More Apologies for Authoritarian Statism


The Russian authorities are not the worst on the planet. The American authorities are not perfect. War between them would be terrible. It does not follow from that that the Russian authorities are not tending strongly toward authoritarianism and statism. But not according to Justin Raimondo, whose latest craven apology for Vladimir Putin should turn even the strongest of stomachs: ” To Russia, With Hate.”

That from the man who wrote, “The myth that Russia is sliding back into authoritarian â?? or even totalitarian â?? rule is not only ridiculously overstated: it is downright pernicious.â? But what would one expect from someone who got caught flagrantly lying about an obviously fake memo?

12 Responses to “More Apologies for Authoritarian Statism”

  1. Tom G. Palmer

    Really? It’s best to wait a bit after such horrors before making sweeping policy judgements, but a thoughtful person might just ask whether it was wise to make the entire Virginia Tech campus a “gun free” zone, in which no guns whatsoever were allowed. It’s quite unlikely that a homicidal lunatic (as the killer evidently was) would have been able to systematically kill 31 people had there been anyone around who was armed. If the Second Amendment (rahter than, say, a failed system of surveillance of the criminally insane, as the killer was well known to many people in the police, courts, the school, and the mental health system as dangerous) was responsible for the murders, then it must also have been responsible for this:
    But there was and is no Second Amendment in the UK. How could R2D2 explain that?

    And no doubt Belgian society and the liberalization of divorce laws were responsible for this:

    And of course, it’s Canada’s Second Amendment that was responsible for this:

  2. Tom Kazelis

    Andrei Illarionov seems to go over the line with his call for war with Russia:

    Let me conclude these remarks with words spoken by Winston Churchill about another great war for freedom:

    I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.’ We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

    “That war for freedom was won. We may yet win, indeed we must win, this current war. But to win, we must work together.”

    Oh really, Andrei? You first …

    I also don’t think Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a “free market” hero, and I note that you don’t refute anything Raymondo wrote. C’mon Tom, we know you can do better that that.

  3. I did not read anybody to say Khodorkovsky was a “free-market hero.” But Yukos was stolen, regardless. The refutation of Raimondo is the fact: Putin is taking Russia to dictatorship. What more refutation do you need than suppression of press freedom, intimidation of press, and beatings of people in the street for wanting a peaceful rally?

  4. Illarionov’s Hillsdale comments, so graciously provided by Kazelis, are certainly worth reading. They’re about the importance of constitutionalism for strictly limiting the power of government officials. The “war” to which Illarionov refers is the struggle for such limits in Russia, as K. well knows.

    As for “Libertarians for NATO,” I realize that armchair purists believe the only moral thing for a libertarian to do is to cut oneself off from the world and ceaselessly condemn everyone who doesn’t, but that’s a strategy that is both futile and immoral. I wish there were MORE libertarians like Ms. Vogel in NATO, etc., rather than fewer.

    Finally, the rapidly increasing authoritarianism of Putin’s regime is well-documented, and “libertarians” like Kazelis are simply shills for dictators.

  5. Garry Cobb

    Mr. Steele, I don’t believe that ditching NATO is futile and immoral. It would in fact be a huge step towards reigning in what has become a shamefully futile and way-to-often immoral foreign policy.

    Not only does NATO burden us with numerous defense liabilities in the form of one-way defense pacts, (I’m not exactly counting on any of the Baltics to send troops to defend America in the event of an attack), but it also creates bases that our government uses for ever more intervention. That such military and even clandestine intervention creates enemies and makes us less secure is almost beyond debate.

    Further, NATO unnecessarily brings American guns right to a weak Russia’s doorstep. Sure, Eastern Europeans and the Baltic states benefit greatly from having US taxpayers pay for their defense. However, how this alliance has any net benefit to Americans is beyond me.

    As for Raimondo, I fail to see why he goes out of his way to defend Putin. His past defense of Putin’s actions in Chechnya was, I believe, an embarrassment. Sure, Putin is not the worst of the worst, but when he commits a foul, he should be called on it just like anyone else.

  6. Nathalie I. VOGEL

    A common friend of Charles and myself would say: â??Sahara ne nadoâ?:
    Mr. Cobb, I am not here to explain the basics and essentials of collective defense which you obviously do not entirely understand. You are entitled to your opinion based on whatever info you have. Your views are not mine. It is not a tragedy. No one will send the OMON after you and I do not risk being sent to Chita either, because guess what, we both live in functioning democracies, i.e. our freedom of expression is guaranteed by our constitution. So, let us argue, if you wish, but somewhere else.
    It was not the subject of the posting. We were discussing why Mr Raimondo systematically uses insults ad personam, slanders and defends authotaritarian regimes on all continents. I am not saying he should shut up. I am asking why he does speak like this. NV

  7. Garry Cobb

    Hello Ms. Vogel. Just to clarify, my post was not directed at anything that you have posted. So I’m not sure as to why you addressed me as if I had addressed you initially.

    I also am curious as to why my mere suggesting that NATO is a net-liability to our security logically leads to your conclusion that I “obviously do not entirely understand” the basics and essentials of collective defense.

    That NATO just may be a net liability is an argument that is surely not unique to my non-understanding self. Neither is it an argument that should be summarily dismissed… That is, unless you take NATO’s net-benefit to the U.S. for granted.

    As for your not wanting to argue that subject here, I didn’t bring the subject up. I only responded to a post that was already there. But if you would like to discuss this somewhere else, let me know.

    By the way, I agree with you about Raimondo and Russia, specifically. He would sound the alarm (and rightly so) if the U.S. government took actions similar to those that Putin took in say, Chechnya. But when it comes to Russia, Putin’s actions are “patriotic”. I don’t get it.

  8. “While you are fighting against Russian authoritarianism, your beloved Second Amendment has put death to another 30 people…”

    Now isn’t this an insult to the Bill of Rights? I thought folks like you say we should be examples of upholding them? How about the 2ed Amendment being used to protect those 30 sum people from a thug like Cho?