I’ve gotten some emails, so rather than respond to all of them, I am posting a clarification: I am not quoted in this article from The New Republic. (To the best of my knowledge, I have not met Mr. Kirchik, nor have we spoken.)
Just In Case….
97 Responses to “Just In Case….”
Leave a Reply
Well, whoever is quoted got it right. What a nasty nest of snakes Rockwell has prepared. Is Rockwell the writer of the newsletters? The style does quite sound like him. We have our own nutters here (anti-immigrant, racist, and hateful), but fortunately they were largely drummed out of decent company with Enoch Powell.
It would have to be Rockwell (a former Paul ghostwriter), or at least someone Rockwell knows personally.
Chickens have a way of coming home to roost, and many of us saw this coming a long, long time ago. I just hope this serves as a wake-up call to libertarians who haven’t yet recognized these people for what they are.
BTW, I thought that was you for sure, and I was proud! I’ll bet you know who it was, and if so, be sure to thank him or her for me.
It was widely known in the libertarian community that Rockwell was the author of much of the material that has Paul in trouble now. My sources say the Economist is onto the story and called Rockwell fro a quote and he screamed “no comment” and hung up on them. Apparently he’s willing to leave Paul hanging in the wind for his actions — not that Paul is innocent mind you. He did work with Rockwell to produce this stuff and he was aware of it and it did go on for years.
The abusive style is pure Lew. He’s not man enough to own up to it.
Ron Paul put his name on Lew’s vile and disgusting claims. He did so for years and years. He doesn’t get a pass on this. If he had discovered that a staff writer had turned out to be a bigot (that’s a mild term for what has been exposed) and had written one piece under his name, then he could have fired him, written a disavowal, and no serious person would have held him responsible. _That isn’t what happened._ Instead, Ron Paul continued to turn that material out year after year after year.
He doesn’t get a pass on this. He put his name on it and he has to live with it. Unfortunately, so does everyone else who supported him. What he’s done is terrible and inexcusable.
The problem is that the Rockwellians were like a giant boil on the libertarian movement. Various people tried to lance it but it kept getting bigger and bigger. Finally a publication big enough to matter lanced the boil which popped spewing puss all over the place. The problem for us libertarians is that the puss got all over us in the process and now we’re trying to figure out how to get clean.
I note the Rockwellians are putting forth the argument that TNR was founded by a progressive (Croly) and that proves that was the reason they “set out” to harm Paul. In that case the Washington Post is a brillant libertarian newspaper since Felix Morley was the former editor. One recent TNR editor, Andrew Sullivan, was a Paul promoter on his blog right up until this incident. And the author of the piece is actually a libertarian — of course Rockwell and crew redefine libertarianism so that one must be one of them. Yet we are seeing what they are very clearly and it isn’t libertarian.
Yep. Whatever Lew Rockwell touches turns to crap. Is he going to admit that (among other things) he compared black people to “zoo animals,” or is he going to continue to let his man just twist in the wind?
You were right about Rockwell, Tom. I just wish more people had listened.
I forgot something. Here’s Rockwell’s response to the evidence of racism and bigotry in the newsletters,
“http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018420.html
January 08, 2008
The New ‘Republic’
Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 8, 2008 02:04 PM
TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.
—-
Maybe he didn’t deny the authenticity of the quotations because he knows who wrote them. (So, Mr. Rockwell, come one — admit that you wrote them. What have you got to lose now?)
Rockwell didn’t even bother to argue that the quotes weren’t genuine, or were taken out of context, or whatever. So he attacks the magazine, not what they published. (I noticed that he attacks the magazine for a cover comparing Ross Perot to Hitler, which does seem unfair, but doesn’t mention that his favorite magazine, The American Conservative, just published a cover with Giuliani as Hitler. And even on the SAME PAGE of LRC Giuliani (not my favorite candidate, but that’s not the same point) is called “Benito”!)
You’re pathetic, Mr. Rockwell.
I agree men
Oh well. Beltway Libertarians can get back to being shills for neocons.
I like RP and I dislike PC, but these letters are way over the edge. This isn’t politically incorrect, this is bullshit. If it’s Rockwell, I’d be very disappointed and put off, because I like the site in general.
Surely, if RP talks about the FED, I can imagine he’s right upto a point. But the whole conspiracy attitude just begins to blow me off. WTF, CFR? Trilateral commission? Bilderberg? Mossad? NAU? Come on.
I still think RP is a good, wise man, but his periphery seems filled with all kinds of fringe people. People with bad karma and dito smell. People, I don’t want have anything to do with.
RP’s positions on less government, less taxes, more personal freedom, less interventions are great. The rest, I don’t care for. It even shames me a bit. I don’t why, but everytime I trust some politician I feel betrayed afterwards.
This isn’t about beltway libertarians. Beltway libertarians didn’t ghostwrite Ron Paul’s Newsletter. It’s about the racists and bigots at the Mises Institute.
And I don’t know personally whether Rockwell is to blame, but it wouldn’t surprise me. In 1991, he published a piece in the LA Times and USA Today essentially defending the cops who beat Rodney King and calling for the banning of video cameras.
In the 1990s, Rockwell published the Rothbard Rockwell Report, a publication that upon reflection seems eerily similar to what’s been published about the Ron Paul Report.
Someone: “The earth is round.”
Lew: “You are just a neocon warmonger!”
Someone: “Well, the earth is still round.”
Lew: “Fascist! Progressineocon! Bankster!”
Someone: “What the hell are you talking about!”
Lew: “PNAC! Bushco! Blackwater! Lincoln-Lover!”
It seems pretty clear that Rockwell has infiltrated his racist-collectivist minions into our midst. It’s time to clean house. I have never given a dime to the Mises Institute people for just these reasons, but I’ve always wished that they would just go away. But they haven’t. (I like Mises, but not in an obsessive way. He’s an interesting writer and was very brave to stand up to the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists for all those years. It’s a real shame that the Rockwellian racists decided to take the name of a great crusader for individual rights for their sick little Institute.)
It is indeed time to clean house. I’ve posted some thoughts at Liberty and Power:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/46313.html
Rightwatch has weighed in, too. Not much new if you’ve read the other accounts, but informative nonetheless.
http://rightwatch.tblog.com/
I want to make three points that shine for me through the thick of this noxious affair:
1. Let’s not forget that LRC (which, to be fair, is distinct from the Mises Institute; the former has given up 501(c)(3) status to promote Paul, and most LRC writers don’t blog at mises.org) also publishes the writings of Patrick Buchanan, Joe Sobran, and Gary North–the first two monomaniacs with significant links to Holocaust denial, the last one a bona fide theocrat who either isn’t even a libertarian or was just joshing about stoning gays and such.
2. I didn’t know Kirchik was a libertarian, but TNR is one of the most libertarian-friendly mainstream magazines. They excerpted The Bell Curve; they opposed Pres. Clinton’s healthcare reform; etc. To Rockwell and friends, however, if you have any influence with anyone the least bit powerful, you’re a “beltway” figure who might as well be shaking hands with Henry Kissinger.
3. I saw many of the jaded commenters at Reason Hit & Run say that if libertarianism were a real political movement we would all support Paul, like the supporters of other candidates support their candidate through all sorts of revelations. I think that won’t work, it’s disingenuous, and it’s wrong. Libertarians have to be good people before they can be good libertarians. That includes, when confronted with racism or any other evil, loudly and authentically denouncing it.
Remember: in a libertarian society, one where welfare and healthcare and all other sorts of care aren’t subsidized by the government, we the people will have to step in. Just as the Framers knew that a people blinded by disgust cannot effectively guard free speech, a fair trial, etc. (hence the Bill of Rights), a people blinded by racism will not freely pay for healthcare for black people. Non-libertarians oppose libertarianism first and foremost because they think people will be forgotten and exploited. The people they are concerned about should be the concern of all, *especially* libertarians, because we propose removing many of their chief means of support.
I’m more concerned that amidst the pejoratives there is nothing about the camel jockeys. He’s not some arab sympathizer, is he? Or is it simply the reporter’s selective bias?
Come on, Lew Rockwell! Fess up. Your guy is suffering because of your A) clear racism, and B) moral cowardice in just letting your guy take the heat.
I saw the CNN Wolf Blitzer interview with Ron Paul. I think that Paul tried his best, but the damage to his reputation has been done. I was glad to hear him say that he admires Rosa Parks. (His references to support from “the blacks” made me cringe a little.)
A little checking showed his closest advisors and most excited supporters are in fact not Rosa Parks admirers, as you showed at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php
It seems obviously clear that Rockwell, Huebert, and the others hate and despise Parks. So who wrote those articles that Paul put his name on?
Why does it matter if Lew Rockwell outs himself? Everyone is hoping and praying that Rockwell fesses up, but even if he did, so what? Ron Paul allowed racist and bigoted bile to be published with his name above it for years. That’s the nub. Are we so stupid as to believe Ron Paul had *no* idea? Do we really think he never once saw the newsletter? Or maybe he just missed all of the issues that screamed with a full-throated racist voice.
Ron Paul has chosen to ally himself with an unsavory group and allowed them to publish their screeds under his name with his explicit approval.
He can hail Rosa Parks all he wants today, but I think we need to be adults about this: It doesn’t matter who wrote the letters.
So shove off you neocon warmongers. Who the f**ck do you think you are??
LRC has more news than all the CNN/BELTWAY/FAUX SNOOZE put together.
I know who can save the country and so do you!!!!!!
RonPaul2008!!
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/10/ron-paul-to-address-race-issues-on-cnn/#comment-427989
I agree that Rockwell’s role in all of the ugliness doesn’t absolve Ron Paul of responsibility for putting his name on such evil. That must weigh on his conscience.
Moving forward, I hope that the people who have been taken in by Rockwell and now find that they are in the company of “white nationalists” (and that’s just the tip of the iceberg of evil that Rockwell has brought with him) will realize the mistake they’ve made and disassociate themselves from him, whether quietly or publicly. It pains me that Rockwell has disgraced the name of Ludwig von Mises, which will now be associated in the minds of many with false and pernicious beliefs that Mises did much during his lifetime to combat. And that is but one of Lew Rockwell’s misdeeds. Decent people should not associate with him.
This just in!
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/
Lew Rockwell is no “white nationalist.” If one is not a “nationalist” (a subset of “statist”) one cannot be a “white nationalist” (a subset of “nationalist”).
These smears are silly, and fail to recognize that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have both publicly stated that racism is a collectivist, wrongheaded, unlibertarian strain of thought.
Anyone who has actually attended a Mises Institute seminar or who has spent a significant amount of time there would know that racism is just as despised by the distinguished scholars associated with the Institute as it is in libertarianism generally.
The Confederacy, for the record, is not lauded by LvMI–only secession is. After all, Mark Thornton, a resident scholar at LvMI, has co-authored a great book on the stupidity and tyranny of Confederate economic policy (including their inflationary monetary policies and their protectionist, anti-market blockade on their own ports in order to bar luxury, non-military goods from being legal cargo).
Regardless of a particular group’s faults, secession from an illegitimate state is always justified. Attacking Lincoln and his Unionists is by no means an endorsement of slavery, taxes, fiat money, or protectionism. That Lincoln was a tyrant does not imply that those fleeing his tyranny were angels.
I’ve been telling everyone I can about the white supremacists infesting the Paulestinian campaign for months now, predicting exactly the sort of expose that just came out.
I don’t for an instant believe Paul was ignorant of the racist trash published in his name; I know people who worked with Rockwell & Blumert back then, who told me how they were disgusted by their racism.
However, let’s assume that Paul’s telling the truth (unlike any other politician), & that he really didn’t know what was being done in his name. He was a decade younger then, and his newsletter publishing was a much smaller operation than the U.S. Government. If he miraculously got elected President, what would he let his underlings get away with? Who would he appoint to sensitive government positions with actual responsibility for policy- and decision-making? What job would Rockwell get?
As for the absence of anti-Arab bigotry in Paul/Rockwell’s old newsletters, there’s a simple explanation for that: White supremacists sympathize with Muslim supremacists, because they have ethnic supremacism and anti-Semitism in common. That’s why the Rockwellians made out the Iraqi insurgents to be like freedom-fighters; all they had to do was recycle rhetoric from the Klan’s “heroic” resistance to the Union’s occupation of the South, with slight modifications.
The Paleos have been making much over the past several years that some neo-conservatives are ex-Communists. However, many paleos are ex-Fascists; or, worse, crypto/neo-Fascists. I don’t know of a single neo-conservative today who’s still supporting collective ownership of the means of production, but lots of paleos are still supporting white supremacy.
As for the fool who denied Rockwell’s nationalism by claiming that nationalism is inherently statist & that Rockwell’s an anarchist, nationalists only use anarchist rhetoric until they take power. As soon as they have the opportunity, they support massive state social-engineering projects – like building a massive government boondoggle of a fence along the US-Mexico border, paid for with stolen money and on property confiscated from private property owners via eminent domain.
Moral question: What is worse?
A) BEING a racist or anti-semite?
B) POSING or PRETENDING to be a racist or anti-semite, with the goal of scamming the real racists and anti-semites of money or seeking their political report?
Everyone who knows Ron Paul agrees he is clearly in category “B.” People who know/knew Lew Rockwell or Rothbard are undecided if they are in category “A” or “B.”
Either way — the Rockwell/Rothbard faction based on the Leninist “Paleo Revolution” has finally met the fate it made for itself. The chickens came home to roost and their failure is now complete in a very public fashion. Too bad they took Dr. Paul “down with the ship,” though he shares most of the blame.
Hopefully it doesn’t take the whole history of (true) libertarians ideas along to the bottom of the sea.
@ A is A
Look you have a point, concerning the Rockwellians — and Palmer was more right about them, than he was initially given credit for, during the past few years. The newsletters were clearly upsetting to me, disturbing even.
I really gave me some perspective on the split between libertarians and why. Incidently, for quite some time, I selected my interest on just a few Rockwellian writers, because most are not my interest anyway. F.e., I don’t buy DiLorenzo’s claims on the confederacy. Come on, let’s get real. Maybe Lincoln wasn’t the hero, he’s made out to be, but a unionist war for economic tariffs alone? Bull.
I like the antiwar views, the gold stuff and Rothbard, the podcasts @ Mises on liberty issues, but the rest.. Sorry, not for me.
Mr. Clark,
I agree that racism is an “unlibertarian strain of thought.” Two questions:
1. Why not go further and say that Holocaust denial and homophobia are, too? Because they’re still popular among some LRC writers? Or do you mean to say that it’s okay to overlook prejudice in one area if someone makes enough anti-war points?
2. More to the point of this post, given that racism–especially the kind that involves inarticulate rage at African-American “animals,” defending Andy Rooney, and not knowing how to spell “Rooney”–is so clearly unlibertarian, do you find it plausible that DECADES’ worth of Paul’s newsletters were filled with this trash without Paul or any of his aides knowing? Isn’t the more likely story that they knew many of the contributors were demented and chose to ignore it? Remember, one of the worst contributors said he hailed from the same Texas town Ron Paul lives in, Luke Jackson.
The fact is, Ron Paul sounds a lot more passionate when he’s talking about the Fed (though his constant references to “printing” money are a telling sign he doesn’t know much about the subject) than when he’s talking about racists who *contributed to his newsletter, the one named after him*. That reflects a bizarre perspective on human affairs in 2008 America–almost an unlibertarian one.
Mr. Clark’s defense is sadly weak. Many people have indeed attended Mises Institute conferences and reported back on racism, hatred of gay people, and so on, not to mention the pathetically low standards of intellectual discourse (including raspberries, hoots, or cheers from “faculty” when certain economists are named; absurd mis-statements of the views of other thinkers and schools; bizarre mischaracterizations of centrally important theories, and so forth). Then add in involvement of key “faculty” with the League of the South, with Junge Freiheit, and on and on. It’s all on display at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Clarks’ attempted logical defense of Lew Rockwell is even sadder and shows no understanding of the meaning of the term “nationalism.” The trash that Rockwell has invited to associate with the name of Ludwig von Mises are, indeed, enemies of freedom. Start with Gary North, who favors imposing Old Testament law and executing homosexuals and who writes regularly on LewRockwell.com. That’s the tip of the iceberg.
Decent people should cut any and all relations they may ever have had with such people.
Tell me, “L.R.,” which is more reprehensible – “defending Andy Rooney, and not knowing how to spell ‘Rooney'” or referring to “the same Texas town Ron Paul lives in,” and not knowing how to spell Lake Jackson (hint: it’s NOT “Luke Jackson”)?
Just curious.
JR
“DECADES’ worth of Paul’s newsletters. . . ”
It was not decades. It was five months of actually ugly, racist comments. The TNR article makes it seem like decades by putting together the bad stuff with stuff that’s questionable or un-PC and lumping it all together as the same thing.
Mr. Riggenbach,
I surrender in the face of your masterful demolition of my argument. I am no match for your careful grasp of essentials.
“The TNR article makes it seem like decades by putting together the bad stuff with stuff that’s questionable or un-PC and lumping it all together as the same thing.”
It *is* the same thing, actually – un-PC. That’s what this is all about.
JR
Anon,
Those “five months” were not consecutive. Racism seems to have been a resident theme. You make no mention of the equally ugly homophobia the article exposes (“Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”).
Every newsletter article quoted in the article seems to fit into one of the following groups:
1. Bona fide, explicit “ugliness.”
2. Black helicopter-style conspiratorialism (including “bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations”, favorite targets of antisemites).
3. Militia mongering. I tend to think that bunches of people preparing for war in rural Michigan aren’t much help to libertarianism.
The non-Fort Detrick AIDS stuff may be an exception, but given the more explicit homophobia, I’m not inclined to give the newsletter the benefit of the doubt on that account.
“I surrender in the face of your masterful demolition of my argument. I am no match for your careful grasp of essentials.”
Tell me, “L.R.,” what *are* the “essentials” of your argument that it is somehow reprehensible to defend Andy Rooney without knowing how to spell his name? Which of them did I miss?
Or did you imagine that you were making some other argument?
JR
Mr. Riggenbach,
“It *is* the same thing, actually – un-PC. That’s what this is all about.”
“One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives”.
That’s “un-PC”?
Bigots and paranoids shouldn’t be able to hide behind the “un-PC” blanket. Some things are “un-PC” for a good reason.
Mr. Riggenbach,
Stop being disingenuous. The Rooney comment in question was grossly homophobic.
And come to think of it, all the AIDS stuff belongs in the same boat. AIDS experts knew by the early ’90s the virus wasn’t transmissible by kissing. That’s just rationalized hatred of gay people.
LR:
Prejudice can be “wrong” in the factual and moral sense but not be unjust. A systematic libertarian must break the practice of judging people in collective terms in order to better understand the world. That doesn’t mean that a particular thought pattern can be unjust, of course.
Some of his aides (like the people working on the newsletter) knew about it. I believe that Ron didn’t. It was a newsletter. Do you think that Lew knows every single word that goes out in every Mises Institute publication? Does Charles Koch know every word that goes out under his masthead?
Monetary fraud by the Fed in collusion with Washington finances all manner of government evils. So yes, I think it is quite appropriate to be more worried about that gargantuan, organized machine of fraud than it is to be worried about racist thoughts. This stuff was brought out to distract. That is quite obvious. Statism is the disease. Racism without coercion is only immoral, not unjust. Defunding the state will be far more effective in the fight for liberty than attacking principled libertarians for people that worked for their organization fifteen years ago.
“L.R.,” ever on the alert for anything that might enrage him or make him feel the bracing, invigorating power surge of indignation, quotes a recent article in The New Republic on a newsletter published many years ago by Ron Paul:
“One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives.”
Then, his indignstion honed to a fine, fine edge by now, “L.R.” inquires, “That’s ‘un-PC’?”
Yes, it is, “L.R.” It’s very un-PC.
JR
“A systematic libertarian must break the practice of judging people in collective terms in order to better understand the world.”
Fair enough. So what is the so called Mises Institute doing when it publishes Holocaust-denier Joe Sobran, white racialist Sam Francis, Christian Reconstuctionist Gary North, and Hans Herman Hoppe, who might simply be called a bigot and a loon.
Jeff — you are far better than the people you are defedning. But you know that much of this is very true.
As bad as the racism was the anti-gay statements were far worse. And those were published over a period of four years. You can’t pretend this problem was limited to one or two issues. It went on for years. And it carried on into the Rothbard-Rockwell Report as well. And it carried on with Lew to the types of people he associates with and promotes as real libertarians: racists like Hoppe, Francis and Sobran. Disgusting.
JSTR: Is it your position that one must be right on everything to be right about anything?
Are you a proponent of a scholarly version of “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”? I believe that scholarship should be a matter of examining theoretical and factual claims in another’s propositions. If someone is doing good work in one area, it is by no means certain that his other work will be good. Wagner was an anti-semite, but surely his music can still be considered and appreciated on its own merits. (I do not mean by the above to concede that any of those mentioned are anti-semites, although I have never read anything by Sam Francis and wouldn’t presume to know anything about wwhat he believed or who he would have hated.)
All history is subject to revision if evidence with which to do the revising becomes available. I have personally never seriously questioned the Holocaust and the usual numbers of casualties presented. Hitler was a terrible tyrant, and national socialism bore terrible, terrible fruits. Even in light of that fact, saying that no one is allowed to review historical documents in order to fact-check popular accounts of historically significant events must be seen for what it is: anti-intellectual dogmatism.
Resorting to just blatant, unfounded namecalling to attack Hans Hoppe shows your total lack of knowledge on this topic. By all means, object to something substantive. Calling someone a “loon” is hardly grown-up talk, now is it?
(FWIW, I am actually not particularly enamored of any of those individuals listed above. While Hoppe has been heavily involved in LvMI activities, I have never even seen any of the others, and am unaware of their participation in Mises Institute events. Hoppe is a theoretician of note, but the others are primarily popular writers. As such, they have written essays on a wide range of topics, with widely varying success.)
Hoppe is a theoretician of note?!?! What note would that be?
That group is a nest of racists. And too many people have looked the other way for too long.
The “defenses” of the Ron Paul newsletters from Riggenbach are the most laughable non-defenses I’ve read in a long time.
Dick Clark: ” I have never read anything by Sam Francis and wouldn’t presume to know anything about wwhat he believed or who he would have hated.”
Ten seconds of Google searching found that this is what Lew Rockwell’s buddy believed: “We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called â??affirmative actionâ? and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.” (http://cofcc.org/?page_id=60) Hey, no racism there! (Hmmm…. opposing “all efforts to mix the races of mankind” would mean opposing interracial marriage, which is….racism, not to mention a violation of freedom, right?)
Come on, Dick Clark, you can do better than to claim that you don’t know what Lew Rockwell’s buddy Sam Francis believes.
You could try to be a man, admit that you hang out with racist trash, and either embrace it or reject them.
I agree with Tom: “And that is but one of Lew Rockwell’s misdeeds. Decent people should not associate with him.”
It remains to be seen if Ron Paul will continue to associate with him.
When the candidate’s articles, books and fan club base emanate from the home of the Fever Swamp, what does that say about the candidate’s commitment to the Constitution, peace and liberty?
Small government’s such a nice idea, but then you never know when you may need the National Guard.
I agree with the others here that this has hurt the libertarian cause. But I’m not sure how many of you are reaching beyond your inner circle, Beltway or other kinds, to address the concerns of people who want liberty not only from intrusive government but government-corporate rule, and want to enjoy not an ever-higher standard of living but a decent quality of life– which environmental degradation and other “It Can’t Happen Here” corpo problems make difficult.
Can anyone here offer any compelling reasons to read your economic tracts rather than the ones on Post-Autistic Economics?
Anonymous
(because I don’t want some of the vicious, smart-aleck, smug, contemptuous-of-humanity miserable hypocrites at Lew Rockwell . com to know who I am)
I learned the hard way about the racism at the LvMI. I will post here anonymously because I don’t want my name associated with the ideas they sell “under the table” at LvMI. And believe me, you go for the economics and then you get the “other stuff.”
I can’t believe Clark is still trying to push out clouds of smoke to cover up the goings on there. This event has made a lot of people see you more clearly for what you are.
I learned the hard way about the racism at the LvMI. I will post here anonymously because I don’t want my name associated with the ideas they sell “under the table” at LvMI. And believe me, you go for the economics and then you get the “other stuff.”
I can’t believe Clark is still trying to push out clouds of smoke to cover up the goings on there. This event has made a lot of people see you more clearly for what you are.
This just in from The Economist http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm