted. David Irving’s problem is not “thought crimes,” unless one thinks that being a fan of Hitler is a “thought crime.” Of course it’s not a crime to have a thought; but be careful that one not go from asserting that having thoughts are not crimes to asserting that the thoughts that others have are therefore not bad or untrue. David Irving has provided voluminous evidence of his true sympathies. The Institute for Historical Review and the others who trumpet his ideas are merely neo-Nazi front groups, nothing more.

    Addendum: Interestingly, Irving was the only source for a remarkable and astonishingly racist claim made by none other than Lew Rockwell about two black American political figures, a Democrat and a Republican:
    “But here is the most interesting Condi Rice story: according to Willy [sic] Brown, then mayor of San Francisco (in an interview I read in the SF Examiner), she phoned him two weeks before 9/11 and warned him to take no commercial flights until further notice.”
    The story originated with David Irving and was then passed on by Lew Rockwell, who most surely did not find the article in “an interview I read in the SF Examiner,” since there was no such interview in any SF paper.

  32. Clement

    There is no mention of David Irving in the Hoppe interview. So what has Irving got to do with it? Nothing, of course. Merely an opportunity for Palmer to vomit up more PC self-righteousness.

    BTW, the source of the Willie Brown story was a column in the SF Chronicle, Matier & Ross’s column, which put the story about Brown’s forewarning out as a rumor. Brown later denied it. So your elaborate attempt to somehow link Rockwell with hate-object David Irving is pretty much akin to Bush’s attempt to link Al Qaeda to the regime of Saddam Hussein — in short, it’s another lie on Palmer’s part. But that’s what he does best.

  33. Clement

    There is no mention of David Irving in the Hoppe interview. So what has Irving got to do with it? Nothing, of course. Merely an opportunity for Palmer to vomit up more PC self-righteousness.

    BTW, the source of the Willie Brown story was a column in the SF Chronicle, Matier & Ross’s column, which put the story about Brown’s forewarning out as a rumor. Brown later denied it. So your elaborate attempt to somehow link Rockwell with hate-object David Irving is pretty much akin to Bush’s attempt to link Al Qaeda to the regime of Saddam Hussein — in short, it’s another lie on Palmer’s part. But that’s what he does best.

  34. Tom Palmer

    Clement, try to read. I linked to a group of sources for one connection between Junge Freiheit and David Irving above: http://www.holocaust-education.de/news/stories/storyReader$1243 . On February 15 of this year they ran an interview with Rolf Hochhuth, which is available here:
    Seit Jahrzehnten pflegen Sie eine gute Freundschaft mit britischen Historiker David Irving, der als Holocaustleugner angegriffen wird.

    Hochhuth: Irving ist ein fabelhafter Pionier der Zeitgeschichte, der groÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸artige Bücher geschrieben hat. Ganz zweifellos ein Historiker von der GrÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¶Ã?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸e eines Joachim Fest. Der Vorwurf, er sei ein Holocaustleugner, ist einfach idiotisch! Ich bedauere sehr, daÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸ es die Stadt Dresden nicht für nÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¶tig befunden hat, ihn als Ehrengast zu den Feierlichkeiten am Sonntag einzuladen, nachdem er sich – mit nur 23 Jahren! – mit dem grundlegenden Buch “Der Untergang Dresdens” als erster diesem Kapitel gewidmet und so viel für dessen Aufarbeitung getan hat.

    Immerhin bezweifelt Irving die Schuld Hitlers am Holocaust.

    Hochhuth: Ich will zugeben, Irving ist wohl passiert, was so vielen groÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸en Biographen schon passiert ist: Er hat sich von seinem Forschungsgegenstand überwÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤ltigen lassen. Er war eine Zeit lang tatsÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤chlich des Wahns, zu glauben, Hitler habe erst ein halbes Jahr nach Beginn der Vergasungen in Auschwitz davon gehÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¶rt, weil sie auf Initiative “seines Himmlers” begonnen worden seien. Das ist natürlich dummes Zeug, aber was dann daraus gemacht wurde, ist wirklich der Gipfel der Verleumdung.

    Aber Herr Hochhuth, immerhin behauptet Irving, in Auschwitz hÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤tte es keine Gaskammern gegeben. Er hat flapsig formuliert, in Gaskammern seien dort “weniger Menschen umgekommen als 1969 auf dem Rücksitz Edward Kennedys” – und da saÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸ bekanntlich nur dessen Freundin.

    Hochhuth: Da hat er seiner nicht ganz unbritischen Neigung zum schwarzen Humor auf zynische Weise freien Lauf gelassen. Wahrscheinlich ist er wahnsinnig provoziert worden, ehe er das gesagt hat. Als Historiker ist er ein absolut seri��?���¶ser Mann.

    Seit 1993 hat Irving wegen seiner fragwürdigen Thesen in der Bundesrepublik – wie in anderen Staaten auch – Einreiseverbot.

    Hochhuth: Das ist grotesk, immer wieder war er bei uns zu Hause zu Besuch, wir telefonieren miteinander, ich kenne ihn wirklich gut.

    Was halten Sie dann für die ErklÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤rung des Falles Irving?

    Hochhuth: Ich kenne keinen “Fall Irving” – sondern nur einiges, was zu seiner Verleumdung gesagt worden ist. Es ist doch so: Irving ist Halbjude, seine Mutter war Jüdin! Ihn als Holocaustleugner zu verleumden, ist ein Racheakt, weil er in seinen Büchern so schaurige Wahrheiten über uns Deutsche sagt. Wer Irving verbietet, deutsche Archive zu besuchen, will – das tun Politiker gern – vor der Wahrheit über deutsche Untaten im Hitlerkrieg verschont bleiben.
    “Irving ist ein fabelhafter Pionier der Zeitgeschichte, der groÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸artige Bücher geschrieben hat.” ” “Irving is a marvelous pioneer of contemporary history,who has written outstanding books.” That is followed by a series of coy questions about Irving’s theses, thereby getting them into circulation, with the interviewee insisting on their truth. That’s a very clever way to get the Irving theses into circulation while maintaining a certain deniability.

    As to Hoppe’s absurdist comparison of democracy and monarchy, it’s not a “thought experiment,” but an actual historical claim, one that happens to have damn little to support it, other than a serious lack of understanding on his part of the economics on which he tries to draw in making his a priori claim. As an economist he’s a cartoon. As a political theorist, he’s more than a bit flirtatious with the ugliest parts of the political spectrum, as he has demonstrated over and over. Clement, Rockwell, Raimondo, and others have slipped into bed with the ugliest racists and then said they were just having a chat with various “conservative” friends who have been treated wickedly by “other conservatives,” who have denounced them for their horribly collectivist views. No serious person believes it.

  35. Tom G. Palmer

    What a very loyal publicist and apologist Clement is. The SF Chronicle (not Examiner) story contained no mention at all of Condoleeza Rice (the lovely little racist twist, the “all blacks stick together” trope); it mentions a rumor about a call from “airport security,” and I wasn’t aware that “Condi” worked at “airport security.” (But then, so many black people do work there, and you know what the racists say about them.) (Here’s the link:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL ). The only place that Lew Rockwell could have read such a strange and crazy claim was…the web site of David Irving, the only person who made the claim and the only source for it, having allegedly heard it on a radio interview on Pacifica Radio. Lew Rockwell got that conveniently racist little lie from David Irving, not from the SF Examiner or the SF Chronicle; he got it from the person whose views are spread (see link above) in Junge Freiheit, the magazine that just loves the ideas of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, that gushes about his books, and that gives a platform to him to trash “democracy” and praise older forms of governance. Serious people should look at such connections to the far right before they get close to Rockwell, Hoppe, and their crowd.

  36. Clement

    So, an interview with a German playwright, and NOT David Irving, by Junge Freheit, is enough to condemn them — and, supposedly, Hoppe, because he was interviewed by the same newspaper. No serious person believes it. Irving himself has been interviewed all over the British media: does this mean that if the Times of London did an interview with Hoppe, it would all be part of a Vast Neo-Nazi Plot? You really are a piece of work, Palmer.

    And now you are saying that I have “slipped into bed” with “racists,” along with Rockwell, Raimondo, and presumably anyone else who looks at you cross-eyed. On what basis do you make such a charge? You don’t even know me. You drag in Rockwell and Raimondo, but don’t say what “racists” they’ve “slipped into bed with” either. And if I were you, I wouldn’t cast aspersions so lightly: after all, you are the one who traveled to Iraq under U.S. government auspices to lecture the mullahs on how best to write their “constitution,” which, we read, will incorporate Islam as its central component.

    Who paid for your trip? How did you manage to get “invited”? The U.S. government just doesn’t invite anyone to lecture its conquered subjects: surely you have some special qualification.

  37. Tom G. Palmer

    Ok, let’s see. Joe Sobran is a holocaust denier who speaks at Institute for Historical Review events (and is a big hero at lewrockwell.com); Sam Francis, another hero, was editor of the newsletter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (the successor to the pro-KKK Council of Concerned Citizens, which started with that groups mailing list and initials). Is that a good start? To run puff pieces in a German-nationalist paper is hardly the same as British papers running news articles about a libel case. This is another example of the attempt to cover up a real connection. Such logic would elide the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht and the Red Army with hiking trips by groups of Boy Scouts; hey, they all wear uniforms and march, so you’re saying that Boy Scouts are invaders? Get real.

    Now, another red herring, about my trips to Iraq. As to who gets “invited” to Iraq, you could find out easily enough. You can buy a ticket to fly there and get a visa at the airport for a fee of about $20. An invitation from an Iraqi to speak at a university is quite adequate. I raised funds from voluntary donors to pay for my expenses, as well as to finance trips by Iraqi libertarians to other countries to learn more about how to publish Arabic translations of works in the classical liberal tradition. So, what does my trip to Iraq have have to do with the disgusting connections between a group of racists in north American and a group of extremist German-nationalists? Nothing, other than an occasion for Clement (who is parroting the ugly threat made against me by Justin Raimondo, who insisted that I will be punished for trying to take a message of liberty to Iraqis come the “libertarian revolution,” whatever that might be [God help us all if Justin gets out his guillotine]) to distract attention from the issues discussed in my posting. (link to his absurd claim that I took a “$35,000 cab ride” to the airport: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5936 ) So Clement and Justin Raimondo happen to agree on everything, including being opposed to raising funds to translate materials into Arabic to try to help the Iraqis establish a tolerable government. What a sickening display. Really sickening.

  38. Clement

    Ah, the Circle of Subversion gets bigger! Now you’re dragging in Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. What do they have to do with the content of an interview in a German newspaper with Hoppe? Intrepid investigator for the American branch of the OPC Tom Palmer is on the case! It’s all so laughable.

    “An invitation from an Iraqi” — you mean an Iraqi government official. Why hide it? The U.S. conquers Iraq and Palmer is there, “advising” them — and you have the nerve to go on about someone ELSE’s supposedly un-libertarian connections?

    June Freheit will probably survive without the Tom Palmer Seal of Approval. But I think what many people object to is your creation of an amalgam: for example, you keep bringing up Raimundo (oh, I forgot: I am supposed to *be* him!) but I don’t recall seeing the works of any of these people you denounce on his anti-war.com. You throw in Junge Freheit, Hoppe, Rockwell, the kitchen sink, and all your imagined “enemies” into a single entity. And now I’m *really* Justin Raimondo! Oh, your “enemies” are hiding under the bed! They’re everywhere. Really funny. And pathetic.

  39. Tom G. Palmer

    Yes, that’s right, Clement. The circle does get bigger. That’s the whole point of bringing the issue up in the first place. Lew Rockwell is chummy with Joe Sobran and the late Sam Francis, who have connections with still spookier ultra-right wing creeps and racists. (We could add “The League of the South,” the “Council of Conservative Citizens,” and others.) What does that have to do with Hoppe, house “intellect” at Rockwell’s main enterprise, the Mises Institute? Well–now take notes!–Hoppe dismisses the holocaust, supports monarchical government over his strange mischaracterization of “democracy” (not as a mere thought experiment, but as an actual historical claim), has a hug fest with the creepiest fringe of German politics, where jokes are made about the holocaust (“Shoa-business” and all that), the borders of Europe are redrawn for a greater Germany, and the lies and fabrications of David Irving are injected into the German public debate. In each case they do their best to make connections to the worst and most collectivist of the ultra-right. One could go on, but any reasonable person gets the picture.

    Anyone considering any affiliation with Lew Rockwell and his little network of organizations should know of what they’re getting into: a nest of snakes that should horrify any decent person.

    And, by the way,–horrors!–I have indeed met with officials of many governments, including the German government, the Italian government, the Russian government, the Polish government, the British government, the American government, the Canadian government, the Japanese government, and — oh no! — even the Iraqi government, as I addressed 61 members of the Iraqi parliament in April in the parliamentary assembly chamber. But no, to go to Iraq you don’t need an invitation from an official of the Iraqi government, unless you stretch that definition to include a professor at a university. Why not mention where I live? (Hint: it’s in the center of the American seat of government. Oh, no!) Your attempts to distract attention from the Rockwell/Hoppe and Co. laying out the welcome mat for racists and nationalists are pathetic.

  40. Nathalie I. Vogel

    First of all: This debate is not about Freedom of expression. Noone, and certainly not Dr Palmer wants to limit Hoppe’s Freedom of expression. The entire debate can be reduced to one question: What does Hoppe actually stand for? What does he say, how and to what audience? I could make it short: Hoppe defends the idea of absolutism, rejects the basic and essential principle of poperty in the framework of free market-economy and propagates an ideology of exclusion, call it isolationism or protectionism. I’d call it just an anachronism. But that would be just too simple.
    One needs to set the record straight. Let us start by the beginning:

    As a German citizen, I am o u t r a g e d by what I read here re: the Verfassungsschutz.
    To read that an institution like the Verfassungsschutz can be described as “stasi infiltrated” is truly disturbing. What an insulting and ignorant statement. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution operates in some fields just like the FBI does. The Federal Republic of Germany is not a banana republic. Like it or not, it is a democracy with solid institutions where the rule of law always prevails. So, Dr. Palmer is perfectly right: if the JF has been put under observation, it is indeed for some reason. You need a basis to start an observation and you need a basis to end it as well.

    We could list the reasons for the observation and none of them would put Germany in an authoritarian light. The question whether the observation is relevant or not is another.

    As to what to think of the “Junge Freiheit”, well very skilled academics (linguists, political scientists and legal experts) have been working on the topic for years.
    The Ministry of Interior of North- Rhine- Westfalia and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution organized a huge conference last year in Dusseldorf where very respectable academics discussed the issue. You can find the results of their work in this book, (with a highly interesting analysis of on the Junge Freiheit: “Strategie und Leitlinien der Jungen Freiheit” by Michael Puttkamer, himself an analyst of the Verfassungschutz).

    I am also quite surprised that a comment argued that there is nothing to the fact of discussing border issues as it is the case with Poland. Well, the ones who know German history are very well aware that this is the start of all European disasters. These tragedies lead US-soldiers to risk and sometimes alas leave their life to save Europe from the Tyranny of the very people who did not know where Germany’s borders started and ended.
    In addition to this, in 2005 one can expect from an educated citizen of the EU to know that the inner-borders between the member states of the EU are settled and non-debatable.
    One can also expect from an academic to accept the basic and essential facts and datas on the Holocaust. Well, guess what, David Irving, Robert Faurisson and others do not and JF is very happy to repeatedly say so.

    Dr Palmer’s statement re: Hoppe are also absolutely correct. Hoppe fails to understand the difference between the principles of republicanism and calls them “democracy”. He verbally attacks this “democracy” and actually means to attack the republican form of parliamentarism. Neither does he understand the difference between “Besitz” and “eigentum”.
    What he managed to do is to take the stand for the worst reactionary circles of Germany, associating with individuals who do have a clear anti-liberal agenda and joining the circles of the many holocaust-deniers and racists interviewed by JF.
    By the way, all in all, a fiercely anti-American crowd.

  41. I asked my friend who reads German and he agreed with the translations of Dr. Palmer. He also agreed that the Junge Freiheit paper is a very rightwing, not “conservative,” publication. The quotations that he read from the various links were absolutely unlibertarian and pretty frightening. So I repeat what I wrote above, that kind of sounds like neoNazi propaganda to me.If that is the company that Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Lew Rockwell seek in Germany-and they have also stretched out their hands to similar people in the US-then I know all I need to know not ever to go to another event with their names on it.

  42. Besides my friend, I’m also glad that the person who posted above, who is from (or in?) Germany agrees with Dr. Palmer. That increases my confidence that Dr. Palmer is right in his evaluation of the ideas of the Junge Freiheit and their role in German politics.

  43. recently

    In the last couple of weeks I was in touch with several German friends about these issues. First they all said that Junge Frieheit is almost universally seen as an extremist neo-Nazi group that plays very carefully with the words it uses so as to get it’s message out without having to be too explicit. I knew some neo-Nazi types and they all used the same kind of code. (the Klan used it in the past as well). One wouldn’t say “Heil Hitler” but “Eighty-eight”. Why? Because H was the 8th letter and two Hs were the abbreviation for Heil Hitler.

    Germany does have laws that restrict freedom of speech and that’s too bad. Those laws are the reason these groups play it so carefully. Take away the laws and the incentive for carefullness and I suspect they will let their true agenda out very fast. But the group is clearly seen as neo-Nazi types here.

    One group, that isn’t such a group, had an article on Hoppe on their web site. But the moment they saw the interview with JF they removed it lest they be tainted with being associated with the group — such is the JF reputation in Germany. Friends who attended Hoppe lectures in Germany said many neo Nazi types were there and that he has a big following among them. Why would that be if he’s so libertarian? Or are we to believe the neo Nazi types are now closet libertarians?

    They said Hoppe came across very authoritarian but that he was quite careful where to draw the line in what he said. He always came right up to the border without actually crossing over. Irving does that as well. Irving doesn’t attack Jews per se just “our traditional enemy”. But his fans know who he means. Irving says he is not a Holocaust denier then defines the Holocaust so that it means precisely what the IHR crowd says. He rejects the label but accepts the ideas.

    I don’t think these people should be censored or banned. I think they should be in the open. Der Spiegel recently ran an article on neoNazi kids in rural towns and how they use specific items of clothing to get their nazi message across. My point is that there are many neo Nazi types who do precisely what I think Hoppe does: they use code words and say things just vague enough to deny explicit racism. But none of the Germans I talked to, who heard Hoppe or have known him, thought he was anything but a racist with a following among the neoNazi crowd in Germany. And none of them worked for Cato, live in the US or are Tom Palmer. Some were friends with Hoppe before he became the new Messiah of the Confederacy of Rockwell.

  44. “No one, and certainly not Dr Palmer wants to limit Hoppe’s Freedom of expression. The entire debate can be reduced to one question: What does Hoppe actually stand for?”

    Yes, I’m quite familiar with this tactic as well. On Liberty & Power, I dared to criticize Hoppe a few months ago for his claim (among others) that a community ought to be able to expel homosexuals for their private sexual behavior. I characterized the claim as un-libertarian, and in reply I was told that I was siding with the enemies of free speech. And that after I signed a petition supporting Hoppe’s right to speak his mind.

    As to Germany’s restrictions on freedom of speech, I can’t help but conclude that they have given groups like Junge Freiheit far more power than they deserve: By forcing them to hide an agenda that they would rather shout to the heavens, these laws make JF and similar seem like respectable groups, when really they are nothing of the sort.

  45. “No one, and certainly not Dr Palmer wants to limit Hoppe’s Freedom of expression. The entire debate can be reduced to one question: What does Hoppe actually stand for?”

    Yes, I’m quite familiar with this tactic as well. On Liberty & Power, I dared to criticize Hoppe a few months ago for his claim (among others) that a community ought to be able to expel homosexuals for their private sexual behavior. I characterized the claim as un-libertarian, and in reply I was told that I was siding with the enemies of free speech. And that after I signed a petition supporting Hoppe’s right to speak his mind.

    As to Germany’s restrictions on freedom of speech, I can’t help but conclude that they have given groups like Junge Freiheit far more power than they deserve: By forcing them to hide an agenda that they would rather shout to the heavens, these laws make JF and similar seem like respectable groups, when really they are nothing of the sort.

  46. This is not limited only to Germany. In Serbia there is a group of people starting a pro-liberty organization. The initial idea was to name the group “Ludwig von Mises Institute,” but then the issue emerged — some of them didn’t like using the name of Mises, in order to avoid association with Alabama institute. So they now discuss whether to call it F.A. Hayek or Bastiat Institute. That is how Alabama institute works for Mises.

  47. Tom G. Palmer

    I’m just back from errands and found some comments and an email from Mark DeprÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?© of Belgium, who had tried to post a comment and got what I also got earlier (“Denied for Questionable Content”); I don’t know why it does that, other than that sometimes it rejects “too many” links or odd punctuation. (I have asked my friend who hosts the web site to fix it; it seems that sometimes the spam filter gets corrupted.) So, here is Mr. DeprÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?©’s comment:

    Dear Dr Palmer,

    I tried to post a comment in the thread “Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the German Extremist Nationalist Right” on your weblog but my comment was automatically refused because of “questionable content”.

    Hereby I send you my comment by mail.

    Best regards,

    Mark Depr��?���©

    Dr Palmer,

    Maybe his position is changed but in 2002 Joe Sobran didn’t deny the holocaust.He wrote :
    (start quote)
    “Here I should lay my own cards on the table. I am not, heaven forbid, a “Holocaust denier.” I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don’t read German, so I can’t assess the documentary evidence; I don’t know chemistry, so I can’t discuss Zyklon-B; I don’t understand the logistics of exterminating millions of people in small spaces. Besides, “Holocaust denial” is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that’s proof enough….
    So, life being as short as it is, I shy away from this controversy. Of course I’m also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I’ve become what might be called a “Holocaust stipulator.” Like a lawyer who doesn’t want to get bogged down debating a secondary point, I stipulate that the standard account of the Holocaust is true. What is undisputed — the massive violation of human rights in Hitler’s Germany — is bad enough.” (end quote)
    ( http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml )

    Sobran has (in my opinion) written a lot of good
    columns.I don’t know the man but he doesn’t seem
    a closet-nazi to me.His connection with this Mark Weber guy and his “institute” is indeed very strange but maybe Sobran is just duped in on this subject ? Do you know if anyone has
    discussed this with Sobran ?
    To avoid misunderstanding : I myself consider the criminal mass murder on millions of jews during WWII by the nazi’s as a historical fact just as I consider the mass murders by Stalin,Mao,Idi Amin, Pol Pot or the battle of Waterloo or the presidency of Thomas Jefferson as historical facts.I have no sympathy for holocaust-revisionism whatever…
    It is for me only difficult to accept that a fine writer as Joe Sobran would be in fact a Hitler-apologist.

    Best regards,

    Mark Depre

  48. Tom G. Palmer

    In response to Mr. DeprÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?©’s thoughtful note above, I would point to the following: Mr. Sobran is a grownup and is fully aware of what the Institute for Historical Review promotes. It certainly has been discussed with him. National Review threw him out because of his anti-Semitism. There should be no doubt about that.

    Mr. DeprÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?© quotes an extract from a formal and public address that Mr. Sobran made to a holocaust-denial conference of the Institute for Historical Review in which Mr. Sobran denied that he is a “Holocaust Denier,” because he cannot read German, doesn’t know chemistry, etc., which also leaves it open to him to question whether the holocaust happened at all, on the same grounds: “Of course I’m also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen.” That is precisely the tactic of the neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.

    Rather than just retype what I have written elsewhere, here is what I wrote in response to one of Mr. Rockwell’s primary lieutenants, Mr. Kinsella on this thread http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php :

  49. A few years ago, I read on an email list a proposal the Joseph Sobran be the Libertarian Parties candidate for President. The email post was linked to an article by Sobran that outlined his perspective on things. It certainly looked libertarian to me, and there wasn’t anything about the Jews or Israel.

    So, perhaps Sobran is an anti-semite, but he may well be a libertarian one. I did skim over all of the posted material and I saw no where that Sobran favored anything other than equality under the law for Jewish people.

    Further, it is pretty clear that all of this is being driven primarily by opposition to America’s pro-Israel policies. And, the fact, that he can get no traction in complaining about Israel.

    Frankly, I have never understood this notion taht it is anti-semitic to emphasize the misbehavior of Israel. Sure, there are plenty of places where the government behaves much worse than that of Israel, but many of them are enemies of the U.S. North Korea, Burma, etc. You know, if the U.S. was devoted to the survival of North Korea, one might get fixated on them as well.

    And those states that misbehave and remain allies of the U.S. get plenty of criticism. For example, Saudi Arabia imposes horrible religious discrimination. They are generally criticized for it, and America remains its ally because they have lots of oil.

    Sobran’s discussion of Jewishness was interesting. However, I don’t really buy into this notion that secularism has been generated by modern Judaism. (Actually, he doesn’t state it in quite that way–he calls it “the Jewish problem” and describes it as a conflict between Jewish and Christian culture!)

    It is a bit sad.