Jon Henke Sucks Ass

Billy Beck reacts with admirable restraint to Jon Henke’s vile slander.

But in the flaying of dirty little “neolibertarian” swine I recognize no restraint. As I pointed out to Billy:

They are playing with amorality and nihilism like a virgin shyly approaching the entrance to a XXX bookstore; put off by the rubber goods, the big fat bearded biker behind the counter and the overwhelming sweet smell of disinfectant – but still unable to completely tear themselves away.

Let’s leave Mr. Henke with his newly-found, decade-old, sticky-paged pawed-over copy of Hustler Jailbait (aka the “New Libertarian”) and find somewhere where we can breathe free, even if we don’t hold electoral office

20 thoughts on “Jon Henke Sucks Ass”

  1. Look, I’m not particularly concerned with the apolitical stance you guys take. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.

    But what Billy wrote is a lie. Perhaps he knows better and perhaps not, but if there’s a shred of intellectual honesty among you, somebody will observe that I could NOT have been comparing Billy Beck, or any of you, to the aforementioned murderers. I explicitly stated that you have to be a ruthless totalitarian to be able to participate in politics without making compromises. In politics, you can either negotiate with your opponent, or kill him.

    Billy Beck, et al, do NOT participate in politics. What’s more, in that same post, I wrote of political conscientious objectors like yourselves: “I accept that. I even admire it”.

    So tell me, how exactly did I compare NON-participants to murderers? And how do you reconcile my *admiration* of principled non-participation with Billy’s claim that I compared principled non-participation to murderers?

    You can’t. You simply can’t. I informed Billy of his misapprehension. He blew it off. Now you know. If you can reconcile the clear meaning I gave with the fucked up, ass-backwards intent Billy infered, by all means, be my guest. But I think that, whatever your opinion of my political stance, you have both gotten this one badly wrong.

    You don’t owe me an apology. You don’t owe me shit. But you owe it to yourself not to spread such a poor misunderstanding.

  2. Henke:

    Look, I’m not particularly concerned with the apolitical stance you guys take.

    I’m speaking only for myself, of course, but I’m hardly “apolitical”. And I doubt that any of the other contributors here are either. I firmly reject electoral politics, but hoof-marking a ballot every couple of years is hardly the limits of “politics”.

    That’s why I’m not upset at this:

    But what Billy wrote is a lie.

    Whatever Beck is or is not, he has never lied anywhere where I could see it. I know next to nothing about you, but I’ll extend you the same judgement. I think that this is a misunderstanding on your part about what “politics” is:

    You think that voting/elections/democracy/etc. is all that there is to politics. I’m telling you that it is not, and the proof is as close as a brief contemplation of the phrase “political prisoner”.

    Do you understand, Jon? That prisoner did not get jailed because he cast a bad ballot. He got jailed for living his life in opposition to policy.

  3. You’re wrong, Henke. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and this episode is emblematic of your problem, which is mainly that you’re simply ignorant.

    I did not lie about anything, I made no mistake of understanding or anything else. The fact is that you have no idea what you wrote means. And the fact that you’re such an ignoramus is what brought you to this strait. You’re a strutting fool, with far more attitude than you’re worth.

  4. *Sigh*.

    Sabotta just keeps being bloody right:

    And while the government can wipe permissions away with a pen, they can do the same thing with these “rights” you postulate. You may insist on a “right” to life all day, for all the good it will do you if a stronger power decides to confiscate that life from you. So, since “Natural Rights” are no protection at all against their violation, youâ??d better start looking for a way to facilitate some protection.

    That’s Jon Henke, in comments at Q&O.

    The consequences of dropping the concept of morality overboard with a sneer and proceeding with “facilitat[ion]” (Of what? Why?) are quite simply horrifying.

  5. Another enemy! Yay!

    The more enemies, the more honor!

    Mazurek D�browskiego

    Jeszcze Polska nie zgine�a,

    Kiedy my żyjemy.
    Co nam obca przemoc wzie�a,
    Szabl� odbierzemy.

    Marsz, marsz, D�browski,

    Z ziemi w�oskiej do Polski,
    Za twoim przewodem
    Z�aczym si� z narodem.

    Przejdziem Wis�e, przejdziem Warte,
    B�dziem Polakami,
    Da� nam przyk�ad Bonaparte,
    Jak zwyci�ża� mamy.

    Marsz, marsz, D�browski…

    Jak Czarniecki do Poznania
    Po szwedzkim zaborze,

    Dla ojczyzny ratowania
    Wraca� si� przez morze.

    Marsz, marsz, D�browski…

    (Translation)

    Poland has not yet succumbed.
    As long as we remain,
    What the foe by force has seized,
    Sword in hand we’ll gain.

    March! March, Dabrowski!
    March from Italy to Poland!
    Under your command
    We shall reach our land.

    Cross the Vistula and Warta
    And Poles we shall be;
    We’ve been shown by Bonaparte
    Ways to victory.

    March! March, Dabrowski!

    As Czarniecki Poznan town regains,
    Fighting with the Swede,
    To free our fatherland from chains.
    We shall return by sea.

    March! March, Dabrowski!

    (Hi, Critto!)

  6. Henke,

    You and Dale are both just way way way out of your depth. Your “New Libertarian” crap is the single-most blatent case of “ya’outta’ism” that I’ve ever seen. My husband has been involved in Libertarian activism for over 20 years. Myself — I’ve never been involved in the LP — but I have been involved in the libertarian movement for over a decade.

    Every once in awhile some bozo like one of you two clowns shows up in the movement – with next to _no_ grasp of the principles of libertarianism and makes like you’ve come up with some “brand new way” to SELL libertarianism and how all the other libertarians are obviously idiots because they aren’t willing to play things your way.

    In the LP and in libertarian circles when a clueless newbie shows up and starts to tell everybody that the way out is to start re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic in the pretty designs that they have come up with — we call it “Y’outta’ism”.

    As in “You outta do X” or “you outta do Y”. Not realizing that X and Y have already been tried and every other combination therof.

    Jesus.. Don’t you bozos realize — _It_ has literally been done to death. It’s been attempted by people far more intelligent and far more experienced than you and your sidekick. It’s been done to death by people who have actually done their homework and are capable of intelligently discussing subjects like “rights” and “ethics” and “morality”.

    Do you clowns not realize that there are in fact other people out here who have literally agonized over what’s to be done about trying to promote these ideas? There are people who have dedicated long and large chunks out of their lives in living by the principles and adhering to the ethics that are required to live as “free” human beings? People like Billy who are facing a huge threat to their freedom simply because he refuses to submit to organs attempts to enslave him.

    Go back and read some of JTK’s essays on ” rational individualist evangelism”. Folks I know in the libertarian “movement” didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday bucko. The snide little comments that you and Dale have made about “Libertopia” and how “purists” — ie people unwilling to compromise to serve your values – is just sickening.

    We’ve been at it a long long time. None of what you are doing right now would be offensive (at least not to me) if you weren’t engaging in false advertising of what you are about. There is NOTHING “Neo” about your “Neo” libertarianism.

    As somebody remarked on the Q&O blog. What you guys are doing is “false-flag recruiting”.

    All you have done is repackage the same old shit that many individuals have devoted much of their lives trying to stop. You have repackaged statism, gussied it up in a sunday-best costume and are attempting wholesale to sell out libertarianism in the name of your desire for political expediency.

    What is truly sad is, that you are such a dumb fuck, that you aren’t even seemingly aware of what the hell it is that you are doing.

    I honestly don’t know whether to laugh my ass off at your “Neo-Libertarian” efforts or weep. It’s just tragic. Someday — perhaps a long ways away from today, you will understand this. If you have heard and understood enough about libertarianism to be on fire with some of these ideas, then I suspect that is pretty likely.

    When that happens – come join the rest of us who are trying to use real-world non-political solutions to fight the kind of snake-oil you are selling.Those would be Free-market business solutions to promote real freedom and real liberty.

    As Billy Beck remarked to you over on the Q&O…
    You ain’t gonna vote yourself out of this mess.

    God I wish David Friedman was kicking around the blogosphere sometimes. If anybody had the quiet and calm patience and devotion to try and take Jon and Dale to task on their “project”- it would be him.

  7. I’ve learned not to argue with religious fundamentalists, and ultimately that’s what you guys are. So, this will be it for me:

    You think that voting/elections/democracy/etc. is all that there is to politics.

    I think it’s rather clear — yes, to you — that I spoke of participation in electoral politics — of the politics of government — and not of the conscientious objection in which you guys engage. I think that is rather clear.

    You may infer some other meaning, but I did not imply it. In fact, I specifically — and precisely — separated the kind of non-participation in which you engage, and spoke well of it.

    Let me be clear on this: you’re a fool or a liar. You simply cannot honestly believe that I tried to imply that you were equivalent to murderers. There is absolutely no way around the fact — FACT — that I did no such thing.

    That you cannot grasp such a simple implication is telling. Specifically, it tells me that arguing with you is akin to arguing with a creationist. I merely waste my time, and make the pig mad.

  8. So tell me, how exactly did I compare NON-participants to murderers?

    In the statement Billy Beck quoted. “There have been a few people who’ve done well without much in the way of compromise: Genghis Khan comes to mind. Stalin. Mao.”

    And how do you reconcile my *admiration* of principled non-participation with Billy’s claim that I compared principled non-participation to murderers?

    Congratulations, you’ve discovered (one of) your contradiction(s)!

    By the way, for inlookers the original discussion is here:
    http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1512

    Ignoring Henke for a moment, let’s focus on the things “Dale Franks” said:

    Our idea, on the other hand, is to try to negotiate to see if we can implement just 1 point. Because 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    Their “idea” is twofold: 1) electoral politics is the way to go to secure liberty, and 2)the LP isn’t doing this well. The first idea is of course not new at all, as MWW pointed out. The obvious question for the second becomes: Why would you guys do better than the LP, which has tried hard and failed?

    Answer: See MWW’s comments above.

    As for the “1%” thing, I think John T. Kennedy and Roderick Long have made good cases that more progress than “1%” can be made by working outside electoral politics than inside it. So yeah, you guys are free to try for that 1%, but be advised you’re probably wasting your time.

    As for the accusation later on that page that Roderick Long is an “extremist” (I love that word) opposed to these valiant electoral warriors of liberty, I present his remarks here (observe carefully his reaction to David Friedman’s quote):

    http://praxeology.net/unblog11-04.htm#01

    And for the record, I think Roderick Long’s intellectual contribution to libertarian thought is probably far more valuable than what these Neo-LP clowns are likely to come up with.

  9. Note on word usage: Of course Henke’s other main contradiction is believing that what JTK and RL advocate is “not political” (which it clearly is), with the additional metaphor that Henke is “fighting a war” while we are “conscientious objectors”. For the first statement, if, as in Henke’s mind politics=electoral politics then yeah his statement is true, but it’s not very interesting. And for the other implication from Henke’s post, actually all of these people are “fighting a war”, Henke is just fighting the wrong one. Sorry, Henke.

  10. “There is NOTHING ‘Neo’ about your ‘Neo’ libertarianism.”

    Hell, Meaghan, there isn’t even anything “New” about their publication.

    They should go Google “Samuel Edward Konkin III”, do some elementary homework, and then try to imagine why people who know history are laughing behind their backs. I’ve already seen at least one person snickering about “identity theft”.

    Right instantly here, we’re dealing with a person who can’t do any better than to mangle concepts like “religion” because he’s acting like a parrot trained in the chimpanzee salons.

    Nobody like that can possibly be worth a damn in this thing.

  11. Gee, the Spawn of Erb arrives to “save” libertarianism.

    I’ll certainly sleep better at night.

    But, then again, I never thought McQuain would ever put Clio on the street and try to pimp her, either.

  12. I think it’s rather clear — yes, to you — that I spoke of participation in electoral politics — of the politics of government — and not of the conscientious objection in which you guys engage. I think that is rather clear.

    Pay attention now: You’re trying to get hold of the term “politics” and redefine it such that everyone who doesn’t vote themselves senseless alongside of you is “apolitical”. Look up what the “a” prefix means: if in fact you meant anything at all by that term, you were necessarily defining Beck and every other non-voter out of “politics”. So this:

    You think that voting/elections/democracy/etc. is all that there is to politics.

    …Is spot-on.

    Now if you can muster-up the effort to understand all this, and then you apply it to what I wrote earlier:

    I think that this is a misunderstanding on your part about what “politics” is…

    …You will see what my position is.

    And then there won’t be any need to get up on your high horse and call me a liar, because you’ll have sat the fuck down and thought about the matter.

  13. McQ wrote:
    Within libertarian ranks, this is nothing new. They�ve been tossing out “heritics” for some time now (since the doctrinaire libs took over the party).

    You want a real world example of taking concrete steps to promote freedom Bruce? Point your browser to Marc Emery’s pot-tv.net network. Marc started out as a bookseller in London Ontario. He took on the “City Hall” in it’s attempts to shut down shopping on Sunday. Willingly being arrested for daring to open his bookshop on that day. He went to jail a couple of times. There was exposure to the issue. The laws changed. He then took on the legalized monopoly on Sanitation Unions during a several month long strike. Marc took his own money – hired a bunch of trucks and people and went around picking up people’s garbage. He was physically threatened, beaten up on at least one occasion by the “good fellas” in the Union. However, he busted them. The strike eventually ended. Marc made a profit.

    Then he got involved in fighting the drug war. His motto was “Over Grow The Government”. He started selling marijuana seeds all over the world. He developed Cannabis Culture magazine to promote his seed catlogue. He then ploughed his profits from selling seeds and his magazine into political efforts that promoted legalizing marijuana.He has been arrested on several occasion. He’s had his entire savings and all his property confiscated over half a dozen times. On his own, he pretty much bankrolled the Canadian Marijuana Party, as well as the BC Marijuana Party and he is currently helping to bankroll the United States Marijuana Party as well as the Alabama Marijuana Party. He ended up going to prison for 2 months last summer because he was caught passing a joint to an adult attending one of his “smoke out” rallies. Essentially he alone organized pot rallies in every major Canadian city over a period of 3 months last summer daring police in those cities to “bust him” for smoking a joint. His efforts at bankrolling the Marijuana Party scared the Tories, Liberals and NDP into rethinking their position on legalization. These political parties realized that they were vulnerable on this issue, and they could better their chances at winning elections by softening their stance on “the drug war”.

    n fact a few weeks before Jean Chretien left office he joked about how he would like to legalize “da pot” so that maybe he could enjoy it in his retirement. Emery’s impact has been such that Paul Martin, the current Prime Minister has openly admitted that his wife Sheila once baked him a plate of hash-brownies which they ate. Joe Clark, the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party actually came out before he stepped down as leader in support of legislation to legalize pot. The only party that rejected the idea are the stupid Canadian Alliance Reform party. (big surprise there — the party of the christian fundies of Canada)

    As for myself, thanks to Marc Emery’s business model, we are building a business which earns a profit which we will be transporting to Canada to bankroll our political efforts. Then there are the efforts of people like Jim Davidson in Somalia as well as the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

    The claim that “purists” have ruined the LP is just ridiculous. I personally view the LP to be merely a recruiting ground for ambitious projects like Marc Emery’s or our own on the Indian Reserve, or the NH Free State Project. There is a reason that the LP “purists” fight tooth and nail to keep the policies of the party “pure”. It’s because they recognize the inherant dangers of becoming nothing more than cheap political opportunists and how little that would accomplish in terms of actually accomplishing the goals of garnering respect for libertarian principles in the United States. The purists in the party are what have kept the power-hungry, statist vote-whores out.

    The LP at it’s best is an educational tool. Read Michal Badnarik’s mission slogan. “Fanning the Flames of Liberty – One Heart At A Time”. Badnarik was not deluded enough to assume that he even had a hope of getting elected. That wasn’t the point. What is the point is to stir public debate, point out the deeply flawed premises of the other parties and educate people, raise awareness of concepts concerning liberty and freedom. Maybe in the very very long term this will have a good impact. I am not confident in it. If anything – I think the Libertarian movement should be engaged in a “fabian” approach if they want to go anywhere. ie – getting into the hierarchy of unniveristies, media, the arts and meme making institutions and attempting to infect the culture with ideas that will act as an antidote to State-Worship. In that sense, the homeschooling movement is perhaps the single most important aspect of the libertarian movement in the United States – bar none.

    Look –Anybody that I’ve met in the party that actually believes that they are going to win seats in congress or the presidency is deluded in my opinion. That being said if people believe in the principles of libertarianism and wish to promote them, and use the vehicle of the LP to do so, I’ve got no problem with them and I wish them well. It’s simply not an excercise that I have any interest in pursuing.

    I’ve seen in a very direct, up close and personal way how efforts like that of people like Marc Emery can send shockwaves throughout the body politic in North America. If Marc Emery can do it, then other people can to. He’s proven that the model he developed to “over grow the government” works.

    But I will be damned if all of this real effort in the world outside of ballots and votes and the electoral process gets to be shot to shit, because a bunch of bozos who don’t have a clear grasp of the libertarianism at all go around claiming to represent “Libertarianism” and screw things up by promoting hideously awful mixed-market slime and call it “libertarianism”. It is as deeply offensive to me as Newspapers calling Lyndon Larouch a libertarian. Or when that kid in Minnesota shot up his school, calls himself a libertarian.

    Mark my words well on this point. There is NOTHING… and I mean absolutley NOTHING worse than BAD ARGUMENTS given for Good Ideas.

    With all the crap that libertarians already have to deal with in terms of smears and attacks by conservatives who view freedom as “depravity” and liberals who view liberty as “cruel” and “heatless” — it simply won’t do for idiots like the “neo-libertarians” to mucky up the terms of debate by giving credence to such smears and attacks. And that is exactly what you guys are doing, whether you realize it or not.

    I see absolutley NOTHING in the “neo-libertarian” platform as elucidated on your blog that is different in any meaningful sense from fascist neo-cons or stalin’esque democrats.

  14. Pingback: BrainWacker Blog
  15. Jon Henke,

    You may be confusing some of the commenters here because the word “apolitical” and “politics” are not opposites. You used the term “politics” correctly in the original post that got Beck in a fuss. There is a meaning of “political” which subsumes the group of people you intended to target with your remark.

    Put another way. The venn diagram of those who “engage in politics” and the “apolitical” are two non-intersecting circles. Those who “engage in politics without compromising” would be a smaller circle completely withing the circle labeled “engage in politics”. However the people who are taking offense reside outside both circles in the diagram. So when you defend yourself saying you were not talking about them because the are “apolitical” you are wrong. They are not apolitical. They are outside the “apolitical” circle on the diagram. Where they are wrong is in thinking that puts them inside the narrowly subscribed area of your original post. It does not.

    Go look at the definition of “apolitical” and you will see that it is one of those words like inflammable that isn’t exactly what you would expect.

    Then again, maybe you knew this and didn’t intend to use it as an opposite of “politics”. After all you could be refering to the second portion of the American Heritage definition: 1. Having no interest in or association with politics. That is you may be referring to certain peoples non-association with political parties. Maybe it is only the other commenters who are making a mistake in interpreting you, and you just didn’t call them on it.

  16. Who is this other “Jon Henke”?

    Should I address my counter self as “anti-henke” or “bizarro henke”?

    I never thought that they may be someone out there with my name actually posting things on the internet. It almost makes me feel like I’m the one throwing my vote away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *